Formula 1

guyfo

ELM327 wrote: »

At least it was senna vs prost.
Not senna vs no one. Like hamilton has had. Repeatedly.

Can't argue with that all right, but I was talking about the domination of a team, and that level of performance was mind boggling. Put Max or Russell in the car beside Hamilton and we could easily have one of those seasons again, just like 2016.

guyfo

Wibbs wrote: »

I suspect - and granted this may be an oddball angle from me here - that part of the lack of wider interest in motorsport compared to the past is that people, let's be honest mostly men, are less directly involved with their personal cars. When cars required more hands on attention from the average owner of a weekend so they'd be capable of bringing you to work of a Monday there was more interest in cars in general and motorsport in particular. These days the average person wouldn't ever need to open the bonnet and if anything does go wrong it's the dealer who sorts that stuff out.

Nail on the head there on that one, the amount of younger people interested in cars/motorsport in general now is a fraction of what it used to be, and Bernie only caring about rolexes and TV coverage in the age of social media certainly didn't help. I see a change recently under liberty media, time will tell.

El_Duderino 09

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think, like soccer, the more technical it got, the less entertaining to the general fans. The "real" F1 fans will debate millisecond time increases due to efficiency in modern engines with modern tyres, etc, etc. Most general consumers don't care about that, they want to see head to head battles, overtaking, close calls, crashes. It's all gone very safe (probably rightly so too) but I think that takes some of the thrill out of it. I used to watch a good bit in the late 90s, and watching some modern races, they barely overtake anymore. The sense of danger is gone, and that's part of the thrill of F1 for me, like basically any rally stage, the unknown of what could happen, the close calls or last millisecond saves.

I'm sure someone can come along and explain why there's less overtaking, most likely due to the technological marvels that are the cars these days. But it's like watching soccer, very few games are actually entertaining. And the players, or in F1 case, drivers, it's nearly more about them than the event. Maybe some day the danger will come back, and we'll slowly move towards a Death Race scenario. I'd pay money to see that!

The overtaking is a red herring. They overtake more in the last few years than any time in the last 40 years. The 90s was a low point though. If you watch a highlight reel of the 80's you might get the impression they were the glory days, but that's the point of a highlights clip.

https://imgur.com/jk1hmZq

The fact that it's not on free to air and the fact that everyone else isn't watching it and talking about it is the main reason it's fallen out of popular culture. I think soccer is a great example. Most people who follow soccer, follow it as a soap opera rather than being hardcore fans of the sport itself. It's great for us vs them, it has highlights shows, column inches and people discuss it as if they actually understand the sport. It provides a little community with a common interest. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with people who don't really have a clue about sport having strong opinions on the technicalities - it's just sport, it's not real life. But i doubt half as many people would watch football if they had to watch it on their own and had nobody to talk to about it.

The 90s were great as an Irish F1 fan. Jordan and Eddie Irvine were involved, it was free on RTE, it had column inches sand news coverage so everyone had an idea about what was going on and it was easy to chat about it. The lads would chat about it in school or work on Monday. F1 has become a solitary sport and you rarely have anyone to talk with about it. I'm lucky because we have a group of 4 who meet up to watch the races together in one of the lads houses, bring a couple of cans and a frozen pizza - nice Sunday afternoon with the lads watching the F1 (pre covid, obvs). We also go to a race once a year if we can organise it. If you have a community to watch it with then it becomes much more interesting again.

Timberrrrrrrr

Not sure if this jhas been mentioned yet, I haven't watched much F1 myself over the last few years but got into the Netflix program drive to survive which takes you more behind the scenes and is not just about the drivers, really funny and informative. A good watch for fans even if you dont watch as much anymore.

guyfo

guyfo wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where they changed aero regs in 2017 and 2021? That's a shake up of regs after every 3rd season....

I didn't say DAS was a gamechanger, but it was a rule change that only affected Merc, that coupled with the aero changes and it seems to have closed things up this season.

It's been small changes though, especially for this season. There's been one "big" revision in 7 years and it wasn't massive. The engine regs being stable is one thing but it used to be that engine rules would come in, one manufacturer would be better and the other would catch up over a couple of years.

Either way the FIA havent just kept the same rules for years on end, they have tried to change things around just like they did with Ferrari. Mercedes have just plain out performed the other teams every time the rules were shaken up since 2013, hopefully that will have changed this year.

In the past they'd change the tyres completely. Either go to slicks. Or to grooved tyres. Or make them have to last the whole race. Or reduce wing width by 20/30%. Or increase it.

KungPao

A peeve of mine is commentators and fans calling the drivers by their first name like they are our pals. Seems a fairly recent thing. “Max is a tenth behind Lewis. Valtteri won’t be happy with his position. Seb and Kimi are **** these days” etc.

In my day it was Schumacher, Senna, Hakkinen, Irvine. Or full names of course.

I don’t remember Murray Walker ever saying “look at that! Oh my word! Ayrton and Alain have crashed!”

meeeeh

KungPao wrote: »

A peeve of mine is commentators and fans calling the drivers by their first name like they are our pals. Seems a fairly recent thing. “Max is a tenth behind Lewis. Valtteri won’t be happy with his position. Seb and Kimi are **** these days” etc.

In my day it was Schumacher, Senna, Hakkinen, Irvine. Or full names of course.

I don’t remember Murray Walker ever saying “look at that! Oh my word! Ayrton and Alain have crashed!”

I think it's more laziness. Drivers whose surnames are easier to type or say addressed by their name and those whose names are easier are addressed by their name.

Anyway I didn't mean that 2009 was particularly great for racing, it was just boners with Honda exiting the sport, Ross Brown scrambling to et the money together to take over the team and then winning the championship.

BrianD3

Much more overtaking and closer racing than there used to be, the teams at the back are also much more professional and closer to those at the front than in the 80s and 90s. However they rarely score points as the cars are so reliable. As is the case with most sports, it is slicker, more corporate, more homogenised and more sanitised than it used to be. There is also IMO a bigger gulf between it and "grassroots" motorsport than ever.

Back in say 1989-1992 the cars looked and sounded very different to each other and there was a huge number of teams (many of them no hopers, more like a cottage industry) compared to today. V8s, V10s, V12s. Many engine manufacturers. Murray Walker and James Hunt commentary. Classic tracks like Imola and Hockenheim. At the time it was considered to be a relatively safe sport and considerably more so than it had been even 10 years previously so maybe there were complaints about it being sanitised at that time, i can't remember. There were definitely a lot of complaints about lack of overtaking.

If Senna was in F1 today and did what he did at the 1990 Japanese GP, he'd probably be banned for many races if not for life! As it was, he wasn't sanctioned at all.

I think Senna's death in 1994 and the publicity associated with it actually gave the sport a boost in popularity for a while at least.

I agree with the points about it not being on FTA TV - imagine if we had today's HD TV and slick production combined with FTA and V10 engines! I also agree with Wibbs' point about young lads not being as interested in cars as young lads of the past. Things are different now, so many other distractions.

megaten

Actually started watching races last year after watching Drive to Survive during the first lockdown. Not from much of a sporting family so never really had a 'in' to following any sports. I found the series to be a good primer for the key players and the general dynamics between teams and the amount of people involved is low enough that its fairly easy to keep track of everyone important.

Hyperbollix

For me personally it fell into the same trap as premier league football. No characters, no blood and thunder competition, too sanitized, too corporate.

In the past they seemed to be sportsmen first, corporate billboards and yesmen second. Or in many cases, only the former and not the latter.

I'm in no way someone who wants or needs to see legs getting broken on a pitch or F1 cars hitting walls at 180mph. But in both sports, all the thrill, spontaneity and danger has been wiped away, partly in the name of safety and mainly in the name of good business practice.

KungPao

meeeeh wrote: »

I think it's more laziness. Drivers whose surnames are easier to type or say addressed by their name and those whose names are easier are addressed by their name...

I blame Martin (Martin Brundle). I seem to remember him calling Schumacher “Michael” and Button “Jenson” when he started commentating.
Before that, I never heard of simply Jos, Mika, Olivier, Jacques, Juan Pablo. They had their surnames mentioned.

El_Duderino 09

KungPao wrote: »

I blame Martin (Martin Brundle). I seem to remember him calling Schumacher “Michael” and Button “Jenson” when he started commentating.
Before that, I never heard of simply Jos, Mika, Olivier, Jacques, Juan Pablo. They had their surnames mentioned.

What’s the issue with this? I don’t get why someone would get cross about them using first or second names.

KungPao

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What’s the issue with this? I don’t get why someone would get cross about them using first or second names.

It’s a huge issue for me, El. You wouldn’t believe the anguish it has caused me.

Just a minor F1 annoyance for me, no big deal. Like when each driver says “for sure” in every sentence. Stop!

i57dwun4yb1pt8

it went to sh1te after schumacher / hill / villeneuve era.

i still watch Bormula 1 , its looking better this year , but the satellite monoply hasnt done it any favours

indycar is far more exciting , but hard to get to see.

still- i will plow on ...f*ck all else to watch .

THE NETFLIX series on the inside is very good though .

mikhail

I can't understand how they build all these new tracks and they're perfectly homogenous. Make the damned things different enough that no one car is best across the whole season. They used to talk about tracks where power or aero were more important for performance, but now Hamilton wins anyway. Even in the rain, they all seem to perform exactly the same. Maybe the standard of driver has just saturated with them training from younger and younger.

For me, the loss of free to air coverage snipped most of my remaining attachment to the sport.

I used to have a sense of the personalities; less so with the younger drivers. Someone mentioned the Netflix show; that'd be interesting if I could see the races. The only one I enjoyed watching in recent years was Alonso dragging that dog of a Ferrari within a ass's roar of winning anything.

Hamilton's dominance started off the back of Maclaren's dominance, which seemed to begin with them stealing a load of IP from Ferrari at the cost of a small fine. That stuck in my craw. I've never warmed to him.

KungPao

I do think the Jordan and Minardi types leaving harmed it. There was something magical almost seeing a Jordan winning a race here and there. I believe it was shoestring stuff compared to the big boys then. Jordan were a bit rock and roll, anything can happen. Now it’s all so corporate.

I wonder if the tobacco companies leaving is what finished off Jordan? They needed that big investment of questionable money to compete. Little stickers for Bridgestone or some tech company no one ever heard of won’t pay the big bills.

The One Doctor

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear a few general opinions on this, which is why I'm posting here, because I was just pondering it earlier. Is F1 really the global juggernaut we're led to believe it is? I used to follow it in passing until Jordan sold, and after that up until about 09 when Alonso started getting the better of Schumacher. Some great races, as there was with Schumacher and Hakkinen and many before that. But it's a bore since.

I genuinely don't know one other person who follows it, not anymore anyway, despite the fact it gets moderate media attention, even here. I've heard experts say it used to be about 60% car/40% driver and then in the 90's/00's maybe 80% car/20% driver skill. I'd reckon now it's 97% car/3 % driver now. What really is the point of the sport anymore when the driver has so little influence? Maybe I'm just ignorant on the nuances, but the whole f1 season seem's rubbish now.

From what I'm led to believe, the Williams Senna put on poll in the 94 San Marino grand prix that he died in, was quite poor, but it was driver skill that got him that top spot. You just wouldn't see that now. So I don't know about anyone else, but I think the sport has become a bore and an absolute waste of time. It wasn't always been but has become so over time. No driver skill being the difference anymore. I'd be interested to hear how others view the sport?

It's like all other elite sports, the best people are picked and they are psychologically and physically prepared very, very carefully. Nothing is left to chance and all their equipment is perfect.

Personality doesn't come into it, the competitors are essentially biological robots picked for one purpose. That's why it's bland, boring and uninspiring on TV.

If you've ever raced on a gokart track, you'll know how fun (and hard) it is to actually do.

Wanderer78

Khari Rancid Syntax wrote:

indycar is far more exciting , but hard to get to see.

Surely there's plenty of American broadcasters showing it?

dmakc

Passive interest these days. Used to be into it more late 90's / early 00's.

Main gripes are the Hamilton dominance these years (I get it happens in many eras but I also don't like him as a person), Tilke designed tracks and farcical double points for Abu Dhabi.

There's no way one track should ever be worth double of another. I get money talks, and it's purpose to prolong the chance of the final race being important, but I'm not having it in Abu Dhabi where it doesn't even rain.

blue note

Drive to survive is great and as a result I'll be watching my first race in years next weekend.

I used to watch the odd race when it was free to air. More so when I was in secondary school which would have been Schumachers heyday.

The op has a point though that the driver is only really so relevant. There are 20 drivers, but it's not the case that 20 guys can win the championship. At the moment, Hamilton is only competing with his teammate on an equal footing and the red bull lads who are probably at a disadvantage. But that said, there are 20 teams in the Premier league and they're not all on an equal footing. You can rule out 15 with absolute confidence before a ball is kicked. And realistically this year, there were only two champions who were at all likely.

dmakc

The improved reliability of the cars (in a selfish way) also detracts from it for me

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Surely there's plenty of American broadcasters showing it?

Not easy to get those channels here legit though.
Had the same battle myself when Fox News got pulled from the sky epg

Zaph

mikhail wrote: »

I can't understand how they build all these new tracks and they're perfectly homogenous. Make the damned things different enough that no one car is best across the whole season. They used to talk about tracks where power or aero were more important for performance, but now Hamilton wins anyway. Even in the rain, they all seem to perform exactly the same. Maybe the standard of driver has just saturated with them training from younger and younger.

That's easily explained, all the newer tracks are designed by the same guy, Hermann Tilke. He's responsible for Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Austin, Sochi and more. He even designed the street circuits in Baku, Hanoi and Jeddah. The latter two have yet to be used, but from what I've seen of them they're completely uninspiring. They really need to get rid of him and get a new track designer, or better still, a group of different designers who would all have their own ideas.

KungPao wrote: »

I do think the Jordan and Minardi types leaving harmed it. There was something magical almost seeing a Jordan winning a race here and there. I believe it was shoestring stuff compared to the big boys then. Jordan were a bit rock and roll, anything can happen. Now it’s all so corporate.

Technically both are still there, Jordan is now Aston Martin and Minardi is Alpha Tauri. But I get your point, they're both much better financed and slicker operations than Jordan or Minardi could ever have dreamed to be, and the sport has lost a bit of the romance and fun from not having privateers like them any more. There was a time in the 80s and 90s when you had a load of teams appearing for a season or two and failing, spectacularly so in some cases. There were so many cars entered some seasons that there was pre-qualifying just to see who could make it into the qualifying session proper, and even then they weren't guaranteed a place on the grid. That's never going to happen again, the powers that be have raised the bar for entry so high that pretty much only a works team could ever hope to join the circus. It's a shame really, if nothing else it gave a lot more drivers a chance to experience motor sport at the highest level and possibly get a drive at a bigger team. Now they're all being groomed through academies from their early teens, and very often being discarded almost as quickly as they arrive if they don't perform.

KungPao

dmakc wrote: »

Passive interest these days. Used to be into it more late 90's / early 00's.

Main gripes are the Hamilton dominance these years (I get it happens in many eras but I also don't like him as a person), Tilke designed tracks and farcical double points for Abu Dhabi.

There's no way one track should ever be worth double of another. I get money talks, and it's purpose to prolong the chance of the final race being important, but I'm not having it in Abu Dhabi where it doesn't even rain.

The day they bin Interlagos and Spa for some more Tilke bores in some more oil-rich **** holes, will be the end of F1.

I don’t how close it really was, but they could have binned the GB GP imagine that, like signing your own death warrant.
Also, bring back Hockenheim (the real one).

Tilke out.

Zaph

KungPao wrote: »

The day they bin Interlagos and Spa for some more Tilke bores in some more oil-rich **** holes, will be the end of F1.

I don’t how close it really was, but they could have binned the GB GP imagine that, like signing your own death warrant.
Also, bring back Hockenheim (the real one).

Tilke out.

If Interlagos, and particularly Spa went, I think that would be it for me, and I've been watching continuously for 40 years. And I agree, the old Hockenheim was a thing of beauty as the cars went out into the forest. Never been the same since they sanitised it.

KungPao

Zaph wrote: »

If Interlagos, and particularly Spa went, I think that would be it for me, and I've been watching continuously for 40 years. And I agree, the old Hockenheim was a thing of beauty as the cars went out into the forest. Never been the same since they sanitised it.

I remember driving around the old Hockenheim (on the PlayStation 1!), some track. So unique. Car ripping through the forest, lowest wings possible, then tip toeing around the stadium section because so little down force, then blast out into the the forest again.
Great to watch in a real GP, and a great test for the engine’s reliability!
Really miss that track. I’d even have Indianapolis back just for the novelty factor...something different.

ErnestBorgnine

Like many i used to be a big fan but gradually lost interest as it became a bore.

MotoGP leaves it i the ha'penny place over the last 20 years in terms of drama, characters & racing.

meeeeh

Irc Tilke was quite the success when he designed Malaysia which tended to be great race. I'm all for the traditional tracks but some of them don't allow for much overtaking at all. The problem with Tilke tracks is that there are too many of them and they are all on fairly flat areas.

Hamsterchops

Last time I really followed F1 was when the JPS sponsored Lotus team ruled F1 (just a few years ago), I the think they were the 1st manufacturer to introduce the skirt beneath the car body, which helped to suck the car closer to the track as it beat all opposition for a year or two?

Very cool, sexy black colour scheme.

quokula

I don't think the criticism of Tilke is necessarily fair, he's tied by the topography of a given venue and the safety standards modern tracks have to adhere to which can create samey looking tracks. But most non-Tilke tracks still on the calendar are just as boring if not worse - for example the likes of Silverstone, Barcelona or Melbourne rarely produce food races these days. Even Spa rarely produces a good race in the current era without rain being involved.

The main issue is the completely unprecedented dominance of Mercedes for the entirety of the hybrid era, who are a massive corporation who did what massive corporations do and got to the top by outspending the competition and lobbying rule makers to tip the balance their way. F1 has always been an engineering competition, but there is no Mercedes equivalent of the great engineers of old like Chapman, Murray, Byrne or Newey. There is no great Mercedes innovation that can be seen on the car, like great cars of the past. They just spent years perfecting a hybrid engine outside of the sport and lobbied the FIA hard to bring in rules that forced all manufacturers to produce engines matching that spec. This led to heavier, slower, quieter, less exciting cars, and the shell of a sport we've had for a number of years.

There is potential for improvement with new rules and more interesting cars coming in next year (they should have been here already but got delayed), but Mercedes have been ever present lobbying behind the scenes, getting every proposed rule change of the last few years watered down to ensure their dominance isn't broken so time will tell.

What we do appear to have, in Max Verstappen, is one of those once in a generation talents who's been working miracles in the Red Bull and who has begun taking the fight to the Mercedes, and many other exciting new drivers coming up. Netflix' series has shown there are so many great personalities up and down the grid, who Sky tend to completely ignore in their coverage while they deify the personality vacuum driving the Mercedes, so if that stranglehold ever does get broken the sport could have a bright future.

Zaph

meeeeh wrote: »

Irc Tilke was quite the success when he designed Malaysia which tended to be great race. I'm all for the traditional tracks but some of them don't allow for much overtaking at all. The problem with Tilke tracks is that there are too many of them and they are all on fairly flat areas.

Yeah, to be fair, he got it right with Sepang. Not sure why everything else has been so poor in comparison. They're not even nice to look at in many cases, Austin, for example, has enough spare tarmac off the track to land a 747.

meeeeh

Zaph wrote: »

Yeah, to be fair, he got it right with Sepang. Not sure why everything else has been so poor in comparison. They're not even nice to look at in many cases, Austin, for example, has enough spare tarmac off the track to land a 747.

Safety after one of the accidents. I think it was when Schumacher broke his legs. They realised tarmac is way safer than sand at high speed braking so all newer tracks have tarmac run off areas.

Real Life

I grew up in a motorsport mad house. F1, Rally, Bikes etc. I still love motorsports but more than ever now its really become a very rich persons sport.

Its all about who can bring in the most money and sponsorships into the teams now.

A lot of people seem to not like Lewis Hamilton but he's probably one of the only drivers on the grid that got there on pure talent and not the money his father could bring to the team.

mikhail

Zaph wrote: »

That's easily explained, all the newer tracks are designed by the same guy, Hermann Tilke. He's responsible for Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Austin, Sochi and more. He even designed the street circuits in Baku, Hanoi and Jeddah. The latter two have yet to be used, but from what I've seen of them they're completely uninspiring. They really need to get rid of him and get a new track designer, or better still, a group of different designers who would all have their own ideas.

A single designer isn't the problem. The philosophy behind track design has to be that a car that's optimised to win one will be noticeably less competitive in another. He's clearly not thinking like that, and he's reporting to people who don't care.

quokula wrote: »

The main issue is the completely unprecedented dominance of Mercedes for the entirety of the hybrid era, who are a massive corporation who did what massive corporations do and got to the top by outspending the competition and lobbying rule makers to tip the balance their way. F1 has always been an engineering competition, but there is no Mercedes equivalent of the great engineers of old like Chapman, Murray, Byrne or Newey. There is no great Mercedes innovation that can be seen on the car, like great cars of the past. They just spent years perfecting a hybrid engine outside of the sport and lobbied the FIA hard to bring in rules that forced all manufacturers to produce engines matching that spec. This led to heavier, slower, quieter, less exciting cars, and the shell of a sport we've had for a number of years.

Speaking of which, Newey's autobiography is worth a read. He admits towards the end of it that he finds the modern design challenges in F1 boring. There's too little scope for creativity.

Zaph

meeeeh wrote: »

Safety after one of the accidents. I think it was when Schumacher broke his legs. They realised tarmac is way safer than sand at high speed braking so all newer tracks have tarmac run off areas.

Yeah, the cars can be controlled if a driver runs wide on tarmac, whereas they're just a passenger on gravel. But even accepting that the extra tarmac is necessary, it still doesn't explain why Tilke designs such boring bloody tracks. He's a blight on the sport but unfortunately the nature of racing circuits is that they're around for a very long time, so we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

KungPao

I'd say when local tarmac and asphalt companies hear Hermann Tilke is coming to town, they get giddy. They could retire if they get the contract for his next track.


To be more positive, no one can stay at the top forever, some signs that Red Bull could actually challenge this year, with a driver who has something about him. When HAM retires to follow his true passions of **** music and even worse clothing lines, things should open up. Especially if that Wolff dude also heads for pastures new. Would love if Mercedes pulled out, sick of them!

Fr Tod Umptious

Like many here I started watching F1 when the Jordan cars arrived.

I watched it for a few years but then got bored.
I have gone to a few GP and really enjoyed them though, the sound and the speed are just breathtaking.

But what I'm reading here is exactly what I heard back in the days when Williams and Mansell were dominating.
"It's not what it used to be"
"The cars are too good"
"It's a procession"

One thing I don't get is people supporting certain F1 teams, and people do.
How can people get passionate about an engineering company ?

greenspurs

Real Life wrote: »

Its all about who can bring in the most money and sponsorships into the teams now.

A lot of people seem to not like Lewis Hamilton but he's probably one of the only drivers on the grid that got there on pure talent and not the money his father could bring to the team.

I dont really like him at all , but he is a racer!.
As you say the like of Mazepin and Stroll only there due to daddys money, and have probably the least skill on the grid.

#ABM Anyone But Mercedes .

comedown

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear a few general opinions on this, which is why I'm posting here, because I was just pondering it earlier. Is F1 really the global juggernaut we're led to believe it is? I used to follow it in passing until Jordan sold, and after that up until about 09 when Alonso started getting the better of Schumacher. Some great races, as there was with Schumacher and Hakkinen and many before that. But it's a bore since.

I genuinely don't know one other person who follows it, not anymore anyway, despite the fact it gets moderate media attention, even here. I've heard experts say it used to be about 60% car/40% driver and then in the 90's/00's maybe 80% car/20% driver skill. I'd reckon now it's 97% car/3 % driver now. What really is the point of the sport anymore when the driver has so little influence? Maybe I'm just ignorant on the nuances, but the whole f1 season seem's rubbish now.

From what I'm led to believe, the Williams Senna put on poll in the 94 San Marino grand prix that he died in, was quite poor, but it was driver skill that got him that top spot. You just wouldn't see that now. So I don't know about anyone else, but I think the sport has become a bore and an absolute waste of time. It wasn't always been but has become so over time. No driver skill being the difference anymore. I'd be interested to hear how others view the sport?

It's bigger than ever these days, though its popularity in ireland doesn't seem to have recovered. Liberty Media's takeover a few years ago has seen a massive push towards social media content/fan interaction etc. The Netflix series has drawn massive numbers of new American fans.
If you're looking to get back into it, you couldn't do better than the season that's just started. Verstappen actually has a car worthy of challenging for the title. First time in years Hamilton will be racing someone other than his (average) teammate.

Montage of Feck

Sadly real Motorsport is dead, well on four wheels anyway.

paw patrol

dulpit wrote: »

Hamilton being an extremely unlikeable champion doesn't help, but the netflix series has helped big up the other drivers... I just finished the latest series, and it prompted me to start playing the f1 2020 game which I wouldn't have done otherwise.

you're not that lad from the whatsapp videos circulating?
Please say you are :pac:

meeeeh

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

One thing I don't get is people supporting certain F1 teams, and people do.
How can people get passionate about an engineering company ?

You mean how can people get passionate about someone like Ferrari?

I can be both, driver and manufacturer supporter. This year I'm a lot cooler towards Ferrari because I didn't think they treated Vettel very well last year and because I can't stand Sainz (no rational reason, I just don't like him). In general I'm always happy to cheer some back marker team to succeed as long as they are not McLaren.

Muahahaha

Like most others here I used to be a big fan but the end of FTA means I only watch race highlights on Channel 4 and some weeks Id miss even that. It has become too sanitised and the dominace of Hamilton hasnt helped either. Will try to watch more of it this season as it sounds like Verstappan finally might challenge so that would at least make it more interesting.

Agree about all the Arab circuits looking samey samey, I wish they had tried for more street circuits in a big city but money talks. Im still on the fence with the whole DRS thing, it almost seems like cheating to slow one car down to give another an advantage, its just not cricket.

Santan

I remember a short documentary about tilke, I think it was when the new USA track came in, basically him and one of his workers were interviewed and was asked about the hatred for his new tracks, and both said in separate interviews that they are given very strict rules from the fia about how many corners they want, min distance long of a straight, exactly how much run off space is minimum allowed etc etc. The worker I think said there was more leeway on the VIP paddocks than what they could do on track. I blamed him for these tracks as I just followed the crowd, but in that interview when he said about his involvement "please don't shoot the messengers "

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

You mean how can people get passionate about someone like Ferrari?

I can be both, driver and manufacturer supporter. This year I'm a lot cooler towards Ferrari because I didn't think they treated Vettel very well last year and because I can't stand Sainz (no rational reason, I just don't like him). In general I'm always happy to cheer some back marker team to succeed as long as they are not McLaren.

I can't get passionate about teams. But I'd support anyone who can upset the dominance of Mercedes and Hamilton.

Ferrari has to be the worst value for money team.on the grid. Its much easier to support a low budget team like Jordan and Dauber were back in the day. Now those two teams have been rebranded as Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo even though those car companies have nothing to do with the teams. They just bought the advertising space on the team name. That's pretty soulless and not something that I could get behind. Similar to supporting Beko fridges.

meeeeh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can't get passionate about teams. But I'd support anyone who can upset the dominance of Mercedes and Hamilton.

Ferrari has to be the worst value for money team.on the grid. Its much easier to support a low budget team like Jordan and Dauber were back in the day. Now those two teams have been rebranded as Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo even though those car companies have nothing to do with the teams. They just bought the advertising space on the team name. That's pretty soulless and not something that I could get behind. Similar to supporting Beko fridges.

No it's not. Unlike Ferrari Jordan never manufactured their own engines, Ferrari is a proper manufacturer team. A bit prone to cutting corners, self combusting and possibly cheating but if they left the F1's attraction would be diminished.

I'm not Irish, I wasn't even in Ireland when Jordan was successful and while I liked the team they are not much different to Red Bull from a perspective of someone with no Irish connection.

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's not. Unlike Ferrari Jordan never manufactured their own engines, Ferrari is a proper manufacturer team. A bit prone to cutting corners, self combusting and possibly cheating but if they left the F1's attraction would diminished.

I'm not Irish, I wasn't even in Ireland when Jordan was successful and while I liked the team they are not much different to Red Bull from a perspective of someone with no Irish connection.

Red bull has a huge budget and Jordan was always punching above its weight on a shoestring. Ferrari has always had the biggest budget, gets help from the governing body, gets money off the top before the pot is divided out amongst the teams and still manages to be only above average. Apart from a period in the 50s where they bought another team with the best car and the 2000s where they were actually excellent and well run, they’ve been a bit of a disaster. Proper underachievers.

I know the general public likes Ferrari the most and if someone only knows one team, it’s most likely Ferrari. Similar to Man Utd in football.

F1 is beholden to them because of their recognisability but they're a bad influence. They have a veto on the rules. So f1 can't make serious rule changes without making a concession to Ferrari that helps them out. That's not right.

eviltimeban

greenspurs wrote: »

I dont really like him at all , but he is a racer!.
As you say the like of Mazepin and Stroll only there due to daddys money, and have probably the least skill on the grid.

#ABM Anyone But Mercedes .

Disagree about Stroll. He's proven to be a decent racer.

And all the drivers are there due to *someone's* money.

El_Duderino 09

eviltimeban wrote: »

Disagree about Stroll. He's proven to be a decent racer.

And all the drivers are there due to *someone's* money.

He's a decent racer in the sense that he'd be miles better than you and me. But in f1 terms he's below average.

He has developed a lot since he arrived first. Any other driver with his level of performance would have been dropped in his first year. But his money and his dad owning the team means he has had years to develop into a below average to average driver.

meeeeh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Red bull has a huge budget and Jordan was always punching above its weight on a shoestring.

I know the general public likes Ferrari the most and if someone only knows one team, it’s most likely Ferrari. Similar to Man Utd in football.

I'm watching F1 since I was 10 (43 now), I've been to races and I only became Ferrari fan when MS moved there. I was Schumacher fan since 92 or so (when Prost had his sabbatical year and I didn't like Senna). It's easier to support the team that survives more than 10 years in F1 and I stuck with Ferrari because I didn't like any other driver enough since MS retired. The plastic fan insinuation is a bit insulting.

There is a bit more to it than being Man U fan (and there is nothing wrong with that either) because there are only 10 or so teams and 20 or drivers to pick from.