I dont like F1 anymore

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianCNorton
  • 35 comments
  • 1,294 views
B

BrianCNorton

Messages
452
I decided that I dont like F1 anymore. Sure the cars are cool, but thats where the coolness ends. Maybe I am just getting older, but there are things I value more than high tech cars these days. First and foremost is entertainment value. The production value of F1 races on speedvision is lame in contrast to NASCAR on FOX or NBC. American networks understand that people have short attention spans, and so they constantly have something for you to look at, and the announcers dont sound like they would rather be a a soccer game with a bored english accent. This is fixable if some network would pick up the races, and I am suprised that FOX didnt do much to improve them on speedvision.

My second problem is the same problem I have with Lemans races, and WRC. All the cars are different, so what is happening is that the winner of the race isnt the best driver nesecerilly, but the best driver in the best car. I know that variety is the spice of life and all, but the triumviurate of dominant F1 teams (Ferarri, Williams, and Mclaren) makes the race less interesting. If I wanted a six car race I could go watch Gran Turismo. You could ask "who is gonna win the next Lemans Race in LMP900" but people would laugh at you for not knowing that Audi was unopposed. WRC isnt as bad because even winners wreck. What I would really like is an FIA Unlimited road race series.

My third problem is the fans. They seem kinda high on themselves. They'll tell you how F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports 5 times in a sentence. (ignoring the real facts of the matter) They seem to develop an attitude that racing IS f1, and that anything else is a joke.

So in summary, F1 no longer excites me like it once did. I'll still watch every sunday, but I think I may go back to CART or dirt tracks or NASCAR or something. I'm kind of disillusioned.
 
A lot of what you say is right Brian. I can't comment on the quality of coverage you get in the US. But if you're picking up the ITV feed with Jim Rosenthal as the anchorman, then I feel your pain. Every other Sunday. If I ever meet him, I will have a word, trust me. I met James Allen (also an ITV commentator), at Silverstone this year, so there's a possibility that I may again, in which case I could bend his ear too!

I also agree about the triumvirate issue - I would like to see the scoring system changed, so that it's more like in CART. Because I feel strongly about this, giles-guthrie.com's '02 Fantasy F1 competition will do precisely this.

Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport? Perhaps the pace of development of the cars would suggest that it is. Or maybe the money that is spent. Or the glamorous people that are hanging on. Or the fact that properly set up, on a road course, an F1 car will annihilate any other form of competition car in lap times. There are A LOT of indicators that F1 is the pinnacle, but the variability of the winner's circle, and the passing on the track show that all is not right in the state of F1. Additionally, this is from someone who has watched NASCAR, and has thus come to appreciate dull lapping!

I've been to four F1 races in the last two years, and am planning on another 2 in '02. Hopefully I'll also get to the CART race at Rockingham in the UK, and Le Mans. Maybe then I'll have a different opinion, but there really is nothing (that can be mentioned here!!!) better than 24 F1 cars all rattling round at vast speeds when seen live. On the telly it's different.

The problem is that people who think that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport tend to be very close to it, and so understand the nuances behind all the lappery. I find watching F1 as being the interesting culmination of the previous two weeks' work done by the teams.

I've kind of lost my thread here, but I guess I wanted to say that no, F1 is not all there is to motor sport. I love WRC, with a passion. I have a keen interest in Le Mans and CART. If it involves engines, it rocks in my book. Follow another series for a while, or chuck yourself into F1, and find out all there is to it. I would recommend ITV-F1.com and Autosport.com as good places to start.

Enjoy '02
 
I am starting to like WRC a lot more these days as well. The coverage is a bit thin on Speedvision, but we get two hours per event. The beauty of WRC and even SCCA Pro Rally is that the cars are REALLY different, but all of them are competitive. The winner is the driver who can drive the best and luck out most consistantly. Plus, 100 mph through the woods is a lot more exciting than 200 mph on the street.
 
Originally posted by BrianCNorton
I am starting to like WRC a lot more these days as well. The coverage is a bit thin on Speedvision, but we get two hours per event. The beauty of WRC and even SCCA Pro Rally is that the cars are REALLY different, but all of them are competitive. The winner is the driver who can drive the best and luck out most consistantly. Plus, 100 mph through the woods is a lot more exciting than 200 mph on the street.
Click to expand...

Well we only get 1.5hrs at the moment, but there's talk f a deal for UK TV to show 1hr per night! Excellent! :cool:
 
in Toronto, we get to watch F1 on 2 channels: Speedvision (American network) and TSN (Canada's Sports Network) and i would have to say that watching it on Speedvision is pretty lame and boring.........i watch on TSN because the announcers are Martin Brundle and James Allen (i think ...he might be the guy in the pits though) .....i find it way more exciting and the picture and sound is even better ........on commercials i flick to Speedvision and immediately feel sorry for it's viewers ....the commentators are all very knowledgeble but something is lacking
 
The F1 coverage is not very good in the US, and I have seen the coverage in England which I find much better. But, it is hard for the guys in the booth to get excited when the action is more like a chess match than an auto race.

I think that many US fans have a hard time accepting that not everyone on the grid has a chance to win. In NASCAR or CART even the slowest car on the grid has a chance. The sun shines on a dog's ass once in a while. However, in F1 for a Prost or a Minardi to win it would take the rest of the cars to fall off the track. Even a skilled driver could not make up the difference between a Minardi and a Ferrari. Its like the outcome is already determined by the budgets of the respective teams and the European race fans expect and accept this. Or it seems that way. I don't want to generalize any race fans, but it is the impression I get. Many US fans would not understand the motivation of Minardi when they just hope to score some points in a whole season. They wonder why do they bother.
 
Originally posted by KC
The F1 coverage is not very good in the US, and I have seen the coverage in England which I find much better. But, it is hard for the guys in the booth to get excited when the action is more like a chess match than an auto race.

I think that many US fans have a hard time accepting that not everyone on the grid has a chance to win. In NASCAR or CART even the slowest car on the grid has a chance. The sun shines on a dog's ass once in a while. However, in F1 for a Prost or a Minardi to win it would take the rest of the cars to fall off the track. Even a skilled driver could not make up the difference between a Minardi and a Ferrari. Its like the outcome is already determined by the budgets of the respective teams and the European race fans expect and accept this. Or it seems that way. I don't want to generalize any race fans, but it is the impression I get. Many US fans would not understand the motivation of Minardi when they just hope to score some points in a whole season. They wonder why do they bother.
Click to expand...

Hiya!

Minardi etc bother because they're not looking for a win, they're looking for a finish. A top 15 qualilfying place would be like pole position for Minardi. Don't forget that these teams are consistant of people, who are massively passionate about the sport and the team and what they can achieve on their budget. It is far more impressive for Minardi to get both cars to the finish than for Ferrari to get both cars on the podium. There's a lot of excitement and intrigue and rivalry further down the grid. :)
 
I understand the intrigue and tradition of the series and I understand why Minardi exist in F1. However, many don't. And I would much rather see 10 cars racing for the lead than wondering what Eddie Irvine is going to say next or if Rubens Barrichello still thinks he is allowed to compete with his illustrious teammate.
 
One of the best things about F1 is the sound of the cars. I do not think that there is any sound on earth that compares to the F1 cars coming through the tunnel at Monaco on the first lap.

Why do I like F1? For one, it is a series that is well-run. You don't see the 80 full-course cautions every race that mar CART and NASCAR (granted, on ovals they're necessary, but the CART race at Laguna Seca last year had about 6 full-course yellows).

I don't have much to make comparisons to, but SV's coverage seems pretty good to me. It's a lot better than ABC's pathetic coverage was.
 
Well I think it definitely is a case of different racing for different fans. I'm sure the NASCAR vs F1 thing has been done to death already but here is my take on it..

I'm not a NASCAR fan, but I can appreciate the level of skill and concentration required to drive those V8 monsters :) I just don't find it very exciting to watch cars going around an oval for X number of laps. But obviously lots of people love it.

F1 is a totally different ball game. To win in F1 you not only need to be good driver but you need to be part of a good team. I believe that F1 has always been this way. They don't handicap the teams in anyway (weight penalties for doing well, etc). That's part of why I like it. I really hate it when teams are handicapped for doing well. If your team is not able to beat another team then you cannot penalise the other team for doing a better job than you or having better drivers or cars. I think a lot of F1 fans appreciate this as being part of the F1 tradition.

Before coming to the States I used to watch the ITV feed (in South Africa) with Murray Wlaker and co. I must say that for me I really enjoy the F1 coverage and commentary on Speedvision. I like the fact that the commentary team are very knowledgable and all have some history in motor racing. Some are ex Le Mans racers, ex F1 insiders, etc. I also like the way in which they commentate, I don't miss the Murray Walker style of commentary one bit.

Le Mans is another big passion of mine. Again a lot of the attraction to Le Mans and any other sportscar racing has to do with the tradition behind the races and/or the cars. Le Mans has always been a case of the teams with the best developed cars are going to be the winners. I think it would be silly to assume otherwise. The teams who can build the right car under the current regulations for their class have always been able to compete for the win. The other trick is to get your car through 24 hours of racing. So that means another style of racing is required, you have to be fast but safe (not banging into other cars or running over the curbs, etc.).

KevinPSX is right though when he says that there is nothing that can compare to the high pitched scream of an F1 engine :)

Ok there I've said what I wanted to say :) Hopefully it wasn't to long and drawn out.
 
Why do I still like F1? The main reason is tradition, I've loved it for the last 20 years or so, and will continue to as long as there are drivers of such a high standard and characters too, like Eddie Irvine, EJ and even Bernie.

I like it because of Minardi too, I long to see them on the podium.

I like it because Murray Walker used to commentate, now alas we have boring James Allen and boring Brundle - damn!
 
Originally posted by Danger Powers
Why do I still like F1? The main reason is tradition, I've loved it for the last 20 years or so, and will continue to as long as there are drivers of such a high standard and characters too, like Eddie Irvine, EJ and even Bernie.

I like it because of Minardi too, I long to see them on the podium.

I like it because Murray Walker used to commentate, now alas we have boring James Allen and boring Brundle - damn!
Click to expand...

You're so right (almost, but we'll come to that!). The characters are great, even the loathsome ones, because they give you something to root for, and NASCAR fans should know all about that. You're displaying the symptoms of being someone who loves F1 because they know about it, rather than being a casual "watch it if there's nothing else" person.

Minardi on the podium? I think I would cry with joy and admiration if that ever happened! :)

James Allen = boring? A little perhaps.
Martin Brundle = boring? Absolutely not! Says what he thinks, which is good.
Jim Rosenthal = boring? No, just pretentious and too self-obsessed to realise that what he thinks is cool, measured delivery, is actually the most annoying thing in the world!
 
I'm less of an obsessive fan nowadays, a few years ago when Grand Prix 2 came out for the PC, I would do the practising, qualifying and racing on the same days as real life ;)

Nowadays I just watch and enjoy. Even though I moved to New Zealand from the UK about 8 months ago, I still watch every race I can - its the ITV coverage or most of it, which I was very relieved about, although it usually takes place at about midnight on a sunday night, I still wouldn't miss it. Off to Melbourne this year too, a race I thought I would never get to see 'live' :) and next year - Melbourne, Malaysia and Japan with any luck...

As for Martin Brundle, perhaps boring was the wrong word, he can at least give the drivers insight to the racing - I just don't think he will ever have Murrays enthusiasm. James Allen is a bit of a plank though.

I long for the days of Murray and James Hunt :D
 
I started watching F1 15 years ago, and I am still fanatical about the sport. I know a lot about the history of Grand Prix racing, which tells you that the sport is always in some sort of flux. This gets banned, that gets banned. The good old days are always relative to the fan's entry into the sport. I no longer stay home to watch each and every F1 race, and if I miss one, I no longer fret about a friend getting a copy. Life goes on...

F1 overbills itself as the pinnacle of motorsport. F1 is really the pinnacle of paved road circuit racing, nothing more or less. Motorcycle racers, oval track racers, rally drivers, drag racers...will tell you otherwise. It is not everyone's dream to drive in the rain at Sepang, scream down the pit lane of Monza at 50mph, learn how to speak multiple languages for the press, or dress yourself up like a package of cigarettes. But to many, it is the ultimate dream.
 
That 2001 race at Sepang was hilarious! There was water everywhere! It looked like it was a foot deep at some places. Then MS went passing Barrichello (and everyone else) in the wet. Great fun, that race. Even though it was on at 3 in the morning.
 
The Commentry:
How true can you be? Speedvision has some of the most knowledgeable commentators anywhere, but they make the races sound soooo boring. I have no option but Speedvision, so I cannot judge anyone feed. But I can compare them to the commentators on ESPN, and FOX Sports and I can tell you that they are boss!

The Competition:
CART has always made for close, competitive racing. It all depends on the team and driver's skill, combined with a little blessing and so does the IRL, NASCAR, Touring Cars, and all the series out there... except for F1. Formula one in the old days was it, money was not as important as skill. As Bobby Rahal said, F1 is a club, and if you're not a part of it, it's best you go home. Formula One, from year to it is between Ferrari and Mc Lauren, and just recently, Williams has re-emerged. Toyata most likeley will survive because they have the money to put up. Minardi will never make it on the podium until the day F1 becomes more fair to those with limited capital or all their opponents drop out. When Jacques and BAR were 3rd last year, i was elated to finally see someone besides Ferrari, Williams or Mc Lauren on the podium. I have to admit, I only watched F1 this year because of J.P. Montoya, and I immediately noticed the hierachy in F1.

Denith, 14, Trinidad
 
hmmm, I must disagree about Minardi. I do believe that within the next 5 years, we will see a Minardi on the podium (probably only once). Arrows also had limited capital, Damon Hill drove for them after his championship year and hit the podium and damn well nearly won a race, oh and the car was a pig. I believe talent still counts for a lot in F1, the big teams nearly always have the best drivers, or if they don't they get them for the following season (McLaren/Raikkonen(sp?)). Eddie Jordan must be so p*ssed off too, whenever he has a good driver, the big 3 eat him up.

So, imagine for a moment, the scenario that by pure luck, Minardi manage to get a very good natural driver. We are at Monaco and the heavens open. Reliability and conditions eat up the big 3, there are 7 finishers and 1 of them is the Minardi with the good driver? Its possible and has happened before. If Minardi actually managed a first place, through luck, I believe it would bring more sponsers to them, giving them more cash to get a better package together. I think Paul Stoddart is a step in the right direction at least :D
 
Sorry for the mispelling...

I already said they might have a chance if their opponents get knocked out.

They should test the "good" drivers from the big teams and put them in a under-funded team. Those drivers were then, this is NOW! that will never happen. A good driver? In a slow car? Doing well!?
 
Well, yeah, given a good driver a Minardi might manage a podium finish. After all, Panis won a few years back with a Ligier (not quite comparable IMO, but not that much better), and JJ Lehto managed to grab third at San Marino 1991 with a Dallara (which oddly enough is his best finish :thatsodd:).
 
Michael Schumacher the best race car driver in the world some say. :sleep:

Well anyone who dominates a racing league as uncompetative as F1 is.... are the greatest driver in the world? Yeah its the fastest cars, the most money, all the big stuff but when you get down to it there is only about 4-5 guys who can put up a 'challenge' to shumacher's Ferrari.

A while back Montoya said, Yeah Michael's a great driver but if he was driving for Minardi he would qualify 20th every time.

This is why I agree F1 is very boring, indeed. The only thing interesting about it is the starts. How many passes are there for position in a race? 2-4 on good weekends
 
Yes, schumacher has always had the best car... how silly of me.

The 1991 Jordan won every race that year, Schumacher was an idiot to only qualify 7th for his first race with no testing, he should have been on pole.

The 1991 - 1993 Benetton's Ford V8 was much, much more powerful than those lousy 10 cylider things Renault and Honda were making do with. That'll be why Schumacher was soundly whipped by all his teammates, especially that triple world champion.

We'll ignore 1994 for a second, too much happened that year to even manage sarcasm, but the B194 isn't considered a great.

The B195, in which he won the championship was so good that when Alesi and Berger drove it at the end of the year they said how good it was as opposed to say, referring to it as "Undriveable".

Ferrari's 1996 and 1997 cars were so utterly dominent only an idiot like Schumacher couldn't have beaten those Newey designed things.

Anyway, I've gone far enough. Yes the F1-2001 and probably the 2000 as well were the best car, but fine, he's earnt it.

--

Anyway back to the point.

As far as I'm concerned too much passing, like a 500miles oval race is far more boring than a race with 2 or 3 proper passes.

"Oh look he's in the lead! Oh look he's 23rd! Who the hell cares, if he's on the lead lap with 3 laps to go he can still win!"
 
Originally posted by Dudley
The 1991 Jordan won every race that year, Schumacher was an idiot to only qualify 7th for his first race with no testing, he should have been on pole.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Dudley, now my learn-at-home degree in Grand Prix Archaeology is useless.

But to put Michael Schumacher in a Minardi, things would get interesting...he'd qualify more than 20th, but it would be hard to score podiums. The best drivers eventually get the better machinery, but I'd say 70-80% of the drivers are worthy of being in F1, and others get left out, or go to greener (drier?) pastures. It's usually the case in any form of motorsport.
 
Well, points would probably even have been out of the question ()(except possibly if he'd finished Brazil last year, he could probably have beaten Fisichella that time)

I honestly believe he wouldn't have been vastly quicker than Alonso, but probably moire consistent.

This is more a measure of how good Alonso is than anything else. Badoer and Gene at least were/are verygood drivers but they didn't do as well even when the Ford ED wasn't quite as old as during 2002.

I believe Alonso would have been better off at Minardi this year but I think he's hoping for a mid-season drive.

--

Anyway, the point is that while Mschu may have the best car now, it wasn't exactly handed to him. He debuted for a team in their first year, did well enough to get a move to Benetton then was brave enough to leave them for a Ferrari team that was in tatters.

It's at least partly to his credit they were eventually pulled round into the force they are today. Certinally Rory Byrne would be retired by now for instance without schu at Ferrari.

--

With a few exceptions, you make your own luck in F1.
 
Actually let me use an analogy while I'm on a roll.

The best "soccer" player in the world isn't going to win a damn thing if he's playing for San Marino. Do you not like football either?

F1 is a team sport, just because all the team aren't on the track doesn't make it any different team wise than Baseball or Basketball.

And don't claim that F1 is alone in the rich ones winning. Are you telling me Manchester United would be winning in 3 years if they suddenly only had a third of the wage budget they currently have.
 
NY Yankees, Chicago Bulls, and Dallas Cowboys anyone?

Never heard anyone whine about over-dominance then...
 
Here is my take on Michael Schumacher. I do think he is the best driver in F1 since Ayrton Senna. I also think that Juan Montoya has the potential to be the next greatest driver. But back to the point. Every great driver has been with a great team. If Schumacher has a flaw is his insistence that he cannot be pressured or competed against by his teammate. He used to use Johnny Herberts and Jos Verstappens telemetry data to compare to his own and they were not allowed to use his when they raced for Bennetton. During his time at Ferrari he has been the Number 1 driver due to his contract not by his driving skill. This guy has mad skills in an F1 car, he does not need to have the team force drivers like Irvine and Barrichello to be subservient to him. I think in his mind he is insecure and he uses his stoic and aloof demeanor to hide behind when he is in front of the press. But behind it all is a guy who feels that his teammate may be able to beat him in equal equipment and he forces the team to insure that he is not threatened. To that end my opinion of him will always be tainted. I also think Mario Andretti was an excellent driver but he did the same thing to Ronnie Peterson when they drove for McLaren and it damages my opion of him as well.
 
Well, if the best soccer player in the world plays for San Marino, I think he'll do okay in league play in Europe for Man U or Real Madrid, etc.
 

Latest Posts

Back