roon wrote: ↑01 May 2019, 03:38
But they are fast. They're faster than any other era. Might consider to update your associations. In the old school, there were no rules nor concern about engine sound aesthetics. They weren't trying to sound like the previous generations of cars, nor were the generation before them trying to sound like horses.
'Make great again' philosophies attempt to recreate or extend particular aesthetic cues beyond the eras they naturally arose within, into new eras artificially. Retroism.
I see a parallel between F1 and politics in this context. Population growth combined with technological development created cultural changes and inspired new legislation. Oftentimes in the name of safety for humans and or environment.
In F1, tech advancement created a similar sort of population growth scenario. The tracks could not handle the competitive necessity of ever faster cars. This inspired legislation over decades and the original competitive nature was lost.
Now we are in eras where the legislations are somewhat resented. But without full consideration people simply say "make it look like x years ago." Which is to say, lie to me. Give me illusions.
To truly address some of these concerns, foundations must be addressed. Politically, great-again would mean returns to real competition and combat, real death and consequences. Same for the race track.
But in this era we do not permit the zealous to die. I wonder if in the long run it is safer to let the hypercompetitive racer types drive into armco when they're still in their 20s or 30s. There is a Darwinian element perhaps not fully appreciated. Now we have zombie twentysomethigns living into their eighties because death, zealousness, grandeur, heroism, and daredeviling is outlawed.
Removing barriers, crash structures, halos, HANS devices, and 90% of the rulebook would create the foundation for real competition and risk, from which would attract real spectator curiosity and likely would result in louder cars as well. I doubt MxGA proponents want to go there, at the racetrack nor elsewhere. They like their lap belts, actually.
Roon, My Friend. If I was not Barred from doing so, I would have plus one’d your comment instantly. The mention you make of Darwinism is accurate in itself but attributed wrongly. That attribute belongs with Newey and the rule makers know it. That man has the entire f1 circus show by the nose and all other designers are in his wake, struggling to keep up and that’s a fact.
What I say, is Bar the man from every in season future GP but employ an especially commissioned TV crew to prowl the starting grid as he did or does, armed with a clipboard and pencil (how embarrassing must that be?), to let him and us, see the cars before the race starts on tv. The tv crew would have to contend with the constantly view blocking shuffling of grid mechanics but didn’t Red Bull initiate that little caper? F1 seems to be living in the dark ages as far as I’m concerned or might that be where f1 wants to keep us, the paying spectator, If that’s the case then how do we explain how I know exactly what Newey’s up to with Verstappen’s car and not Gasly’s? That is unlikely to ever be seen on tv. Furthermore I’m almost convinced that Mercedes have figured out what that is, and are busy trying to hide the fact, so we should all of us brace ourselves for twenty one locked out grid formations and for twenty one, with reliability, one, two race wins and that’s another fact.
Another fact would be the fact that has been mentioned everywhere the rules butt in and too little can be done to either capitalise, circumvent or just interpret them differently! The essence of this comment is not Darwinism or anything at all even neo-Darwinian. I am not a race driver and I will not chew on a bone wether it was thrown with intent or by design.
