Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport at this moment in time?

[ralf fan]

Well we always refer to F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport ( or atleast the f1 fans do)..

In terms of speed ofcourse f1 is the strongest by a mile and other series dont come close.

Safety- again f1 has the speed and at the moment the safety of the tracks and cars has vastly improved and is arguebly the best.

COMPETITION- now this is where id like to discuss. at this moment Ferrari and MS are just too good for the rest. In conditions that donot suit their tyres they still manage to get poles and wins or atleast podium finishes.
Now after watching the Moto GP race i think back and the last time we had such a brawl for the lead in f1 was probably MONZA last year where 2nd place man finshed close to 1st place and you couldnt call it a brawl, same with Malaysia this year where JPM kept getting close but was never in sight of MS!
ive watched a few Nascar races as well and eventhough i dont like Oval racing it is sometimes fun to see the passing and re-passing for the lead etc.

mind you i still am an f1 fan and probably will remain one...

so my question in terms of COMPETITION ie difference between the top team and others and the ease at which Ferrari are winning without anyone challenging them (and it has been going on for quite a few races) is F1 At THIS MOMENT still the pinnacle of motorsport....

mind you i dont expect interesting races every weekend but Silverstone i think was the last time that we had an interesting race (Bahrain was interesting but the winner was decided by lap 2) where 3 people could have won the GP...

[krt917]

Well, I don't think it's the pinnacle in terms of wheel-to-wheel competition from a spectator's point of view. However, from a point of view of the incredible level of race preparation - the actual level of those involved in the competition - then I believe that F1 is still the pinnacle.

I guess it also depends on why you think there is a lack of 'competition'. Is it just that a particular team is doing a better job or is it because the rules play against that sort of competition. If it's the former, then I think that's fine - all series go through periods of domination and those that don't tend to be ones that artificially affect the racing with things like weight penalties and thus can't be the pinnacle.

If we start talking about the technical rules, well, that's when it all gets a bit tricky...

[ASCII Man]

In terms of competition, hell no!
In terms of technology, maybe...

[Glen]

Maybe? WHAT?

F1 is in a totally different league to all other formulae. Including in terms of competition - it's a constructor's sport and the competition to build the best car is far, far ahead of everything else.

Also, if you look at the racing (including the mid-field racing) with open eyes you'll clearly see that it is present and correct. You only have to see how new drivers struggle to make the high level to get a littel understanding of how difficult modern F1 is and how high the level is.

[Glen]

I just cannot believe that the no's exist at all, let alone are ahead of the yes's. Do you no-sayers even follow F1?

[krt917]

I must admit Glen that even I voted 'Yes' and you know what I think about some aspects of modern F1!!

[bastinscully]

Michael Schumacher and ferrari are the pinnacle of motorsport at the moment.

[tally-bally-ho]

Hmmm "pinnacle" is a difficult word to apply, depends on your interpretation of what the point of motorsport is.

Is it to provide a platform to find out who is the best driver in the world? If so why are the cars different?

Is it to find out which team can produce the best "package" of technology/speed/reliability? If so why are there given different budgets?

Is it to provide entertainment? If so why bother to pretend its a sport?

Is it to find out who can raise the most sponsorship? Of course not, but as all the cars are different this plays a major part in team performance.

The pinnacle for me would be a formula where each driver has as equal an opportunity as possilble regardless of all other factors, so we know the champion is the best driver. However, there is no mega money to be made out of this as you can only have 1 manufacturer for the cars and 1 team to run the cars, in order to guarantee identical opportunity for drivers. Money always spoils the sporting aspect. Who cares if gearchanges now take 0.0006 seconds? Technology can never be as exciting as 2 drivers in equal cars battling for victory.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but, no doubt, I'll be back!

[Glen]

We live in the real world - devise a formula with equal machinery and limited budgets (several already exist) if you like, but the best drivers won't be available to compete in it because they're too busy working their entire career trying for the pinnacle of motorsport, not some overblown Formula Ford, or whatever this "perfect" formula would be.

I can't see the problem - I think we all know who the best driver in the world is, and he has amply proved that status working within the best formula - F1.

[krt917]

Umm, I agree with your frustration over technology, but I wouldn't go so far as to have all the same cars. To me, Motor Racing is about the cars AND the drivers. The problem comes with modern technology. Technology has its place, but one day (some would say we are here already), we will have to choose whether we are more interested in the human element or the technical element. If we choose the former, then motor racing will start to lose its relevence for the big companies and maybe even society in general if the cars are running behind what technological advancements there are. If we choose the latter, however, we will eventually end up with computer-controlled cars which won't really appeal to anyone excpet the technical boffins.

Sorry to be gloomy, but these are the issues that have been increasingly coming to the surface in F1 over the last few years. At the moment, it remains the pinnacle technically and in terms of drivers, though that is partly because it is SEEN as the top and therefore attracts the best drivers.

[Glen]

How do you think we'll get "computer controlled cars" then, krt?

[krt917]

Well, if I knew that I'd be one of the computer boffins!!

Seriously - and I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow - it seems reasonable to think that either:

- Someone will develop a system which can take the perfect racing line/throttle application etc., taking into account variables such as fuel load and tyre wear. This system would also have proximity sensors in order to void contact.

OR

- AI will advance to the point where the computer 'driver' will be able to react and respond to the other cars in a similar way to humans. In this scenario, the team with the best car will win, unless there are a number of different AI models!


I don't mean to sound too Sci-Fi and I think that we have many years of technical innovation which gradually reduces the role of the driver, if the rules don't change accordingly (and, as I said above, we might get to a point where motor racing as we know it isn't seen as relevent any more, though I'm rather hoping I won't actually see that day!!), ahead of us.

[429CJ]

Originally posted by Glen
I can't see the problem - I think we all know who the best driver in the world is, and he has amply proved that status working within the best formula - F1.

I didn't know, that Valentino Rossi drives on Formula 1 already?!

[tally-bally-ho]

Erm. . .I'm back

There is no officially licensed formula where drivers are given identical opportunity. There are always the ones where the chassis/engines are the same but different teams (with different budgets) improve them at different rates, but that is NOT what I'm talking about. Any formula that makes the driver use the same car for the whole season also does not fit the criteria as you can never be sure of performance differences following damage repair. The machines must be randomly allocated for each event.

The only place where this theory really happens is your local rent a kart facility where all the karts are the same, and only 1 team maintain them, and each driver is randomly allocated a different kart each time.

With the emphasis put on making sure the equipment is always as identical as possible by using a consistent test driver to match the lap times of each machine, the perfect formula for finding the best driver can exist in international motor racing. The reason so called top drivers won't do it is because they would have nothing to blame but themselves for failing to win and their scope for making a career would be minimised.

Motor sport in its current form is all about finding the unfair advantage, eliminate the possibility for this and you'll find a true driving champion, if thats what you want. Clearly a lot of people don't want this and would prefer to happily consume the current offering which is mainly smoke and mirrors. Ok, so Michael would probably win anyway but at least we know everyone else had the same opportunity as he did.

I'll get off the soapbox again now, but can't help thinking I'm going to be back sometime soon...

[Glen]

Originally posted by krt917
... - Someone will develop a system which can take the perfect racing line/throttle application etc., taking into account variables such as fuel load and tyre wear. This system would also have proximity sensors in order to void contact.

OR

- AI will advance to the point where the computer 'driver' will be able to react and respond to the other cars in a similar way to humans. In this scenario, the team with the best car will win, unless there are a number of different AI models!

Yea - this is why the rules do not allow computer control of steering or brakes. If you can conceive of a way that a car can be sent around a track without steering or brakes you may be on to something!