F1 2012 style.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

We need to go back to the good old days of "PURE" Racing with one team and driver dominating with little overtaking, no action and 15-30 second gaps between positions after the first pitstop.


F1 2012 with all of it's excitement, unpredictability, and drama is boring.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Ok, so in your opinion the poll is flawed.

The reasons are valid for new whole threads, and some of them are happening now in the forum. This poll was to make the discussion easier for the reader, instead of looking for the first post and try to opinate with the proposed options. I added the 5th option based on the initial posts that proposed a 5th option, which basically was what I felt also.
Unfortunately some people have issues with polls... and the discussion always fall into some criticism over the options.

Don't worry; it wasn't a criticism. It was more a comment that I disagree with this idea of a universal 'real racing' consensus. The first 4 options covered it sufficiently, although I disagreed with the wording of some of them. I understood that the 4th option meant enjoying the possibility of lots of winners, not that it's a lottery and anyone can win, because that's a daft comment.

By having the 5th option, it also reduces the opportunity for people to vote on their opinion of Options 1-4. As you said Bononi, you have to then state it in the thread and you can't just look at the poll to get a representative snapshot.

It is just a bit of fun though really, isn't it? The poll options are written in such a way that one can take the seriousness of the whole thing with a pinch of salt and that's no bad thing.

[Mr V]

I was thinking yesterday, had it not been for the "freak" results, - Perez's 2nd place and (especially) Maldonado's pole and win, would we not be looking at this season as the top teams closing up and Merc finally winning a race?

[nicanary]

(the quote system has stopped working for me)

Totally agree with Iceman, and disagree with Panoz.

Could be a generation thing, but we've had decades of GPracing where there has been domination, and what's wrong with that, if the right car or driver is winning? At least the results are not by manipulation.

It may be boring, but this is a sport, not an entertainment. If you want that, go watch WWF. It's there for the participants, and the pleasure of spectators is simply a by-product. We've been here before, so many times!

No artificial penalties please, no tampering, no meddling. Just racing. If it becomes exciting because it's being rigged, then I'm off for good.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by nicanary

It's there for the participants, and the pleasure of spectators is simply a by-product. We've been here before, so many times!

Isn't this the fundamental problem with sport as a whole though. It all starts out for the participants, then, people notice it's good to watch, then TV get's involved and the next thing you know the tail is wagging the dog and events are staged simply as a business, which means they are aimed at a mass TV audience and therefore no longer primarily for the participants or even the die hard fans.

Snooker is going the same way, so much so that one of the greatest players ever has got hacked off with it and left the international circuit, although he does say it may not be permanent.

[Paradise City]

Iceman highlights some truths. I don't particularly place a high status on the championship and while the championship is interesting for me the racing is the thing. Each race should be a mini major in its own right and if there are one or two hard battles in the points, that is a race well watched. It's more satisfying when the racing is tougher and hard won with less of the penelope pitstop stuff. Don't get the either Formula Schumacher and Formula Penelope Pitstop choice, F1 can be smarter than that. The 'owners' [ie. speculators] are a bit too smart though and are more interested in maximising their profits though so the slide towards gimmickry is the way they go. Me? I think the sport is too popular.

[Mystery]

Definitely not the same sport anymore. Probably why I'd sooner watch a bike GP or SBK race than F1 - although I'd sooner watch F1 than just about anything else.

Yes the bikes have electronics but it's just more pure - although then there's CRT.....

I think something has been lost in the oh-so-worthy chase of greenness. I don't really care if an engine / gearbox lasts 1 race or 10 - it isn't going to make me buy a Prius or anything. Would far rather see, say, Force India looking for an extra ounce of performance and to heck with needing to recycle parts next race.

[garcon]

I thought this was going to be a question on the looks of the 2012 cars. But then I don't suppose there's much debate on that - they're all fugly.

As to the question in hand, it's a bit of a no brainer isn't it? Give me good racing every time, and let's see the traditional front teams put under pressure by up and coming drivers and teams from elsewhere.

What I would say, though, is that I'd prefer to see that good racing occur naturally, without the need for such gimmicks as DRS and tyres that do 15 laps then 'fall off a cliff'. Racing isn't about simply going as fast as you possibly can, but nor should it be about putting all your effort into managing artificial 'levelling' factors.

The art is in building and driving a car to go just fast enough to win. The problem is in creating a set of technical regulations that allows that and a competitive spectacle without resorting to gimmicks.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by garcon

I thought this was going to be a question on the looks of the 2012 cars. But then I don't suppose there's much debate on that - they're all fugly.

As to the question in hand, it's a bit of a no brainer isn't it? Give me good racing every time, and let's see the traditional front teams put under pressure by up and coming drivers and teams from elsewhere.

What I would say, though, is that I'd prefer to see that good racing occur naturally, without the need for such gimmicks as DRS and tyres that do 15 laps then 'fall off a cliff'. Racing isn't about simply going as fast as you possibly can, but nor should it be about putting all your effort into managing artificial 'levelling' factors.

The art is in building and driving a car to go just fast enough to win. The problem is in creating a set of technical regulations that allows that and a competitive spectacle without resorting to gimmicks.

Absolutely. But I don't want to see up and coming drivers mixing it by artificial means, only through talent.

Earlier posts made good points - it's gone past the point of no return, with too many unknowledgeable fans expecting too much. So the gimmicks come. It'll get to the day when there's a forum on ten-tenths just for F1 with all other single-seater formulae on a different forum.

It really isn't the same any more. Does anyone know a fan with about $8bn loose change so CVC can be bought out? Give it back to the FIA.

[nicanary]

Interesting. Just watching the Canadian GP live, and my 26 yr-old daughter asks me what DRS is. I explain about the function and the "zone", and why it was introduced.

Her immediate, and I mean immediate response was - "well that's not sport, that's entertainment." She understood straight away that this was artificial overtaking and manipulation of normal racing. She has no real interest or knowledge of the sport.

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.......

[Born Racer]

Canada highlights too much emphasis on DRS at some circuits. I can understand the criticism of this, but not that of the tyres.

Until the teams reduce aero dependence, that's what we're stuck with.

[Taprobane]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Canada highlights too much emphasis on DRS at some circuits. I can understand the criticism of this, but not that of the tyres.

Until the teams reduce aero dependence, that's what we're stuck with.

This.

[Bononi]

This and that...

[Greem]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Could be a generation thing, but we've had decades of GPracing where there has been domination, and what's wrong with that, if the right car or driver is winning? At least the results are not by manipulation.

I give you (in reverse chronological order) Crashgate, option 13 and decades of favouritism towards Ferrari. Tell me things have never been manipulated...

Also define "right"

We are where we are as a result of endless moaning by us, the fans, being heard by the teams and acted upon.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Greem

I give you (in reverse chronological order) Crashgate, option 13 and decades of favouritism towards Ferrari. Tell me things have never been manipulated...

Also define "right"

We are where we are as a result of endless moaning by us, the fans, being heard by the teams and acted upon.

An occasional bit of monkey business doesn't give the green light to legalize monkey business. Just because murder/stealing/corruption happens doesn't mean you legalize murder/stealing/corruption and just because manipulation can happen doesn't mean you must give manipulation he green light.

I did complain during the Schumacher era but always with the stated provisio that they didn't draft in gimmicks.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Mystery

Definitely not the same sport anymore. Probably why I'd sooner watch a bike GP or SBK race than F1 - although I'd sooner watch F1 than just about anything else.

Yes the bikes have electronics but it's just more pure - although then there's CRT.....

Is Moto GP still as pure? As you mention, there are now CRT teams to make up the grid. The factory teams have to make 6 engines last and there isn't the amount of overtaking there used to be either.

[chillibowl]

obviously things change. no stopping it. the question for me is the direction that change is taking.

is it still the same racing we have always had when cars at the sharp end of the grid in perfect weather and no safety cars find themselves with 3-4 difference in lap times? and if you accept that performance differentiation a normal extension of what we have always had how do you rationalize the need for DRS? surely if you are going to make one car faster than another at different stages of the race (in this case through tires) then DRS is redundant and unnecessary.

certainly it makes things look entertaining and those that dont follow as religiously as we do probably think its the coolest thing ever. if F1 has always been like this then shame on me for not seeing it before.

again this is not to say i think its the end of the world but neither is this a long term solution imo. i suppose you can say its a flotation device aimed at F1's imminent flotation.

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Is Moto GP still as pure? As you mention, there are now CRT teams to make up the grid. The factory teams have to make 6 engines last and there isn't the amount of overtaking there used to be either.

Fair comment except overtaking is much easier so a team would suffer the grid penalty without losing too much sleep.

[Knowlesy]

I think most motorsport, really, has fallen away from what it was.

Sportscars is the exception, although it could do with a few more heavy hitters in it.

The likes of MotoGP and CART/Indycar make me seethe. They both achieved levels of perfection beyond comprehension and then decided to ruin the spectacle.

[Born Racer]

I still don't really see how the tyres are artificial. More artificial than wings and the massive dependence on them?

I'll grant you DRS can be OTT at times, but it was only drafted in (sorry) because of the obsession with wings.

[luke g28]

There was no need for DRS when downforce was generated underneath the car. It is only because the rules dictate that downforce has to be generated by stick on wings that we have the whole wake problem.

DRS isnt a gimmick its a move to reduce the wake effect that is enforced by current regulations. Yes its a bit crap that only car B can use it when he is within 1 second between specific points on the track. I would much rather see it used as it is in qualifying. However it would need to be a much more powerful system for this to work properly.

Likewise the tyres are neither a gimmick nor a lottery. There is a difference between not understanding something and declaring it impossible to predict. We are seeing now that the top teams have figured out the tyres and as a rule the usual suspects are in Q3.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

The likes of MotoGP and CART/Indycar make me seethe. They both achieved levels of perfection beyond comprehension and then decided to ruin the spectacle.

Maybe the prospect of having just having 12 bikes on the grid for this season, didn't ring enough alarm bells?

I liked it more when they were all two-stroke engines, but emission regulations put a stop to them being anywhere near what any manufacturer could say was relevant to their road bike philosophy.

They also have traction control as standard issue now. That's one particular regulation that managed to ruin the racing and now they can't go back on it because it's also a 'safety' regulation. Oh bum!

CART was good for a while. I particularly liked Mercs 5 litre overhead valve engine that was used for the 94 Indy race. And, err...that's it really.

[Mystery]

Moto2 and Moto3 show us how it's done

Aside from that little thug Marquez (but that's a whole other thread)

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

CART was good for a while. I particularly liked Mercs 5 litre overhead valve engine that was used for the 94 Indy race. And, err...that's it really.

Yeah, that one race in twenty years was really bad. Good point.

[knowyourenemy]

im not sure bout what i think. On one hand 2011 watching Vettel and Red Bull winning everything got a bit boring - but this year, although the unpredictibility is exciting i do think it's a bit artificial and is pretty much down to whatever team can get the tyres right on that particular weekend - i also think DRS is playing too big part this year, especially in Canada for example, most cars were passed before they wer even half way down the straight