Purist vs Spectacle?

[Cam]

It's okay Tony. You have a passion for F1 and that's great. Sometimes we do read things out of context - we forget how important body language is when communicating. The important thing is that the conversation continues and tries to find answers. Your opinion matters and I hope you continue to voice it.

I would like to drill down further into what F1 is - if there's anyone up for the journey?

As I can see, there are 4 main points of view to consider:
1) the Driver - arguably the public face of F1 and would prefer flat out racing (no politics etc)
2) the Team - knows there's no show without a race and no race without a show (catch 22)
3) the Promoter - cares only for making money, any way they can do it
4) the Fan - wants a great show, loves cars, followers a team/driver, cares little for the behind the scenes stuff

Would this be close? If so, we can look at each part in depth and try to establish where the ratio/balance lies (or perceived balance as opposed to actually balance).

The Driver:
"Give me a car that I can throttle and leave me alone for 2 hours while I do it". Most drivers would fall under this category. If given the option to remove all the pomp and media commitments, I suspect letting them all loose on the track to fight it out would be their ultimate wet dream. Pure racing for the hell of it is attractive and underpins all Motorsport. No-one started karting for the 'show'.This is a Spectacle in it's own right, yet it's delivered from a majority purist perspective.

The Team:
"I've got sponsors to report too and budgets to meet. Win the race, don't wreck the car". The team, I think, would gladly not have sponsors and budgets, they're racers and competitors too, however they know the reality and must find a balance in themselves and the team to achieve that.
The team want to win and be seen as the best. They want to dominate and are pursuits at heart, but the spectacle is what keeps them employed. A balance is needed between racing and the show.

The Promoter:
"I got tickets to sell and media space to fill with ads. Who wins matters, as it could mean more revenue, but don't make it boring and I want the biggest cut".
Promoters have a place but really only care about themselves and the profits they can make. As long as one of the poster boys wins, all is good in F1 land. Promoters will destroy a sport/person to make a show **cough** Don King and their personal interests always come first. They're only about the spectacle.

The Fan:
"I love my sport and wish I could see it, however money is tight and food is more important than tickets. When I don't understand something, I disconnect from it. No one listens to me".
We see this quite often in many sports where the fans just come along for the ride. People treat sport like religion and when you mess with religion...... Money is tight everywhere and loose change to blow on race tickets or pay tv just isn't there like it used to be, so smarter ways will need to implemented to attract more fans and obtain what funds they can afford. Passionate fans know every detail, the history, the ethos, the linage, the development and the 'old days'. These fans are the foundations that should be built on - more fans like this, the better the foundations. Where does the balance sit?

Watching 2 guys bare knuckle behind the sheds always drew a crowd. It was raw and real. We could relate, we could fear, we could feel something. The circus that is boxing now is only about the show. Fighters throw matches, gambling has taken a massive foothold and the reasons why people went to see a fight in the first place have long gone. Welcome UFC. It has brought the original raw element back and put on a show. "that's not fighting' the boxing purists would say - but it is, that's how it was when 2 guys wanted to settle something, it was dirty, gritty and sometimes unfair - and it's the spectacle of that purity that needs to be preserved. I guess it's this aspect for F1 I'm trying not to loose.

[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?

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.

Do I win 1 internetz?

[DaveKillens]

Many years ago I had a conversation with a NASCAR fan who put forth an intelligent, well-thought, and compelling argument that restrictor plate racing was the supreme embodiment of purist racing. If his argument had been put forth on a formal debating contest, he would have won, it was a supreme argument. But I disagreed with him because of my personal preferences. And that's what it's all about, personal preferences and viewpoints.

In this thread I have witnessed some truly excellent and intelligent arguments put forth. But in the end, despite the quality of the posts, it all comes down to each individual's definition of what they prefer. Just a few days ago I watched a race that to me was one of the most exciting and thrilling ones so far this year. I was a Formula Mazda race, definitely a spec series. But the drivers were dicing and slicing, passing and slashing, it was glorious stuff.

I'm officially an old fart, I started watching racing back in the late 60's, and have seen so many races it boggles my mind. No one has more respect for the racers and history of Formula One than myself, but make no mistake, in this day and age, it is a spectacle sport, and has zero integrity. Ever since Formula One started to be televised it has been marketed as entertainment for the masses. It is a combination of high technology, brave and skilled drivers, uber-intelligent engineers, and regulations designed for safety and to produce entertainment and drama. It's a difficult balancing act, and at times it gets skewed every so often. But in the end, it's fun to watch and follow.

As far as the consistent and predictable application of technology to produce a result, (meaning no insult to anyone), I've told others to go down to the airport to watch airliners take off, that's where that happens. Even though I've spent countless wet weekends sitting in a tent in some forgotten track to watch forgotten races, I'm not arrogant enough to decry "WE Purists....", because I understand it's all just one man's personal preferences and wishes. The guy in the next tent, miserably wet as myself, was watching the same racing for his own different reasons.

I like racing, racing, the kind of stuff where brave and skilled young men show off in their wheeled chariots, to the satisfaction of the spectators. I love watching lots and lots of cars going at each other, competing with all they have at hand. And I don't consider Formula One as "special" or "holy", just expensive racing with great drivers, marketed to a global audience.

I also like the new tire regulations and the wonderful tires Pirelli have produced, it makes for a fun show.

Just one man's opinion.

To end my rant, I've posted a video of what many consider the benchmark of Formula One racing, Villeneuve versus Arnoux in Dijon, 1979. Dayum, I can't watch enough of this one. So fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nxwn3OHkEw

[stucliff]

All this arguments about the Pirelli tires and if it's bad for competition seems to happen "casually" when no english driver is in the top 3 of the championship standings.

Fortunately, I think that Hamilton will be in top 3 again in no time (he's an incredible driver) or maybe Macca will push a little bit on the development of his car, and the rest of the non english F1 fans will be at ease again, enjoying races as they come, not as we think they should be.

So, don't panic, sometimes it happen... This season is not worse, or more "adulterated" than the previous two.

Regards

[Cam]

So, from what I saw at the Canada race - a Sauber is better than a Redbull and Ferrari?

It's interesting hearing the responses from both Roman and Sergio - that they both had no thought of placing that high, maybe some points, but that's it. They were just as surprised to be on the podium as everyone else was that Alonso and Seb weren't.

So, from what I saw at the Canada race - a Sauber is better than a Redbull and Ferrari? No. Sauber didn't make a great leap forward. What I saw was again the tyres making the result. The car, driver and team play second fiddle to guess work. Guess work suggests a lottery.

The argument will be made that the Sauber was the better car as it looked after it's tyres the best - so deserved the podium finish, but again, this wasn't planned - it was fluked. Just like Maldonado can't replicate his 'fluke', this result goes down to "we have no idea how we did it, but we'll take the result". Good for some I suppose, frustrating for others who prefer to see reward for effort.

Was it a good race? 7th new winner (Hamilton deserving), lot's of passing, results went down to the wire - that would suggest yes, a great race. Yet why do I feel hollow about it? I, like Button, am confused.

[raymondu999]

So, from what I saw at the Canada race - a Sauber is better than a Redbull and Ferrari?

I think that's not looking at the full picture to be honest. The Sauber, Ferrari and up to a point, the Red Bull - were all on a 1-stopper. That's a strategy that requires tyre conservation, as opposed to pace. Arguably - that has been a strong point of the Sauber since last year, and in that sense, yes - a one-stopping Sauber is better than a one-stopping Ferrari/Red Bull.

The argument will be made that the Sauber was the better car as it looked after it's tyres the best - so deserved the podium finish, but again, this wasn't planned - it was fluked.

They've had their soft-on-tyres character since Melbourne 2011. Remember one-stopping Perez back then? Sauber pretty much did every race in 2011 doing 1 stop less than the winning strategy. Most evidence points to them having actually built a car that is good on its tyres (as opposed to just this one race).

[Cam]

I see what you're saying Raymond, so why do I feel like the results were plucked from mid air?

Agreed - a one stopping Sauber is better than a one stopping Ferrari. It's clear as black and white.

The one stop strategy was always a good test, but you could measure it. You could compare lap times between the sprinters and the long runners and work out if they'd be close towards the end. This I enjoyed. It was good contest between two approaches to racing.

Sergio and Roman were never factored or even mentioned as a possibility during the race, unlike other years when these strategies were actively discussed during the race and we were all trying to run the numbers in our head trying to figure it out. This result, it just sort of, happened, as the front runner tyres 'hit the cliff'. So rather than Roman and Sergio actively

I guess I just really don't understand how to follow F1 now and I'm struggling to adjust to the 'any man can win' show that we're seeing now. I see 3 top guys in 3 great cars battle it out and then 2 other guys come from nowhere and take the podium - simply because of tyres. If it had been an accident, or error - I would be content and my brain could understand it.

Agreed - a one stopping Sauber is better than a one stopping Ferrari (I can't believe I just agreed to that). It's clear as black and white. However I wonder if this was the case if they had normal rubber and everyone was sprinting - not conserving? Would the results be the same? Or would the engineering shine through?

[raymondu999]

I think the issue is that this year - the Lotus and Sauber are actually very good cars - akin to the BMW of 2008, where they were so close to the "real" winning cars that should those frontrunning cars run into any issues, they could be close enough to pounce. I've sort of now started to think of F1 2012 this way - it's not that the pecking order is all over the place, but rather that the pecking order has been rewritten. People aren't used to singling out Lotus and Sauber as consistent podium contenders/occasional racewinners. Guess what? They are now.

However I wonder if this was the case if they had normal rubber and everyone was sprinting - not conserving? Would the results be the same? Or would the engineering shine through?

You mean sprinting how? Red Bull and Ferrari mid-2nd-stint decided they would go on a 1-stop (it looked to me like they initially wanted to 2-stop, but changed ideas midway) and so for the first half-or-so of the stint they were sprinting. The rubber (as Alonso deftly showed) wouldn't have lasted. The 1-stopper needed a degree of conservation into it.

[Cam]

I think the issue is that this year - the Lotus and Sauber are actually very good cars - akin to the BMW of 2008, where they were so close to the "real" winning cars that should those frontrunning cars run into any issues, they could be close enough to pounce. I've sort of now started to think of F1 2012 this way - it's not that the pecking order is all over the place, but rather that the pecking order has been rewritten. People aren't used to singling out Lotus and Sauber as consistent podium contenders/occasional racewinners. Guess what? They are now.

However I wonder if this was the case if they had normal rubber and everyone was sprinting - not conserving? Would the results be the same? Or would the engineering shine through?

You mean sprinting how? Red Bull and Ferrari mid-2nd-stint decided they would go on a 1-stop (it looked to me like they initially wanted to 2-stop, but changed ideas midway) and so for the first half-or-so of the stint they were sprinting. The rubber (as Alonso deftly showed) wouldn't have lasted. The 1-stopper needed a degree of conservation into it.

Sprinting, like the old days. Cars would fuel up and go long as opposed to running less fuel and stopping more. I enjoyed this aspect of the race, however as the cars were lighter, if they came up behind a one stopper, they could usually get by, now, it's impossible, as Webber found out. The cars are the same weight and tyres are about the same - so maybe building one stopping cars is a better solution long term. Don't push, just build a tyre friendly car that you know runs race pace that buys you a pit stop. Qualifying probably would never matter again.

You're right about Sauber and Lotus having great cars and they do show it although it's just not really consistent - but what is. The rules have changed and I just have to get my head around how to barrack for a team now and how to make sense of the race as it unfolds.

[raymondu999]

Sprinting, like the old days. Cars would fuel up and go long as opposed to running less fuel and stopping more. I enjoyed this aspect of the race, however as the cars were lighter, if they came up behind a one stopper, they could usually get by, now, it's impossible, as Webber found out.

The older days favored more stops - the guy on more stops would be lighter, AND have fresher tyres. Nowadays the only advantage is fresher tyres, with equal weight.

Don't push, just build a tyre friendly car that you know runs race pace that buys you a pit stop. Qualifying probably would never matter again.

You're oversimplifying it IMO. That's what Ferrari set out to do in 2010, remember? Then they carried the philosophy over to the next year. Hell of a lot of good that did them (struggling with warmups on the primes at just about every race)

You're right about Sauber and Lotus having great cars and they do show it although it's just not really consistent - but what is. The rules have changed and I just have to get my head around how to barrack for a team now and how to make sense of the race as it unfolds.

Yes there is no consistent pecking order as such. It'll be down to track characteristics IMO. The Lotus will come out on certain circuits, and the Sauber comes out on others. Given the consistency we've had in terms of performance between teams in the last few races - I think we've finally settled on an equilibrium where everyone pretty much (not entirely - but pretty much) understands the tyres, and now it's down to the chassis and setup as performance differentiators.

[Fat_T0ny]

Was no lottery. Vettel & Alonso bombed strategy big time. Doing a 2 stop, then changing their minds. They did half & half. Its either one way or the other. The cars are too close to be making silly mistakes.

[Fat_T0ny]

Anyone else notice how much better racing is when there isn't high speed aero corners?

[raymondu999]

Canada has always been a great place for racing, so I think I'll reserve judgment on that note. I remember Sato in the Aguri blitzing past the outside of Alonso in 2007...

[Cam]

Like Button, Mick, Adrian Newey and lot's of hardcore fans, I am very confused with my F1 experience. I had hoped this thread would try to determine what F1 is now, but it hasn't. Whitmarsh' comments today seals it.

Whitmash via Autosport:

If F1 is perceived as a gas-guzzling sport that has no regard to the technologies that are very relevant to automotive companies, then we really promote the wrong image

Sooo, F1 needs to be relevant to car companies? What about the show? You can't keep flip flopping about what F1 is and isn't. Is it about racing that breeds better cars or a spectacle meant to draw crowds? With all the recent focus on ensuring F1 is entertaining, most people have concluded that the F1 is no longer relevant to pure racing and the flow on benefits that brings to the automobile industry.

Whitmarsh:

F1 should be about efficiency.

You're worried about public opinion regarding efficiency? F1 has got tyres that last a couple of laps then go bad and no-one understand how to use them 100%. How is that efficient? In fact it seems like a lot of time and resources tied up in one small area is the exact definition of inefficiency. Now if you had a stock set of rubber that ran all day - that's efficient. Which is it to be?

Autosport:

Whitmarsh believes that if F1 stuck long-term to the current V8 engines then it could leave itself open to criticisms about not having environmental concerns.

So what about the copious amounts of rubber left on the ground? Or the hundreds of jets, trucks, fuel and electricity used to move this show around? To worry about a couple of V8 engines and instead force investment of hundreds of millions in new engines, which aren't relevant (see hybrid for a start) is ridiculous and just shows the F1 top tier really haven't any clear path of what F1 is or should be. If they don't know, how do we?

Whitmarsh:

No sport, and especially no technical sport such as ours, cannot change and not reflect what people perceive.

Couldn't agree more. I have no idea what F1 is anymore and I can't appreciate any side of it (racing or show) because F1 has no idea what it is. Why call yourself a technical sport when majority tech gets banned and teams spend more time dobbing in an opponent than inventing something better for themselves. What sort of technical sport has rules so tight, you cannot innovate?

I watched Le Mans quite a bit (more than I ever have) and really got into all the different manufacturers, the Delta Wing was awesome to see on the track and the spirit in which it was allowed to take part was a credit to the sport. For everyone who participated, to see a team, it's car and driver racing flat-out, without worrying about track temps blowing their times out - was refreshing, to say the least. I realised I missed it and I saw the best car won - it was no lottery - and I clearly understood what was happening. I didn't here any tyre rubbish, no team complaints, no cheating accusations, no fears of going broke, I saw lot's of manufacturers, lots of action and no politics.

Purist heaven - what a spectacle!

Now it's back to F1 and I just saw a thread where everyone was wishing it would rain in Spain to liven up the show!

F1 - I'm out, until you figure out what it is you are. I have watched almost every race (since I was a boy), stayed up all hours, followed my heroes, saw the cars change, legends created and legends pass away, I saw evolution and design brilliance and slowly, bit by bit, I watched F1 become a farce - and now it's neither a great show or a great technical exhibition. It's bipolar, which is why no-one understands what's happening. Histories heroes would be turning in their graves.

[DaveKillens]

Somehow a lot of people are mixing up their definition of "purist" and "spectacle" with what's happening this year.

2012 will be a landmark season, because it's so freaking difficult to get it right. The tires and their regulations have produced a scenario where everyone is struggling to find the correct setup and strategy for each race. Sometimes you get it right, as Rosberg did in China. Sometimes you get it wrong, as Button in Canada. Gone is the traditional two driver or two team rivalry where it was relatively easy to predict which team would dominate at certain tracks. Instead, because the regulations have been relatively stable for the past few years, mid-pack teams such as Sauber and Williams find themselves competitive, and battling with the giant teams of Ferrari, Red Bull, and McLaren. Even the big boys are starting to understand that wins are not guaranteed, and instead consistency and avoiding mistakes is what will put you in the points lead.

A lot of people remark that " this team is a mid-field runner at best, they should not be fighting for a win, while Ferrari or McLaren or Red Bull should be winning because they spend oodles of money." Somehow they think that since that was the way it happened just a little while ago, it is part of tradition and belongs to the category of "purist".

When I first started to go to races, it was long before television, and the only people who followed the sport were die-hard race fans, interested only in racing. Back then, you finished with what you stated with, there were no pit stops, and there was no qualifying session. You started based on best times in practice.

But the sport became more and more commercialized, it grew, more fans were drawn in, revenue increased by more sponsorship, and a lot of people became millionaires. Changes such as qualifying sessions were introduced to increase the spectacle and revenue, a lot more groups had a say in the running of the sport, and political infighting became daily and lethal. That is what Formula One has become, a spectacle where the dollar rules, everyone has a piece of the pie, and it's all held together by a complex web of legal agreements.

Personally I prefer the ACO model (the guys who run LeMans), where the race organizers dictate everything, and the teams have no say in how the show is run. You either enter the event and follow the rules, or get out. Even the mighty Audi team has no choice, if they started to dictate to the ACO that they wanted certain changes, the ACO would reply, it's been nice knowing you, goodbye. The series can stand on it's own, outside interests do not control it.

Compare that to Formula One, where manufacturers, investment bankers, and anyone else does have a say in how the sport is run. Just look at the present situation, where Monty rears up on his hind legs and proclaims that suddenly costs have to be controlled. Considering that one of the largest sponsors for Ferrari is a Spanish bank, it's no surprise he is making such noises based on the economy.

Purist? Not by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to seek out "purist", go watch a Formula Ford race.