Purist vs Spectacle?

[myurr]

Perhaps. But what does the Audi R18 e-tron quattro wish?

If it's all about the technology then why aren't you watching Le Mans and abandoning F1?

There's a middle ground somewhere between all-out spending wars and the castration of innovation.

That implies regulation and limits though, the abolition of which you and Cam have been calling for. If there's a middle ground, where exactly is it and why is it different to where it is today? How would you regulate and control that limit? What practical measures would you use that maintain the 'purity' of the series?

[myurr]

And yet people remember and talk about the names of the great drivers of the past battling to control almost untameable machinery. When people talk about Prost do they celebrate the driver or the team he subsequently formed? How about Senna, Mansell, Villeneuve, Hill, Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, etc.

I know, right? It's a damn good thing they all drove "broadly equal" cars. Oh, wait...

Some won in the indisputably the best cars, others won in second or third best cars in broadly equal years. Is Rosberg less of a world champion because he won in a year where 11 different drivers (from memory) were able to win?

The point was that it is the driver's names that stick in the public's mind far more than the cars they won in. A couple of teams (Ferrari certainly, possibly McLaren, Williams, and more recently Red Bull) are as well known as any driver. But how many people in the world have heard of Senna or Schumacher compared to Brabham which is a six times championship winning team (2 constructors, 4 drivers)?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Perhaps myurr.

But there is a case to argue the best cars win moreover the best drivers.
Rosbergs achievement was extraordinary given the competition that year.
F1 is about competition.
Technology is a byproduct of competition.

When Vettel or Schumacher lap the field, the car is mostly responsible for it.
Why not have a Formula 1 where all the facets of the sport share equal billing?
We can still retain the technology aspect, but we can also have a driver make a huge difference in a given set of circumstances.

And instead of all great drivers gravitating to the great cars, we can have the great drivers gravitate towards the great performances.

[myurr]

Perhaps myurr.

But there is a case to argue the best cars win moreover the best drivers.
Rosbergs achievement was extraordinary given the competition that year.
F1 is about competition.
Technology is a byproduct of competition.

When Vettel or Schumacher lap the field, the car is mostly responsible for it.
Why not have a Formula 1 where all the facets of the sport share equal billing?
We can still retain the technology aspect, but we can also have a driver make a huge difference in a given set of circumstances.

And instead of all great drivers gravitating to the great cars, we can have the great drivers gravitate towards the great performances.

Totally agree with all you have said, and I share that ultimate ideal of a balance between technology and human endeavour. That isn't what bhallg2k and Cam are arguing for, instead calling drivers wasted balast and arguing for completely unrestricted technology even if it leads to single car domination, smaller teams and even drivers becoming irrelevant, and allowing any and all driver aids to take over control of the car in the pursuit of ultimate lap time*.

* that's my summary, best if you read the whole thread though to get an impartial view.

[Cam]

Contentious topics always bring out the passion and you two are both passionate and smart. Me thinks you were both married in a previous life

My ideas, are just that, ideas. I'm happy to put them out and I know some (most) will be slammed and ridiculed. I certainly doubt anything will ever come of them, or agree if they should they even be considered in the first place? F1, to me, has been very much like Darwinism - evolution and the strongest survives. I liked that concept. Perhaps that's the real meaning of 'Purist' - I don't know. What I do know, is that this topic is widely read and is now quoted in major publications. The term 'Purist' is used in almost all major F1 news sites - so this topic is very relevant, has merit and has people reading.

We could all try and counter every mis-quote about ourselves - however I don't think it's required. Most people get the 'context' of what this thread is discussing and will look past any irrelevant posts. For those that just get hung up one one part and spend the next 20 posts trying to bash a point - we cannot change this and nor should we, they are entitled to their opinion too, no matter how un-helpful it is. Take the higher ground, not the bait.

For me, if F1 is to continue with evolution (like it has in the past), then one must look way into the future to see what it may evolve into. This may bring up some arguable results, but we should at least discuss them. Could F1 eventually be hover cars racing around? Perhaps. I for one would love to see F1 pushing the boundaries first and worrying about costs second.

My sole argument is to ensure F1 stays with evolution - not reduced to a show only. This will have consequences, I realize.

I am yet to see any convincing arguments for F1 to be 'just a show'. Most posts claim costs as the reason (I have started a new thread for that) and boredom, and I don't think that's a valid argument as costs can be curbed and other implementations can be made which keeps the tech, while increasing the show.

So maybe the better question is - Should F1 continue, even if it means loosing the tech, becoming a very restricted series and just badging the cars?

[myurr]

Cam, if I could +1 you I would. I may not agree with all of your views but I do appreciate your style of posting. And I guess reading your post has made me re-clarify my own position. I'm all for tech, I'm a computer programmer so love the bleeding edge and creating the latest and greatest. However it is my belief that F1 without drivers being able to battle against each other wheel to wheel and having to be the best drivers in the world to even get close to a snif of victory is more important than the exact technologies used.

I'd like to see the rules opened up, but only if a framework can be found where it is possible for multiple solutions to end up with similar overall performance even if it is achieved in different ways. It would be great if some cars ended up being incredibly fuel efficient and were able to battle against less efficient cars that went for brute horsepower and downforce. I could see it being possible to create a car that through efficiency started the race lighter and was quicker, but as the fuel load came down another car became ultimately faster through achieving more downforce / horsepower at the expense of fuel efficiency.

What I don't want to see is the team with the biggest budget being able to throw expensive technology at the car and win not through refinement but through the other teams not being able to develop so many avenues in parallel. I would also hate for the rules to be relaxed but then a new optimal consensus to form with all the cars gravitating toward that standard solution.

So perhaps we could discuss practical options for achieving this?

[Cam]

So perhaps we could discuss practical options for achieving this?

Absolutely. My ideas may seem way out there, but I am prepared to compromise. I'd rather aim for Mt Everest and settle on halfway, than trying for an ant hill and getting my way.

I think this is a great place to discuss practical options, in fact there's been some awesome ideas already: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12920

Having this thread continue to debate what F1 is and means to each person should continue. It is only through understanding what we each take away from the sport that we can identify what to preserve into the future.

[Cam]

re: Jacques Villeneuve

But he has kicked off his involvement by slamming the 2012 spectacle, including the Pirelli tyre lottery and "daddy's boy" drivers.....The winner of 11 grands prix also admitted he is not particularly enjoying the big impact of Pirelli's heavily-degrading and difficult to understand control tyre.

"I am not a huge, huge fan right now," said the French Canadian.

Purist maybe?

[Fat_T0ny]

re: Jacques Villeneuve

But he has kicked off his involvement by slamming the 2012 spectacle, including the Pirelli tyre lottery and "daddy's boy" drivers.....The winner of 11 grands prix also admitted he is not particularly enjoying the big impact of Pirelli's heavily-degrading and difficult to understand control tyre.

"I am not a huge, huge fan right now," said the French Canadian.

Purist maybe?

"I am not a huge, huge fan right now,"

Is that all you got Cam? I haven't seen any logical, factual statements.

[raymondu999]

Must this thread really be such an argument? It boils down to personal preference. Some like it how it is, some like it in another way. And unless you fundamentally change each other's decision making values, you're not going to be able to reach a compromised agreement.

Why can't we all agree to disagree?

[Cam]

re: Jacques Villeneuve

But he has kicked off his involvement by slamming the 2012 spectacle, including the Pirelli tyre lottery and "daddy's boy" drivers.....The winner of 11 grands prix also admitted he is not particularly enjoying the big impact of Pirelli's heavily-degrading and difficult to understand control tyre.

"I am not a huge, huge fan right now," said the French Canadian.

Purist maybe?

"I am not a huge, huge fan right now,"

Is that all you got Cam? I haven't seen any logical, factual statements.

Hmmm, I'll bite. Usually not my taste in bait, let's run it up the flagpole.

Jacques had an opinion. That opinion directly related to the 'spectacle'. Since that opinion was in a negative context towards the 'spectacle', I asked "Purist maybe?". Whether he is or not would have been nice to debate. Looks like that's not what you have in mind.

It was actually a 'factual statement' in that I did not make it up. He was quoted on many F1 news sites and I grabbed a piece from there. In fact, he's said some pretty strong things in the press recently which may, or may not, relate to his feeling about F1 and the show it's currently putting on. As this thread was Purist Vs Spectacle, I considered it relevant.

Logical? Well, that's always open for interpretation. I asked a clinical Psychologist (after reading your post) if Jacques statements in the press seemed 'logical'. His words to me - "Jacques seems of sound mind and clear in conviction. I would suggest his statement would be logical from his perspective".

I'm unsure why you've taken umbrage at a simple quote from a former driver, which I questioned.

Many drivers, both present and past, have formed and voiced opinions on the 2012 season. Some like it, some not so much. What I find astounding is that no-one has ridiculed them for speaking their minds. I cannot find a single post in this forum that treats their words with as much hostility as a few similar words from forum members do.

Hearing the thoughts of people about what F1 means to them and how the current F1 season rates with them, interests me - and it seems to interest quite a few. Towards this, I'll try and sift through as many news articles and locate both present and former driver quotes on their thoughts. Maybe that might show something further and we can discuss that. Until then, that's all I've got.

[Steven]

Must this thread really be such an argument? It boils down to personal preference. Some like it how it is, some like it in another way. And unless you fundamentally change each other's decision making values, you're not going to be able to reach a compromised agreement.

Why can't we all agree to disagree?

raymondu999 has just made a clear summary of what this thread is all about.

Unfortunately, I've had to remove a number of posts that were nothing else than personal bickering. If you realy really really have to, feel free to bomb each other with PMs, start a private chat session or meet and talk about it. Personal disagreements and namecalling is not appropriate for any thread around here.

I hope this debate can now continue in a decent manner.

[SeijaKessen]

I don't really see why people who prefer a more purist approach get ridiculed for it.

This entire topic is entirely subjective.

I was watching the 1984 Italian Grand Prix last night. Early in the race, Nelson Piquet hits the grass in the Lesmo I believe...it was late, I was tired.

But he started losing control of the rear on the Brabham, and you can see him fighting to regain control over the car, which he does successfully. I don't recall seeing many moments like that this year. It happens, but once the rear goes on these cars now, it seems to be very difficult to be able to prevent a spinout.

On the first lap, when they go through Ascari, one of the cars overshot the race line slightly and you see the car sliding across the track towards the outside where they tend to go now, but the driver got it under control. Couldn't tell who it was. I'd really love to see the cars slide more personally. Not a fan of massive amounts of downforce.

[SeijaKessen]

Probably should add that you can get a spectacle without things like KERS, DRS, the current tires, and so on.

But I find the difference between the spectacle of the past and the spectacle currently, is that the spectacle back then wasn't done through artificial means.

[Fat_T0ny]

Sorry Cam, my post was written in haste. There is no reasoning behind "I am not a huge, huge fan right now,". Thats a very general statement. Some reasons would be nice. General statements don't mean much when coming via the media.

I was just teasing. I forgot to add a big smiley face. I don't communicate via written form very often.