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

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Aysedasi
As far as I'm concerned, F1 is a pale shadow of what it was 10-15 years ago, and others from different eras will no doubt say the same about their preferred era.

Is F1 really a pale shadow of what it was 10-15 years ago, or now that your 10-15 years older, wiser, and perhaps more jaded, you just see it differently?

When we're younger, everything is new, fresh, and exciting, but as we age, those things lose that freshness, and we become far less excited about them. I think sadly, we can say that about most everything, not just F1...

For me, yes, F1 is the top dog, the cream of the crop, the pinnacle. In no other series do manufacturers, teams, and drivers goes to the extreme's to win like they do in F1.

[freud]

Originally posted by CATMAN
View figure wise and Accountants spread sheet wise. Of couse it is. Racing wise NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glen, my friend, I know that you would love to think that your fav. MS is the best driver of the 'pinnacle' of motorsport. Quite honestly I can understand your frustration. I must say that AdamAshmore, Dixie and Aysedasi have pretty much summed up what I feel about this issue. F1 has the potential to be the pinnacle. Right now, its just not there. It has lost the respect among fans. I simply watch it because I am addicted to it.. its nostalgia. I dont see young fans of f1 though like I see hoards of teens going to motoGP. Racing-wise F1 has lost the edge. Even the drivers are complaining about how easy it is to drive a f1 car now. True motorracing fans would never find any racing sport a 'pinnacle' unless its giving you thrills and chills and you are on the edge of your seat. F1 is a pinnacle technologically but not racing-wise. Infact racing-wise its among the most bring formulae.

[Glen]

MS isn't by any means my favourite driver - I shout for Montoya and Button first. I think Schumacher is the best driver, but what you need to understand is that those two things are totally different!

It makes me laugh that thoe that despise Schumacher even go to the extreme of convincing themselves that F1 has reduced value and doesn't contain the best drivers, purely so that they can explain away the dominance of a driver they happen not to like. You don't have to like him to recognise the obvious fact that he is the best, and moving ever closer to the status of best ever.

[David Schneider]

My opinion only, is that the "pinnacle" would have to be the WRC, as the guys involved compete on all surfaces and have the benefit of 'racing' against the clock. To compare one form of motorsport to another you need to set criteria,what criteria are you defining the pinnacle by? talent? then it must be WRC, coverage? then it must be F1....etc,etc

[Gt_R]

Let's see what some of the "reasons" F1 are being condemned for..

1) Lack of wheel to wheel racing/overtaking - Then where does that leave WRC? There's NO OVERTAKING because cars are set to go one at a time.

2) F1's new generation drivers are nothing more than rich but talent-less boys - Last check, some of the latest entries are also touted as great exciting prospects...Alonso/Kimi/Montoya/Webber. Exciting/successful drivers from other series also make the leap over to compete in F1 (Jacques/Montoya/DaMatta/McNish...maybe one day Rossi&Dixon)...some fail..some succeed in F1. On the otherhand, drivers which failed in F1 or too old for F1 seek refuge in lesser series ie CART/IRL/DTM/GT/LeMans.Names like Takagi/Yoong springs to mind. Yes,there are pay drivers around,no doubt, but they'd get the boot if they're too crappy and no, they don't race top cars if they aren't good.

3) No on-track action - Thankfully, F1 doesn't resort to cheap tricks to manufacture a "show". Simply, success is EARNED in F1. Domination is no luck. FIA have the decency not using "success ballast" to close the field, doesn't send a safety car every 15laps to close the field. And at least, cars don't lead races by 3 or 4 laps like they do at LeMans, where really "pitstops" more often than not decide the results.

i'm not saying F1 is PERFECT. No series in the world is. Name any other series and there is flaws. A compromise is made and the market is so huge, there's no doubt what appeals to some may taste average to others and outright disgusting to the rest. The fact is we don't need 10 series which is of the same format/template. F1 needs to improve..but the fundamentals of F1 isnt as bad as some tried to paint it.

[Red]

Dave, yeah, but in WRC they race against the clock, not against some other dudes. Not directly anyway. Different talent required to run in the woods, alone, or at 300 kmph surrounded by 19 other drivers. Can't compare them.

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by Glen
It's beyond me why some people bother following F1 at all if they have no intention of allowing themselves to enjoy it!

Because it's the "pinnacle" I guess.

[Mattracer]

I'd agree with Red, you can't really compare WRC and F1 as it's oranges vs apples. At least let's compare circuit racing with circuit racing. On that score, it's F1 vs Champcar. With the IRL, that's not strictly circuit racing, it's oval racing which appeals to a different audience not necessarilly those who would watch F1.

Someone previuosly said they watch F1 because they're addicted and it's the heritage as well that they subscibe to. I'm no different on that score, I'd never swtch off (but I might feel the need to FF during the odd Catalunya procession. I'd still watch the last lap on play though).

[krt917]

Originally posted by Glen
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!

This is one reason why I mentioned the other possibility - that other new technologies will be banned. Good for racing, but in the long term might make F1 irrelevent (assuming it is at the mo!).

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Hmmm interesting, but I voted no. We either haven't reached it or it was one of those golden ages we keep harking on about.

To be fair though, Adam, the question does say at the moment - ie. asking us to comparte to other formulas - I'm sure the technology, for example, will continue to improve, but that doesn't mean that modern F1 isn't the pinnacle.

[Adam43]

oh yeah, definitely. It is a perfectly valid question.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Glen
It just ISN'T TRUE that there was more "racing" ten or fifteen years ago. You remember good races, but you conveniently forget the crappy ones, of which there have always been plenty. So determined are people to believe that life ain't like it was in the good old days that they don't even see the great moments within today's races because that doesn't fit with their preconception. It's beyond me why some people bother following F1 at all if they have no intention of allowing themselves to enjoy it!

Blimey, I find myself agreeing with you again Glen! There were definitely boring races in the past - 1990 Hungary was about the most boring race I can remember, and that's before we start going back further to find winning margins of 3-4 minutes in the 1950s (though this is offset slightly by the fact that those cars were better to watch on their own) - and we tend to remember the good ones. However, that doesn't mean we cant criticise modern F1, or at least talk about what we'd like to see changed. There is a difference between constructive criticism and 'rose-tinted' syndrome.

The definition of pinnacle is clearly the point here. To me, the pinnacle of Motor Racing should have the best teams and drivers, no stupid weight penalties or other artificial levellers, and a technological aspect (though this last one brings up the dilemma I mentioned on page 1). Modern F1 fulfills this criteria, despite the comments about some 'pay drivers'. I'm not saying we do have the best 20 drivers in the world on the grid, just the best overall grid, with the best top, top drivers!

The quality of the racing is something different, which obviously we would like to have. However, I'm not convinced that F1 always used to provide the best racing in days gone and people still considerd it the pinnacle.

[krt917]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
oh yeah, definitely. It is a perfectly valid question.

No worries, wasn't having a go!!

[Adam43]

Originally posted by krt917
Blimey, I find myself agreeing with you again Glen

we can't be having this

and, for what it is worth, I agree to.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Wrex
Aysedasi, nice theory, however after reading your post not only is F1 far from it, but sportscars are a million miles from the REAL pinnacle of motorsport - Formula Vee

Ha, ha!

Just to make it clear though, I don't say sports car racing in the pinnacle of m/sport. I know it isn't - it just happens to be my preference.

The reality of course, is that its BRISCA.........

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Gt_R


3) No on-track action - Thankfully, F1 doesn't resort to cheap tricks to manufacture a "show". Simply, success is EARNED in F1. Domination is no luck. FIA have the decency not using "success ballast" to close the field, doesn't send a safety car every 15laps to close the field. And at least, cars don't lead races by 3 or 4 laps like they do at LeMans, where really "pitstops" more often than not decide the results.

Sorry? The pit stops in F1 are necessary are they? They aren't just to spice up the show? Surely cars should resort to the pits when they need to, not because they are required to?

Of course pitstops have a major bearing on the outcome of any long-distance race - if you have to spend half an hour changing a major part on the car, you're not likely to win. But I say again, I'm not arguing the sportscars cause as the pinnacle - never said it was - I'm just saying that surely the pinnacle of motorsport ought to be more than just the tops technology-wise. To be the pinaccle of motorsport, it opught to provide the tops in actual racing....

Perhaps I am getting older and I look back on years gone by with the proverbial rose-tinteds, I guess the fact that I now fall asleep during some GPs means that time has taken its toll on me in more ways than one. Perhaps I'm confusing the interpretation of "pinnacle" with other less important things like entertainment...... IMO