[DfrtYhyu]

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

If you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you watch rally and leave f1 alone.

I beg to differ.

Going through mud and gravel and snow in a time-trial manner in 4wd hatches has nothing in common with driving in a Caterham around a track.

I'm not that old, but from what I've seen, the way that Caterham drove had more in common with the F1 cars of days gone by than anything I've seen.

The R500 on top gear was the EVO long term fleet car

Cool I didn't know that.

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

Well, considering that it only went 0.8 sec slower than the Gumpert, on a very cold day, I'd say all it needed to beat the TG lap record was to run it on a slightly hotter day.

Which brings me to Formula 1 and getting rid of a good deal of the downforce. No one beyond the sad anoraky types would walk past an F1 car and think "Phwoar just think of all the time they needed to spend in a wind tunnel to get all those annoying winglets and appendages and things which create a bit more downforce and a lot more turbulence behind making the car so much harder to pass PHWOAR I'm off to the toilet for a good fap now as that really arouses me so much it's not funny"

[Stoottnoiciek]

Not in F1 IMO, have nothing against it in other motorsports that aren't so technologically advanced.
I'm not watching F1 for accidents, for crashes, for slides, oversteers etc...

If I want oversteery cars I watch Rallying.
If I want lots of passes I watch MotoGP.
If I want technological excellence I watch F1.

My god that's sad.

I'm not talking about the cars drifting like riceboxes or anything. I'm talking about slides like we saw at Silverstone which are an awesome display of a drivers skill.

[quorceopporce]

Not in F1 IMO, have nothing against it in other motorsports that aren't so technologically advanced.
I'm not watching F1 for accidents, for crashes, for slides, oversteers etc...

If I want oversteery cars I watch Rallying.
If I want lots of passes I watch MotoGP.
If I want technological excellence I watch F1.

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.

[Stoottnoiciek]

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.

That's so true. So true. So true it's not funny.

[Immampdah]

My god that's sad.

Maybe for you.
I'm not dead for show, and circus you know?!
I don't go to cinema to watch Luc Besson movies. In fact I never go to Cineplexxes where you can't find a good movie. I prefer the smaller budget cinema when you can see a good artistic small budget movie that has a message other than the images.
I don't watch TV but for news and motorsport, and rarely for a good classic movie.

I don't search for show and suspense but for things I'm interested about.

I don't say that generally show isn't good for people, only that the kind of entertainment I prefer is pretty well defined and I know where I find what I need.

I'm not talking about the cars drifting like riceboxes or anything. I'm talking about slides like we saw at Silverstone which are an awesome display of a drivers skill.

All of the racing drivers (and most of the better drivers) can do that. It's just that I'm interested more by the result (car performance and lap times) than by the show.

Maybe I'm weird, but I feel OK the way I am.

[Immampdah]

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.

Who said I don't enjoy F1?
In fact I can enjoy F1 with what it offers without crying out loud about the lack of show like others do!
I always watch the races to the end and I don't feel bored after my fave is out of the race as there is still plenty to see.

[Immampdah]

That's so true. So true. So true it's not funny.

Fun, like beauty is subjective. And expecting that others enjoy the same thing you do is outright stupid.

[quorceopporce]

Maybe for you.
I'm not dead for show, and circus you know?!
I don't go to cinema to watch Luc Besson movies. In fact I never go to Cineplexxes where you can't find a good movie. I prefer the smaller budget cinema when you can see a good artistic small budget movie that has a message other than the images.
I don't watch TV but for news and motorsport, and rarely for a good classic movie.

I don't search for show and suspense but for things I'm interested about.

I don't say that generally show isn't good for people, only that the kind of entertainment I prefer is pretty well defined and I know where I find what I need.



All of the racing drivers (and most of the better drivers) can do that. It's just that I'm interested more by the result (car performance and lap times) than by the show.

Maybe I'm weird, but I feel OK the way I am.

Your view is completely at odds with the reasons why all sports came about, which were all to do with the competition. This may have been diluted to some extent in recent times, now that money, science and technology play such a big part (in many sports other than F1), but it is still there. According to your opinion, F1 would be absolutely fine if it involved cars going round the track with no passing at all, but with each car being the technological peak of what is possible. You may scoff at this, but it is the natural extension of your 'technology over show' view.

[Immampdah]

I beg to differ.

Going through mud and gravel and snow in a time-trial manner in 4wd hatches has nothing in common with driving in a Caterham around a track.

I'm not that old, but from what I've seen, the way that Caterham drove had more in common with the F1 cars of days gone by than anything I've seen.

As you said, those days are gone, looong time gone.

F1 isn't about sliding around for quite some time already, and I bet that Ascari, Fangio and Co would have been pretty happy with a more stable car that you didn't need to catch at the exist of every turn for a couple of hours.

I think it's easier to watch the right motorsport for what you expect to see instead of wishing them all to be the same and contain everything.
Monotony is not good, is boring and kills everything.

[Immampdah]

Your view is completely at odds with the reasons why all sports came about, which were all to do with the competition.

Not really.
I enjoy the competition, but I don't think there is need for show in order to have a competition.

Do you think that competition and sport are about achievements (this is my view) or about show (Daniel's and apparently your view too)?!

This may have been diluted to some extent in recent times, now that money, science and technology play such a big part (in many sports other than F1), but it is still there.

I doubt we could have motorsports without technology and money. No money = no technology = no motors = no motorsport.

According to your opinion, F1 would be absolutely fine if it involved cars going round the track with no passing at all, but with each car being the technological peak of what is possible. You may scoff at this, but it is the natural extension of your 'technology over show' view.

My answer to this somewhat exaggerating question is YES, I would find it interesting because technology is why I watch F1.

[Stoottnoiciek]

I love for Ioan to be banned because.... well I think it's obvious

[quorceopporce]

Who said I don't enjoy F1?
In fact I can enjoy F1 with what it offers without crying out loud about the lack of show like others do!
I always watch the races to the end and I don't feel bored after my fave is out of the race as there is still plenty to see.

Where did I say that you didn't enjoy F1? I merely stated that, personally, I find the way in which you like the sport to be completely at odds with anything that I think could possibly generate any sort of emotion.

For me, the greatest moments of F1 are those that make the spine tingle with excitement. Have a look at this old (edited — it's considerably shortened compared with reality, until the last bit) clip of the 1967 Italian GP, one of the most memorable finishes of all time — http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ. This is what I mean. I don't care about the technological advances of the time contained in the Honda and Brabham that contested the lead around the last corner. Such as the finish of the 1969 Italian GP, the Villeneuve/Arnoux battle at Dijon in 1979, and the whole of the thrilling Australian GP in 1986, Monaco GP in 1996, British GP in 2003 or Japanese GP in 2005, generate the same feeling of excitement in me.

I too watch every race if I'm not away from a TV, and never give up if it's dull. As Denis Jenkinson once wrote, you have to watch every race, because while not every race can be great, if you don't watch them all you will miss the great ones. However, I'd be lying if I said I got any great satisfaction from a dull parade of technologically advanced cars.

[Stoottnoiciek]

Wish I could find the classic photos of Fangio, Amon, and Peterson four-wheel-drifting their (very quick) way around Awesome skill. Awesome to see.

Very much so. So it wasn't as fast as F1 is now. It totally misses the point to focus on technology and speed

[Breilopmil]

Thus illustrating the pontlessness of the Veyron. Sure it's an engineering marvel but how many times have you walked past a nice building and said "Phwoar look at the engineering on that!"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Form and function is what it's all about and the Veyron ticks neither of those boxes when you consider how ugly it is and how much power it needs to do what it does.

spot on. I remember seeing a couple of parade laps at Brands a while ago by a Veyron, an Enzo and an F40. The F40 easily looked and sounded the most special of the 3, followed by the Enzo. The Veyron just looked like, well, what you'd get if you spent a million Euros on an Audi.

[quorceopporce]

Not really.
I enjoy the competition, but I don't think there is need for show in order to have a competition.

Do you think that competition and sport are about achievements (this is my view) or about show (Daniel's and apparently your view too)?!

The use of this word 'show' is a modern thing, and I dislike it. It implies that it is something that can be put on or contrived rather than something that just happens. There is a big difference. To me, though, a dull F1 race (let's not forget here that there have always been many such things) is naturally less memorable and notable than one in which there is a great deal of excitement.

Sport is often dull, let's face it. But it's the chance of seeing something exciting or exceptional (and 'exceptional' can include achievements, of course) that keeps me watching, apart from my natural enthusiasm for the sports I watch, which is what keeps me going through the dull bits.

I doubt we could have motorsports without technology and money. No money = no technology = no motors = no motorsport.

Of course.

My answer to this somewhat exaggerating question is YES, I would find it interesting because technology is why I watch F1.

As I said before, that is a very joyless interpretation of F1 'enthusiasm'.

[Indessasp]

Do you think that competition and sport are about achievements (this is my view) or about show (Daniel's and apparently your view too)?!

I don't think it has to be one or the other. It can be both.

Gilles Villeneuve once said: "I love motor racing. To me it's a sport, not a technical exercise. My ideal Formula One car would be something like a McLaren M23 with a big normally aspirated engine, 800 hp, 21 inch rear tyres. A lot of people say we should have narrower tires, but I don't agree because you need big tyres to slow you down when you spin. And you need a lot of horsepower to unstick big tyres, to make the cars slide. That would be a bloody fantastic spectacle, I can tell you. We would take corners one gear lower than we do now, and get the cars sideways. You know, people still rave about Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 72, and I understand that. I agree with them. That's the kind of entertainment I want to give the crowds. Smoke the tyres ! Yeah !

I [care about the fans], because I used to be one of them ! I believe the crowd is really losing out at the moment, and that's bad." I think we're still losing out today (more than 25yrs later) because we cannot see the drivers express their skills.

[quorceopporce]

As a bit of an aside to all this, I have recently become rather interested in robot football. It is a truly fascinating and incredible technological exercise, and thus very impressive to watch in its own way. But as a substitute for 'real' football? No thanks. There is a parallel here with interpretations of what makes F1 special to people.

[Stoottnoiciek]

As a bit of an aside to all this, I have recently become rather interested in robot football. It is a truly fascinating and incredible technological exercise, and thus very impressive to watch in its own way. But as a substitute for 'real' football? No thanks. There is a parallel here with interpretations of what makes F1 special to people.

Real football is exciting?

[quorceopporce]

Real football is exciting?

Some would, and do, say the same about F1.

[Immampdah]

Where did I say that you didn't enjoy F1?

Here:

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.