Pinnacle of motorsport?

[zac510]

The current crop of new wave fans are not letting F1 remain the pinnacle of motorsport in a technological sense. They favour the drivers as celebrities over the quality of the cars, thus they are demanding equality between cars to the detriment of this technology.

[Armco Bender]

Considering there is no other 4 wheel series that travels to globe with their circus... I`d say it`s the pinnacle then

Go down to the Rally forum and post that,and I bet you get a good slap....

[garcon]

Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport?

It's a good question, which I think is worth debate every now and again (search the forum, we've been here many times! )

I think it is, yes. But I don't think it's as easy as some would have you believe.

The concept of F1, it's intent, it's raison d'etre, is certainly to be the pinnacle of motorsport.

In terms of technology and global coverage I believe F1 achieves that. But there are other competitors to its status:

1. NASCAR - may only be US, but no other motor racing series gets 250,000 spectators at every round, and no other motor racing series is so high profile relative to other sports.

2. Endurance racing - particularly Le Mans - arguably still the single biggest motor racing event on the calendar, and surely still the ultimate test of man and machine.

3. Moto GP - arguably a more restricted/specialist audience than F1, but almost as high tech and just as global.

4. Touring Cars/Rallying - whichever national/regional series you choose (or WRC!) tin tops get big support and, along with rallying, give us the racing and cars that spectators most readily identify with. Being a fan of a particular touring car/rallying team can actually influence the car you buy (or is that just me? )

[LadySnowcat]

Pinnacle....

Surely the technology involved has to come into it...

And doesn't the worldwide TV audience come into it....

Why else would sponsorship be soooo much more than any other genre....

The pinnacle it is....

Which it why it behoves the powers that be to make it a worthy recipient of the name....

[2112]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Go down to the Rally forum and post that,and I bet you get a good slap....

Totally forgot. But then again, the USA has had no coverage AT ALL of WRC for 2 years now.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by 2112

Totally forgot. But then again, the USA has had no coverage AT ALL of WRC for 2 years now.

Too many corners mate.

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I think Nascar's format could only work in the United States. Nascar is a real American racing series: artificial rules are used to keep some sort of excitement.

And works perfectly in Argentina, on the Turismo Carretera series, with the same formula of artificial rules changing every year about car/engine specs for all brands. NASCAR guys should be aware that they have a series with almost equal philosophy on the south of the continent.

[Oldtony]

And V8SC is the same sort of deal here in Oz, but that is about entertainment rathe than Motorsport.

[nycuk]

Originally Posted by garcon

1. NASCAR - may only be US, but no other motor racing series gets 250,000 spectators at every round, and no other motor racing series is so high profile relative to other sports.

2. Endurance racing - particularly Le Mans - arguably still the single biggest motor racing event on the calendar, and surely still the ultimate test of man and machine.

3. Moto GP - arguably a more restricted/specialist audience than F1, but almost as high tech and just as global.

4. Touring Cars/Rallying - whichever national/regional series you choose (or WRC!) tin tops get big support and, along with rallying, give us the racing and cars that spectators most readily identify with. Being a fan of a particular touring car/rallying team can actually influence the car you buy (or is that just me? )

Can't say I agree, Garcon. NASCAR (despite the size of it's live audience) is a domestic championship. Le Mans is a classic event but consists of a few highly funded factory entries plus a load of amateur make-weights. Moto GP is a different sport altogether, and TC/WRC are (on a world wide scale) minority events.

I'm not denigrating any of the above, as I follow and appreciate them all, I'm just saying how I see them in relation to F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport, and based on this I don't think anything comes close.

[Bononi]

Well it's obvious that NASCAR beats any other series.

[pottiella]

F1 pinnacle of motorsport? Absolutely.

F1 - motor racing at it's greatest? No...not anymore.

If you're a purist, modern day F1 is just not for you...

[Bononi]

...and not this forum too.

[Gt_R]

I really fail to see the big fuss over F1 relative to others.

Sure, F1 has it's flaws, but so does every other series, and if we are objective about it, F1 has a package which is as good as any other major series.

Let's just take for example how some blast F1 for having overtaking in the pits/strategy and dominated by one or two manufacturer backed teams, then go ahead to praise LeMans as being more worthy of being a pinnacle....

Oh..and i love the overtaking moves in WRC.

Then we hear people complain that F1 tv coverage is bad, how advertisements ruin things and commentator sucks... yet WRC and 24hr racing doesnt face criticism when what is shown is effectively 1hour summaries of what happen over the day.

Oh yes, F1 racing just go round and round... unlike US series which goes in ovals. Lets not talk about stewards making dubious decisions and flags..

And not to mention that bikes are essentially very different from cars, appealing in different ways.

There are scopes of improvement in F1, but lets be realistic and fair when we try to criticise and put F1 down

[Dutton]

This happens to bring something to mind RE the "pit tactics" thing RE NASCAR. I am not criticising NASCAR or defending F1 with this: it is just something I find interesting.

NASCAR is practically all about strategy. On-track overtaking is of minimal relevance in the grand scheme. I find it very interesting when NASCAR is argued to be superior to F1 because it has overtaking but F1 does not, and how F1 also is worse because it is all about strategy.

NASCAR is all about strategy and pit efficiency; F1 is all about strategy and pit efficiency; enduros are all about strategy and pit efficiency.

However, this does not make these types of motorsport identical (far from it), but by the same token it does not make any worse than the other. They are just different: different people prefer different things, but that is the subjective as opposed to objective.

I would argue, on objective grounds, that, in terms of the races themselves, the processes involved in driving to victory are the same in F1, enduro, and NASCAR. It is about pit strategy and efficiency, plus, of course, having the best chassis/chassis-setup.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

It is about pit strategy and efficiency, plus, of course, having the best chassis/chassis-setup.

Yes,you'd definitely need a good "chassis/chassis-setup".

You may want to throw a driver into that equation as well.

Or maybe F1 will be the first to do without a driver in order for it to firmly clasp on to its 'Pinnacle of Motorsport' status.

[Dutton]

Well, I am taking a generally adequate driver standard to be a given.

My point was, in these particular forms of motorsport, on-track overtaking, be it regular or infrequent, is largely irrelevant regardless.

This is not to say overtaking is not a good thing, but rather it is not the be-all-and-end-all whatsoever.

[Gt_R]

There are many who seem to think racing = overtaking. Probably the same people who may find a backyard soccer game in some Brazilian sub-urb neighbourhood to be more "pinnacle" than a World Cup game, by basis of goal count.

[JeremySmith]

Well I think in general we enjoy seeing a great overtaking move, dicing for a position and then holding that position. Not the be-all an end-all I agree put part of the show non the less..

[Dutton]

That has never be denied (not by me at least).

I just think proposing that F1 is evil because of limited overtaking, and that all other categories on Earth have lots of it, plus that overtaking is critical to results in all other series, is a bit illogical.

[Bononi]

Actually we're never satisfied with anything that we like. That's the human nature. If it was different then this forum would be empty. What you see is a huge crowd of F1 fans who think it should be better, because it would be even better. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as it is a constructive criticism. In this case, the title of this thread makes no doubt, it isn't constructive.

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by nycuk

Can't say I agree, Garcon. NASCAR (despite the size of it's live audience) is a domestic championship. Le Mans is a classic event but consists of a few highly funded factory entries plus a load of amateur make-weights. Moto GP is a different sport altogether, and TC/WRC are (on a world wide scale) minority events.

I'm not denigrating any of the above, as I follow and appreciate them all, I'm just saying how I see them in relation to F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport, and based on this I don't think anything comes close.

NASCAR could join forces with ASCAR, Argentinian Turismo Carretera and Aussie V8 Supercars, and create a formidable world championship that could easily challenge F1 in few years.

[ggreen29]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I think Nascar's format could only work in the United States. Nascar is a real American racing series: artificial rules are used to keep some sort of excitement.

European race fans are normally unwilling to accept that sort of regulations, as they appreciate a more natural form of racing. Even if a driver or team would completely dominate.

Except ACO/LeMans does exactly that doesn't it? Fiddling with air restrictors, weights, and fuel tanks sizes to adjust competitiveness. Sadly, managed competiton is a disease that's affecting many series.

[DanJR1]

Personally i would say no. NASCAR is ahead in terms of sponsorship and exposure to its targeted markets and in terms of state of the art technology, f1 is nowhere near the limit of what is possible in terms of speed/quickness. Just think of all the different tech bits that have been banned over the years and how quick the cars could actually go. F1 runs at "politically correct" speeds. It's very sad that clever things that teams come up with get banned straight away

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ggreen29

Except ACO/LeMans does exactly that doesn't it? Fiddling with air restrictors, weights, and fuel tanks sizes to adjust competitiveness. Sadly, managed competiton is a disease that's affecting many series.

Indeed, but the ACO doesn't make it as worse as NASCAR. But motorsport history, particularly for Sportscar racing, shows that artificial regulations are not necessary for good racing.

[Knowlesy]

Changing the rules as you go along is far worse than what NASCAR does. ALMS is particularly bad at that aspect of it.

I still enjoy it though it must be said.