[kennyguitar]

Bagwan, you beat me to the Whitmarsh comment about Cleveland. He's right, it CAN be very easy. look how simple the track is in cleveland, yet F1 would never in a million years lower itself to run a race on such a temporary track.


Vettel's comment made me a little sick to be honest.

"World champion Sebastian Vettel admits that he hopes the overtaking aids this year do not make passing in F1 commonplace.

"When you do overtake, it should be something valuable -- a major achievement, like a goal in soccer," he told Sport Bild."

granted that comment is about the soft tires and moveable wings, but good lord. Fans at the track aren't paying hundreds and thousands of dollars/pounds or whatever to see the race reult determined in qualifying! That sounds like a comment from a driver that knows he doesn't have a dominating car like he did last year.

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see, and his example is precisely why I liked to play but can rarely stand watching Soccer/Footbal.l

[russianstallian]

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see,

Yes, you are correct, but artificially facilitated passing, where the press of a button 'makes it happen' rather than the skillful catching, management of the tyres in the dirty air and then the actual pass, from lining it up to pulling it off (steady, phnaar phnaar) successfully.

[Nakforappealp]

It was a good interview with Martin Whitmarsh - and i agree entirely about Cleveland, and his comment about AbuDhabi - great facility, but an opportunity missed with the track - a long straight, but with a chicane with 1 ine through it. The 'Tilke-Bernie new track rule' sums up everything wrong with modern day F1. They all look as if they are designed by the same bloke - and that's not good. Where is the variety? Portimao is quite a good one, and Istanbul wasn't bad either, but the rest are.....hmmmm...as for Hockenheim - a travesty, a complete butchering of a track that was completely different from anything else.

[kennyguitar]

What I don't understand with Abu Dhabi is they DO have the option of bypassing that 5-6-7 Chicane. Is the grandstand really that close thet can't take the hairpin straight in?

Tilke does seem adept at placing a kink in a straight just where it shouldn't be for overtaking. I don't want a series of dragstrips linked but corners, but give us some nice double pass opportunities like old tracks do. I think Turkey has proven to be his best work. It's unfortunate the attendance is generally horrible, but that seems to be the case at most of the new tracks he has designed. Not sure if that's totally the track's fault, or F1 for choosing the newest venues in the first place. To a TV fan, most of them just blow.

[antonyandruleit]

Yes, you are correct, but artificially facilitated passing, where the press of a button 'makes it happen' rather than the skillful catching, management of the tyres in the dirty air and then the actual pass, from lining it up to pulling it off (steady, phnaar phnaar) successfully.

F1 is never (or should never) going to become packed with overtaking just by pushing a button, as said above it has to be a battle, and be earned.

We can't put these gimmicks in place just to have every race as a Villeneuve v Arnoux battle all race.
These moments like Villeneuve v Arnoux should be the pinicle. Yes they are great and we love them when they happen i.e Kubica v Massa, but to try and artifically create these moments is wrong.

Watch the above mentioned battles and you realise the skill, bravery and tactical awareness of F1 drivers.
Then think of a similar battle in F1 2015 and have Hamilton and Vettel sitting back pressing a button every 20 seconds and getting the same result.

I'd rather see one of these battles every 5, 10 years, than see one 10 times a race knowing a computer engineer somewhere is doing a good job.

And beside Some of the best racing is when there is only the potential to overtake.

For example Imola 2005 and 2006. Two cracking battles between Alonso and Schumacher but no actual overtaking took place.

Also when Hakkinen for just one example passed Schumi at Spa in 2000, with Zonta as a mobile chicane, it was epic but after that Hakkinen sped away, so the overtaking wasn't the only excitement but just the climax of 4 or 5 laps of excitement.

So for me an F1 race where people are pressing buttons and pulling levers and overtaking at every corner does not fill me with the same passion as 20+ drivers using their skill and judgement to provide the sort of overtaking we saw at Silverstone 2003 for example.

Football doesn't end 4-4 every game but people don't moan everytime their is a 0-0 and insist on free shots or one team being reduced to 8 players for 10 minutes in order to see lots of goals.

The match itself is what matters not always the content.

F1 has been and should always be a fight between driver and car v driver and car. Simples

[Nakforappealp]

Overtaking shouldn't be easy - however if you have a faster car, then you should expect to be able to do this. Too much talk of ovetaking is pandering to 'The Show'.....and the casual TV watcher.

[BiseCreesia]

Overtaking shouldn't be easy - however if you have a faster car, then you should expect to be able to do this. Too much talk of ovetaking is pandering to 'The Show'.....and the casual TV watcher.

These are the audience members that Bernie is trying to grow and keep hooked onto F1. The hardcore race fans are rare, but the casual viewer who decides to watch a race on a Sunday morning make up the bulk of F1 viewers. I see F1 going down the same direction as wrestling did under Vince McMahon. The entertainment factor must take precedence over the racing in order for F1 to be a commercial success.

[neirty]

But history has shown that every time they try to improve the 'show' and the 'package' then the product itself gets worse and people get less interested. Just look at WRC, they meddled and meddled with that to 'improve' it, and now it's a shadow of it's former self.

[Nakforappealp]

How far will Bernie go to keep it popular though? Personally, it's been dumbed down too far already.

[kennyguitar]

Racing was better when cars were overpowered, less controlled and tracks were longer, narrower, dictated largely by their surroundings and well, probably less safe. Now we race in tracks in the middle of nowhere,are so wide they may as well be parking lots, the power to downforce balance is totally out of whack, and the drivers are well, not so impressive in their race craft.

[antonyandruleit]

But the drivers as a whole grid are more proffesional and of a higher level.

Think back to Rossett 3 point turning at Monaco, and the number of crashes and spins in practice.

Today there seem to be far less.

[kennyguitar]

Personally, I preferred when F1 drivers were more mature, more experienced and somewhat more proven as racing drivers than most of today's teen drivers. Drivers worked their entire carreer to reach F1. Now, half of them practically START at the pinnacle and are done and washed up by 24.

Today, drivers the age of Schummi or Rubens are considered ancient. In the 80's and 90's, F1 drivers first breaking into F1 in their late 20's and 30's were more or less normal. It would have been virtually unheard of to even consider a driver in their teens for F1. I guess that's a product of the play station age.

[Caluabdum]

Personally, I preferred when F1 drivers were more mature, more experienced and somewhat more proven as racing drivers than most of today's teen drivers. Drivers worked their entire carreer to reach F1. Now, half of them practically START at the pinnacle and are done and washed up by 24.

Today, drivers the age of Schummi or Rubens are considered ancient. In the 80's and 90's, F1 drivers first breaking into F1 in their late 20's and 30's were more or less normal. It would have been virtually unheard of to even consider a driver in their teens for F1. I guess that's a product of the play station age.

Two words, Mike Thakwell.

[Sarbrienna]

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see, and his example is precisely why I liked to play but can rarely stand watching Soccer/Footbal.l

Closer racing, not necessarily more passing. A dogfight is just as exciting.

Racing was better when cars were overpowered, less controlled and tracks were longer, narrower, dictated largely by their surroundings and well, probably less safe. Now we race in tracks in the middle of nowhere,are so wide they may as well be parking lots, the power to downforce balance is totally out of whack, and the drivers are well, not so impressive in their race craft.

The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

[ButKnillinoi]

The problem with no overtaking in F1 is the downforce the cars create and the excellent brakes. Braking 100-150 meters before a corner from 300 km/h is rediculous. Downgrade the brakes so they have to brake from 200-250 meters out and the driver behind has at least some chance. Half the overtaking issues would be solved.

[Janarealiti]

The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

To some extent, I agree. It is probable that there has never been an era in which there has been loads of overtaking. However, I would say that looking at coverage of old races online, even the original live coverage, may be slightly misleading because the footage available is always limited. Far fewer cameras were used and much will have been missed. I'd also add that, in spite of the rose-tinted spectacles some people look through, it is genuinely impossible to imagine certain things happening these days. The dice, which I have never seen but read much about, between Stewart and Rindt in the 1969 British GP, for instance; similarly, John Watson coming from 17th and 22nd to win at Detroit and Long Beach in 1982 and '83 respectively, almost all as a result of dynamic passing moves rather than attrition ahead of him. We need to be asking ourselves why such events have been rendered a thing of the past. No-one would suggest that the circuits on which Watson scored those two incredible victories should in any sense be models for the future, but I think the point holds.

[kennyguitar]

Closer racing, not necessarily more passing. A dogfight is just as exciting.


i agree, and in a dogfight, rarely does the same plane always maintain the advantage. I want to see passes, counter passes, fights for the lead throughout the race. etc.
what we have ve now is a combination of desperation attempts, chop blocks worthy of a texas chainsaw movie, and drivers that feel they should be handed a pass by everyone on hte race track because they are a former school crossing guard.



The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I have watched damn near every F1 race over the last 30 years live, and the racing was better.

[Sarbrienna]

To some extent, I agree. It is probable that there has never been an era in which there has been loads of overtaking. However, I would say that looking at coverage of old races online, even the original live coverage, may be slightly misleading because the footage available is always limited. Far fewer cameras were used and much will have been missed. I'd also add that, in spite of the rose-tinted spectacles some people look through, it is genuinely impossible to imagine certain things happening these days. The dice, which I have never seen but read much about, between Stewart and Rindt in the 1969 British GP, for instance; similarly, John Watson coming from 17th and 22nd to win at Detroit and Long Beach in 1982 and '83 respectively, almost all as a result of dynamic passing moves rather than attrition ahead of him. We need to be asking ourselves why such events have been rendered a thing of the past. No-one would suggest that the circuits on which Watson scored those two incredible victories should in any sense be models for the future, but I think the point holds.

I wholeheartedly agree. There were dull races. Take for example Dijon '79 - Gilles Villenueve vs. Arnoux is raved about but the race was no different to watching paint dry.

Aero was a still a problem even in the turbo era.

I've been an advocate of venturi floors but watching some races of the early '80s James Hunt regularly complained the cars had too much grip and appeared so in some races.

Pat Symonds and Jock Clear have said these things are all relative (the former agreed to an extent) and yet I fully agree that the sophomore Abu Dabi GP showed that there is something inherently wrong with F1

I don't have much of problem with so called hard racing/dirty driving. Motorsport would be nothing if designers and driver didn't push boundaries.

[Janarealiti]

I wholeheartedly agree. There were dull races. Take for example Dijon '79 - Gilles Villenueve vs. Arnoux is raved about but the race was no different to watching paint dry.

I assume you mean 'the rest of the race'? I must say, that dice (a word you never hear nowadays) does rather render the whole thing different for me. But point very much taken. There are reasons why people recall events like that, or the Brabham versus Surtees scrap on the last lap of the 1967 Italian GP, to give another example — because they were exceptional, i.e. exceptions to the rule.