49 replies to this topic

[alpinesmuggler]

I understand the pull of technology, the excitement of getting an aerodynamic algorithm just right, molding the computer model into a front wing bit for that extra microsecond that will put you on pole, save a few grams of fuel a lap, or relieve that little bit of pressure from your left front tire in a corner or two.

 

It is fascinating stuff. It truly is.

 

And yet, as a fan weathering this off-season, I find myself watching men rather than machines race. When I do a search on Youtube, it most likely involves a driver's name, rather than that of a team or particular machinery. I like interviews, I like biopics, I like characters, I like duels, I like qualifying laps in the old standard.

 

There's a countless number of plug and play math degree engineers, but there's only a couple dozen drivers who actually get to race. As a fan, these few brave guys are the ones I'm cheering for, not the nerds back in the shed. Just as in other sports, while I do respect the coach, I cheer for the players.

 

Would you be an F1 fan if it weren't for a driver who caught your eye when you started watching? Personally, I know I wouldn't be.

Edited by alpinesmuggler, 06 January 2014 - 21:07.

[chdphd]

I follow lots of drivers. I like the racing and the driving challenges of the different circuits.

[Atreiu]

It hasn't been for a while. It was more like a motorized competition which I had great interest in.

Maybe it'll get better now.

[HaydenFan]

Not anymore. I honestly don't think it has been since the late 80's with Senna and Mansell. When the driver became the star is when the car stepped back in importance. At least to the fans. Especially in the 50's and 60's, you could stick anyone in a Lotus, or a Ferrari, or Alfa and expect good results. The brands where the stars. 

[sennafan24]

 

Would you be an F1 fan if it weren't for a driver who caught your eye when you started watching? Personally, I know I wouldn't be.

In short no, I love the sport and do have a preference for certain teams I.E Ferrari and Williams.

 

However, it will always be the drivers that draw my interest, and who provoke the an emotional response from. I think most fans would agree that they care more about the drivers Championship than the Constructors.

 

I can appreciate the great cars, the turbo monster that was McLaren Honda of 1988, the beasty Williams cars of the 90's, and the dominant RB cars of the past 4 years, but there is more feelings and meanings for myself in romanticizing about great drivers than the actual cars. When I think back to my favorite moments in F1, like Senna's drive at Brazil 1991 or Lewis's Canada 2012 drive, I barely consider what car they were in, I just remember how well they performed.

 

Remember just my opinion, other people will express different meanings I am sure.

[alpinesmuggler]

[...]

However, it will always be the drivers that draw my interest, and who provoke the an emotional response from. I think most fans would agree that they care more about the drivers Championship than the Constructors.

 

I can appreciate the great cars, the turbo monster that was McLaren Honda of 1988, the beasty Williams cars of the 90's, and the dominant RB cars of the past 4 years, but there is more feelings and meanings for myself in romanticizing about great drivers than the actual cars. When I think back to my favorite moments in F1, like Senna's drive at Brazil 1991 or Lewis's Canada 2012 drive, I barely consider what car they were in, I just remember how well they performed.

You really got my vibe. Thanks man.

 

We can be fans of teams (full disclosure: McLaren fan here), and as F1 nerds we sure love ourselves a dominant car and the engineering effort that goes into it, but I'll be damned if I could give a rat's ass about what car Seb or Lewis or Nando were driving in one of their dominant performances. Same goes for Senna at Donington '93, Villeneuve and Arnoux at Dijon '79. Regazzoni at Kyalami '80. The drivers provide the emotional connection to the sport. These guys simply do things that we cannot do as mere track day enthusiasts.

 

As you said, the romanticism of F1 is in the great racers.

[Anderis]

For me F1 is mostly about teams, although I admit I would likely not be here if not Kubica. But my views on F1 evolved massively since I watched my first F1 race. A great team will do better without a great driver behind the wheel than the great driver would do if he isn't in a great team. While people tend to feel emotionally attached to drivers, teams are what makes F1 what it is. Drivers are only a little part of it, so the team is always greater than the driver in my view. Every driver will eventually leave F1, some teams will hopefully stay here forever.

 

Neither of drivers I'll ever love as much as I love Williams and neither of drivers I'll ever hate as much as I hate Ferrari. No matter which drivers are driving for them at any time.

 

But I don't care much about cars in themselves. It makes little difference for me if it is FW31, FW35, FW38 etc. What is important is which team engineered and ran that car and with what results.

Edited by Anderis, 06 January 2014 - 23:23.

[sennafan24]

While people tend to feel emotionally attached to drivers, teams are what makes F1 what it is. Drivers are only a little part of it, so the team is always greater than the driver in my view. Every driver will eventually leave F1, some teams will hopefully stay here forever.

 

 

I can agree from a sport point of you, the driver is just one role in a team sport. But from a attraction and interest point of view, the driver is the main drawing card most of the time. 

 

If you scour the TV ratings thread, you will see a trend in that when Lewis emerged in around 2007, the ratings went up in the United Kingdom, and  the success of Button in 2009 and the Lewis/Button partnership, ratings stayed higher than pre 2007. It was the drivers who made the difference.

 

However, if I be balanced. In Italy I would presume it is more the team than driver, with how rabid the Ferrari fans are. So it depends on culture, in Brazil, again it is more driver based, with Senna being a national hero (the car he was driving was not the attraction, he was). Germany I am not sure, they do have Mercedes as their national team, but I could see Schumi and Sebastian being the bigger draw over there than the actual cars as well.

 

I do not think it would have mattered if Mansell or Hill were in Williams, Ferrari or Lola when they won their titles, the British public embraced them, not the team. Same wth their love to hate attitude with Schumi. it did not matter he drove for Ferrari or whoever, they tuned in to see him get beat because of his rivalry with Hill, god bless him. (his talent as well was a contributing factor I should stress to the appeal he had)

 

If there was no interest and the drivers were just faceless helmets, than I would speculate that the sport would not be where it is today, pulling in 4 million a race. which is a very high number compared to other sports.

 

So I agree from the sport perspective, just not from a commercial perspective, which F1 depends on to a great degree.

Edited by sennafan24, 06 January 2014 - 23:53.

[rhukkas]

You can't differentiate the two. The reason you love the drivers is because of the 'cars'. Stick everyone in the same car and the whole fabric of what makes F1 interesting dissapears.

 

Having different teams enables fans to debate first and foremost. Who really is the 'best' driver? No one actually knows because they all drive different machinery. It's how they work with the team, the technology... that's what gives the sport a depth to it. Also, slow cars gives drivers the chance to shine  and 'win our hearts' in ways spec series simply can't do. I am thinking Toleman/Senna 84 etc... etc...

 

The cars themselves...the differences, the technology, the history... that's what MAKES the drivers interesting.

 

So you can't say you don't care about the cars if you like a driver because the way he handled inferior machinery. The whole thing is interrelated.

[SlickMick]

Is F1 really about the cars?

Absolutely yes, save perhaps with the slight exception of qualifying?   

I can say this because no World Champion could have won the title with a mid table car and several current drivers could have won world titles with the recent Bulls.

Does F1 really create so much excitement and emotion because of the drivers?

Absolutely yes, save perhaps with the not so slight exception of Karthikeyan :-)

I can say this because a thread entitled "Thread about the little squiggly bit hidden at the bottom of a rear wing" will soon degenerate into a Kimi/Fernando or Lewis/Jenson bashfest.

C'est la vie.

[ElDictatore]

It's 60/40 for teams/car over drivers for me. I have some engineering knowledge and this is what basically has driven me into the sport. I love seeing all the solutions and how formula 1 can apply it's knowledge elsewhere (see mclaren applied technologies - all that made me a massive mclaren fan). However drivers are interesting too to follow and are sometimes easier to empathize with than a team or car. I always liked Mika for example, most of the time just because of his persona being very interesting and different to others. I always empathize with Kimi and Lewis a lot because they were the drivers at McLaren when i went deeper into F1.

But drivers switch, teams usually don't. Well now they do it more, but I think as a McLaren or Ferrari fan, it's a safe bet. Maybe that's something too. How can you empathize with a team when in most cases they get bought by some rich guy or has to bail or whatever. Do you cheer for 'team enstone' or benetton then renault then lotus or what? Even though a driver switches team, he's still the same person. I really think it's a question of empathy more than anything.

I still take the car, because that's what has driven me into the sport. The characters and stories just have grabbed me more into it than before but I probably wouldn't watch it if it weren't for the cars. Without the characters I would still follow it to a degree but maybe with less 'heart'

Edited by ElDictatore, 07 January 2014 - 00:33.

[sennafan24]

 

So you can't say you don't care about the cars if you like a driver because the way he handled inferior machinery. The whole thing is interrelated.

Yeah it is, plus I never said directly that I do not care about the cars.

 

But personally, I enjoy talking about the talents of the drivers, rather than "which was the best car" or "look at the capability of that car". You are right in saying that they are related, but one is a more interesting variable than the other for myself.

 

If we just said every year, who is the best driver/car combination, than we would just check the results, and no debate would be needed. But personally I would rather debate who was the better man, not machine.

 

You say that if F1 was a spec series it would not be interesting. whilst I agree the different cars is part of the charm of the sport, I strongly disagree in general. If F1 drivers all drove in the same cars, than they would have a more accurate measurement of who was the best driver, which would mean more data that is comparable driver to driver, which would mean more stuff to talk about which would involve less conjecture. Regulations in a spec series would still favor certain driver styles, so it is not a conclusive method of finding who is the best overall driver mind.

Edited by sennafan24, 07 January 2014 - 00:33.

[rhukkas]

You say that if F1 was a spec series it would not be interesting. whilst I agree the different cars is part of the charm of the sport, I strongly disagree in general. If F1 drivers all drove in the same cars, than they would have a more accurate measurement of who was the best driver, which would mean more data that is comparable driver to driver, which would mean more stuff to talk about which would involve less conjecture. Regulations in a spec series would still favor certain driver styles, so it is not a conclusive method of finding who is the best overall driver mind.

 

It depends how you define 'best'. Spec series simply do not allow drivers to do anything truly spectacular or out of the ordinary. Casey Stoner 2007 on the Ducati a casing point. Well, anything he did on the Ducati for that matter. This extraction of talent is simply not possible in spec series. For me, some of the best drivers come from a route where they have to work as a 'test' driver. develop technology, work with the engineers and then grabbing the opportunity when it arises. You don't see this when a driver orders his engine and chassis and it arrives at the door same as everyone else. It's dull. Every performance in history that people remember are when drivers have their backs against the wall. Schumi moving to Ferrari, Stoner on the Ducati, Rossi moving to Yamaha, Senna Toleman/Lotus.

 

There would be less conjecture regarding drivers if it was spec purely because there would be less people talking about it. And spec series don't favour talent any more than any other series.

Edited by rhukkas, 07 January 2014 - 00:56.

[sennafan24]

Its all what you like and value though, I agree a spec series would take away moments of excellence like Donnington 93 or Spain 96.

 

I disagree that a spec series would not allow anything special. for example if a driver lapped the field in identical equipment, would you say that would not be special. Plus a spec series would not be as dull as you think, it would still be pot luck in many ways, teammates in the same car have different amounts of fortune, so the best driver would not always win, so debates would still be ongoing.

 

I do get your points that F1 today does showcase more talents, like people skills and adaptability, that a spec series would not allow to such a extent.

[Velocifer]

I understand the pull of technology, the excitement of getting an aerodynamic algorithm just right, molding the computer model into a front wing bit for that extra microsecond that will put you on pole, save a few grams of fuel a lap, or relieve that little bit of pressure from your left front tire in a corner or two.

 

It is fascinating stuff. It truly is.

 

And yet, as a fan weathering this off-season, I find myself watching men rather than machines race. When I do a search on Youtube, it most likely involves a driver's name, rather than that of a team or particular machinery. I like interviews, I like biopics, I like characters, I like duels, I like qualifying laps in the old standard.

 

There's a countless number of plug and play math degree engineers, but there's only a couple dozen drivers who actually get to race. As a fan, these few brave guys are the ones I'm cheering for, not the nerds back in the shed. Just as in other sports, while I do respect the coach, I cheer for the players.

 

Would you be an F1 fan if it weren't for a driver who caught your eye when you started watching? Personally, I know I wouldn't be.

Machines for me. Loved them long before I got to know any drivers and never really got into the whole driver fandom thing at all.

 

In fact I rather detest the hatred and denigration the driver personality cult produces. You calling the machine makers "nerds back in the shed" is a very good example of the extremely rude and downright demeaning mentality produced by the need a lot of driver fans has to put down others to lift their heros and it's far away what F1 should be about in my opinion, especially as those people are much more important than the driver. No one can hide from the fact that it is the car much more than the driver that wins races and championships. Your hero would be a big zero in a bad car and zeros can be heroes in a good one.

 

F1 is really about the cars and rightly so in my opinion.

[CoolBreeze]

It's difficult to be about cars, when each time a team innovates something, it's illegal. 

 

I prefer to follow drivers & teams. 

[alpinesmuggler]

Machines for me. Loved them long before I got to know any drivers and never really got into the whole driver fandom thing at all.

 

In fact I rather detest the hatred and denigration the driver personality cult produces. You calling the machine makers "nerds back in the shed" is a very good example of the extremely rude and downright demeaning mentality produced by the need a lot of driver fans has to put down others to lift their heros and it's far away what F1 should be about in my opinion, especially as those people are much more important than the driver. No one can hide from the fact that it is the car much more than the driver that wins races and championships. Your hero would be a big zero in a bad car and zeros can be heroes in a good one.

 

F1 is really about the cars and rightly so in my opinion.

I wonder if it could also be a question of age or technical knowledge when bitten by the F1 snake that makes one follow drivers more closely than machines.

 

When I started watching as a kid, I knew nothing about the technology. Watching races on French TV and not being French, I didn't want to cheer for any of the French guys on the grid. So I picked a guy who was suitably good and drove a very, very cool black car. And that made me a fan of Senna. When he moved to McLaren, my love for the driver was transferred to the team, which I support to this day. Only later, in my teens, would I start understanding the machinery, the business, and acquire a more "holistic" appreciation of the Formula. And yet, even today, twenty-odd years on, I'd prefer to see my favorite driver rather than my favorite team win. I can connect emotionally to the guy's joy on the podium, or the same guy's frustration when his car breaks down in a way that I simply cannot with a business, which is what a team is, after all.

 

As for my "nerds in the shed" comment, I knew it was a bit dramatic when I wrote it and I apologize if it was too brusque. There was absolutely no offense meant, especially not coming from a math nerd engineer such as myself. And maybe that's another thing that makes me love my sporting heroes while only appreciating the technical staff. The latter do cool things that a lot of us fans do in other fields. The former, however, remain magicians in my mind, still unchanged from the way I saw drivers when I was a know-nothing kid.

Edited by alpinesmuggler, 07 January 2014 - 08:25.

[sopa]

F1 first caught my attention through the dark red Ferraris. They looked so shiny, bright and awesome among other cars that I could care less who was driving these cars, they just looked appealing.

[alpinesmuggler]

F1 first caught my attention through the dark red Ferraris. They looked so shiny, bright and awesome among other cars that I could care less who was driving these cars, they just looked appealing.

I know. How awesome is a team that does not change its livery in any major way over decades? I wish they'd bring back the black wings, but I guess Marlboro still sponsors them.

[sopa]

Machines for me. Loved them long before I got to know any drivers and never really got into the whole driver fandom thing at all.

 

I think it all depends, how we get attached to the sport and then form our opinions.

 

As a kid I was of course fascinated by cars. I liked to play toycars at home, etc, just like many kids. And when I tuned in a TV and then accidentally saw some super-fast weird looking cars (formula cars), then i thought "wow". Of course at that point I knew nothing about drivers. But I knew about cars due to my playing experience.

 

Of course over time the perspective changes, you get to know more about drivers, etc. But I think cars can be easily as attractive part of "getting" to F1 as drivers, because those cars are so fast, so alien-looking. With all those wings and stuff they look out of this world, at least in first viewing.

 

How can I identify to drivers, when I know none of them and they have actually helmets on, so I don't even see, who they are? Obviously over time you get accustomized to some drivers, you see their performances, etc. But the first thing for me was definitely the CAR. This is what was appreciated instantly. If it was some random touring car series (sort of like WTCC), then chances are I would not have got interested in this regardless of who the drivers and personalities are.

 

May I ask, why do you watch F1 and not some other racing series? In other series there may also be interesting characters, but we just don't know about them. Or the series are not so interesting, because cars are not really like in F1?

Edited by sopa, 07 January 2014 - 08:51.

[tifosiMac]

Its way more about the car these days than the drivers and its really the personalities fans support I think. I really couldn't tell you who is the best driver right now in F1 as the cars are so different in terms of performance for most of the time and its clear the top 4 are talented in their own right. There is not a fag paper between the World Champions but often a gulf in between technical packages and I'd like to see a more even playing field in future. Its very unlikely to happen we well know as its as much a team competition as it is for the driver.

[Lazy]

Cars.

 

To me the drivers have become an annoying soap opera. Way too much money and way too much credit. Newey, Allison , Byrne, Brawn etc worth way more than any driver.

[alpinesmuggler]

Cars.

 

To me the drivers have become an annoying soap opera. Way too much money and way too much credit. Newey, Allison , Byrne, Brawn etc worth way more than any driver.

On a purely competitive basis, I agree.

 

But who do you cheer for during the race itself? One of several cars you might like, or a specific individual? For me, it's the latter.

 

As much as I truly like and respect Newey, Brawn, Costa, Dennis, and countless other TPs and engineers, I simply do not find myself cheering for them. Perhaps my appreciation of F1 is shallow, only resting on the personalities and faces of the drivers. Maybe if I were involved in the sport professionally, I'd see it in a different light. But from my weekend couch, cheering for a machine--and the technical team that created it--is too cerebral. I like my sports emotional, and drivers provide me the kind of emotion that technical personnel and their designs simply cannot.

[apoka]

You can't differentiate the two. The reason you love the drivers is because of the 'cars'. Stick everyone in the same car and the whole fabric of what makes F1 interesting dissapears.

 

I understand what you are saying, but actually I am not completely sure whether this is true. If you turned F1 into a spec series in 2014, I think people would still watch it. They would still cheer for their drivers and want to see who performs best. I think >95% of the viewers do not really know about the design differences between the cars, since we are already somewhat close to a spec series given the strict regulations (the engines this year could be an exception).

[doombug11]

It's natural for us to be attracted to the humanised element, quite commonly will we attribute a car less in its own right and more in the face of the man driving it. Sometimes it's the faces of the team members that humanise the vehicle, or just one man (Alonso - 'We are racing Newey') and the team itself are what grabs your focus and attention. You don't sit there eye's blinkered on the Indycar chassis cheering on your favourite Livery (well you might do actually), but largely it's either the driver himself or the group of people keeping him on the road that you feel an affiliation with. It's quite hard to feel an emotionally supportive connection this with a piece of machinery that you will only ever see, you may be allured by the fantasy of owning or controlling such a thing, but from a far they are only self-gratifying allusions. Vicky the VFR sit's in my driveway, my first proper bike, the role it plays in my life and the enjoyment I get out of it has lead me to attribute it a name, within my world this vehicle and I have a connection and I by naming it have brought it a humanised element that I feel a stronger affiliation with. For anyone else is just an old VFR, but for me it means more. However any really affiliation I feel with my favourite bike (Ducati 1199) is merely a fantastical dream, any connection I feel with it is merely with my own hopes and aspirations, the idea I place in my mind of what it would be like to actually own one.

 

When it comes to supporting such a sport as F1, as technically exotic as the car may be the real attraction will always be the Drivers who drive them and the Team members who put them out there, the cars ultimately are a reflection of their capabilities.   

[Lazy]

On a purely competitive basis, I agree.

 

But who do you cheer for during the race itself? One of several cars you might like, or a specific individual? For me, it's the latter.

 

As much as I truly like and respect Newey, Brawn, Costa, Dennis, and countless other TPs and engineers, I simply do not find myself cheering for them. Perhaps my appreciation of F1 is shallow, only resting on the personalities and faces of the drivers. Maybe if I were involved in the sport professionally, I'd see it in a different light. But from my weekend couch, cheering for a machine--and the technical team that created it--is too cerebral. I like my sports emotional, and drivers provide me the kind of emotion that technical personnel and their designs simply cannot.

True, I cheer for a driver or 2 during the race because it's fun. But if that was all it was I wouldn't be watching in the 1st place, the cars are what draw me to the sport.

[Lazy]

It's natural for us to be attracted to the humanised element, quite commonly will we attribute a car less in its own right and more in the face of the man driving it. Sometimes it's the faces of the team members that humanise the vehicle, or just one man (Alonso - 'We are racing Newey') and the team itself are what grabs your focus and attention. You don't sit there eye's blinkered on the Indycar chassis cheering on your favourite Livery (well you might do actually), but largely it's either the driver himself or the group of people keeping him on the road that you feel an affiliation with. It's quite hard to feel an emotionally supportive connection this with a piece of machinery that you will only ever see, you may be allured by the fantasy of owning or controlling such a thing, but from a far they are only self-gratifying allusions. Vicky the VFR sit's in my driveway, my first proper bike, the role it plays in my life and the enjoyment I get out of it has lead me to attribute it a name, within my world this vehicle and I have a connection and I by naming it have brought it a humanised element that I feel a stronger affiliation with. For anyone else is just an old VFR, but for me it means more. However any really affiliation I feel with my favourite bike (Ducati 1199) is merely a fantastical dream, any connection I feel with it is merely with my own hopes and aspirations, the idea I place in my mind of what it would be like to actually own one.

 

When it comes to supporting such a sport as F1, as technically exotic as the car may be the real attraction will always be the Drivers who drive them and the Team members who put them out there, the cars ultimately are a reflection of their capabilities.   

Great bike the VFR.

[sennafan24]

 Your hero would be a big zero in a bad car and zeros can be heroes in a good one.

 

I understand your point of view.

 

But I disagree with that, as someone else stated you have heroic drives in bad/backmarker cars, Senna in the Toleman is the crowning example.

 

Plus the "zeros can be heroes" is a view that is a bit too absolute for my liking, I will not probe further as to ask for examples, as you said yourself driver arguments can be quite tedious, but its rare a driver of little talent wins even in a great car.

[noikeee]

I'd say it's a sport about drivers driving fast cars, not about teams preparing fast cars - albeit the latter is what makes the most difference in the stopwatch.

[Timstr11]

Is F1 really about the cars?

Absolutely yes, save perhaps with the slight exception of qualifying?   

I can say this because no World Champion could have won the title with a mid table car and several current drivers could have won world titles with the recent Bulls.

Does F1 really create so much excitement and emotion because of the drivers?

Absolutely yes, save perhaps with the not so slight exception of Karthikeyan :-)

I can say this because a thread entitled "Thread about the little squiggly bit hidden at the bottom of a rear wing" will soon degenerate into a Kimi/Fernando or Lewis/Jenson bashfest.

C'est la vie.

Pretty much agree with this.

 

It's first and foremost about expensively designed cars with vast design teams and resources behind them.

All very high profile due to the involvement of large corporations willing to spend large sums to compete, which helps to maintain the historic high profile of the sport.

 

But it's also very much about the drivers. The best tend to rise to drive in the top cars. And due to the high profile of F1, drivers competing in this series gain a high profile as well.

 

Pretty unique combination if you ask me.

[FerrariV12]

You need both.

 

Centrally-prepared spec racing is no fun for me, and a bunch of unique robot cars, while it would be a fascinating exercise and one I'd probably watch, isn't as good as watching the battle of man and machine together.

 

Plus things have changed as I've got older. When I was a child getting into the sport it was the drivers that caught my interesat, those I'd hero-worship and cheer for and those I'd cheer against. But as I get older and the drivers became my peers and then younger there's still drivers I admire and like to see do well, but less of the passionate hero-worship of my youth, so I need other things to keep me interested, and the fortunes of the teams themselves and the technological developments going on in the background do continue to hold my interest.

[Velocifer]

I understand your point of view.

 

But I disagree with that, as someone else stated you have heroic drives in bad/backmarker cars, Senna in the Toleman is the crowning example.

 

Plus the "zeros can be heroes" is a view that is a bit too absolute for my liking, I will not probe further as to ask for examples, as you said yourself driver arguments can be quite tedious, but its rare a driver of little talent wins even in a great car.

You could switch the drivers around at random and the champion would still be one in the top cars and the ones in the worst would hardly have a point.

[sennafan24]

You could switch the drivers around at random and the champion would still be one in the top cars and the ones in the worst would hardly have a point.

I would not totally disagree with that, but I thuink the driver makes more difference than you make out.

 

Look at some of the gaps between teammates in the past year, most are pretty close, but some are quite wide and vast

[rhukkas]

I would not totally disagree with that, but I thuink the driver makes more difference than you make out.

 

Look at some of the gaps between teammates in the past year, most are pretty close, but some are quite wide and vast

 

Some drivers have more equal status with their team mates than others so it's an unfair to deduce from their results purely.

[Velocifer]

I would not totally disagree with that, but I thuink the driver makes more difference than you make out.

 

Look at some of the gaps between teammates in the past year, most are pretty close, but some are quite wide and vast

But it's not about the differences between drivers, it's about the difference between cars and drivers.

[sennafan24]

But it's not about the differences between drivers, it's about the difference between cars and drivers.

As I said though, some of us are more interested in solely rating driver ability, hence why there is so much attention on all time lists. Its not like if you type in google there is a big demand for driver/combination lists is there?

 

Some drivers have more equal status with their team mates than others so it's an unfair to deduce from their results purely.

I agree, but some drivers do outperform their teammates in similar machinery to a significant degree, its not just all the car and the status, the driver does make the difference.

[SpaMaster]

The fan following has always had a lot to do with drivers. But where does the money from? It comes from the companies involved. That is where the constructors and manufacturers come in. You think F1 would have thrived like this if it had been a spec series where it is just about knowing who the best driver is. I think everything goes hand in hand. Drivers bring viewership and popularity to the series. That makes it a market to take advantage of. You still need companies to take advantage of this market and that is how you get the money. This also gives an intertwined competition factor that creates a mystic - the endless who is the best driver, an answer no one would ever find!

[rhukkas]

As I said though, some of us are more interested in solely rating driver ability, hence why there is so much attention on all time lists. Its not like if you type in google there is a big demand for driver/combination lists is there?

 

I agree, but some drivers do outperform their teammates in similar machinery to a significant degree, its not just all the car and the status, the driver does make the difference.

 

Why is there an assumption you can measure driver ability more in single-spec environments?  When drivers are in multi-spec environments the pressures they face are far greater. You are racing FOR a race team who designs and builds the car. The amount of pressure a driver is under having to deal with the weight of hundreds of staff who ahve slaved away building and designing the car. it's a whole different ball game to the less complex environment of spec racing. Single-spec environments also allow drivers to learnt he tricks of the trade. Are you watching true talent or are you just watching a bunch of guys who have hung around long enough to know all the little nooks and crannies.

 

Also, it's obvious why the interest in F1 drivers is so high. In a single-spec environment the guy who wins can be considered the 'best' of that particular race. Granted you can argue about experience etc.... but really there is no argument no discussion. Rather dull. With F1 it's perfectly legitimate to argue that the guy who finished 15th was the best driver that weekend. That's what drives the popularity. I don't see why people can't grab this simple concept.

 

Casey Stoner's achievement on the Ducati, that talent recognition... you don't get that in single-spec series. Everyone doubted Marquez in MotoGP in what is largely a spec series... but in MotoGP we saw how good he really was.

[sennafan24]

Why is there an assumption you can measure driver ability more in single-spec environments?  When drivers are in multi-spec environments the pressures they face are far greater. You are racing FOR a race team who designs and builds the car. The amount of pressure a driver is under having to deal with the weight of hundreds of staff who ahve slaved away building and designing the car. it's a whole different ball game to the less complex environment of spec racing. Single-spec environments also allow drivers to learnt he tricks of the trade. Are you watching true talent or are you just watching a bunch of guys who have hung around long enough to know all the little nooks and crannies.

 

Also, it's obvious why the interest in F1 drivers is so high. In a single-spec environment the guy who wins can be considered the 'best' of that particular race. Granted you can argue about experience etc.... but really there is no argument no discussion. Rather dull. With F1 it's perfectly legitimate to argue that the guy who finished 15th was the best driver that weekend. That's what drives the popularity. I don't see why people can't grab this simple concept.

Sorry, I am not a Moto GP man, so I can relate to the examples you give.

 

There would still be a debate though in single-spec, like I said  above luck would be a factor, machinery would fail some more than others. Look at Lewis in 2012, the amount of bad luck he had compared to Button, yet the points gap was slender, which is why there is so much debate, the results did not tell the full story.

 

I have addressed your first paragraph before if you check.

Edited by sennafan24, 07 January 2014 - 15:15.

[Jackmancer]

Not just about the cars; also the drivers, the tracks, the countries they visit. It's also a little bit about the fans, and a lot about all the BS that surrounds this whole circus, making it the perfect men-soap.

[Velocifer]

As I said though, some of us are more interested in solely rating driver ability, hence why there is so much attention on all time lists. Its not like if you type in google there is a big demand for driver/combination lists is there?

What's that got to with anything when the point of contention was cars vs drivers when it comes to performance and results?

[sennafan24]

What's that got to with anything when the point of contention was cars vs drivers when it comes to performance and results?

Keeping to the thread title.

 

I think you generally overestimate the role of the driver, they are more important to success than you make out, I have stated my case and we disagree, which is fair enough.

Edited by sennafan24, 07 January 2014 - 15:41.

[Afterburner]

Would you be an F1 fan if it weren't for a driver who caught your eye when you started watching? Personally, I know I wouldn't be.

Yes. The technology is what got me interested in the sport--the air-splitting look (and sound of the cars). I started cheering for drivers based on the car they were driving.

As the technological aspect of the sport has been progressively dumbed down over the years, I find drivers more relatable. I suppose this was the goal all along, as drivers are always more marketable than teams because they give the sport its human element, and better marketing equals more money for the higher-ups. Disappointing, because to me, F1 without the technological element is just a reality TV show with the drivers as the 'stars'. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, 'pinnacle of motorsport my achin' backside'.

I suppose it's at this point that I have to justify my interest in IndyCar, where the technological component is all but non-existent, to which I have a very simple reply: IndyCar is not and was never intended to be the pinnacle of motorsport, while F1 is continually marketed as such despite the differences between the two series decreasing year by year.

[JHSingo]

I started following F1 (well, all motorsport) from my interest in cars. As a kid, I had my picture taken alongside old F1 cars, not with famous drivers. My interest grew due to the "other world"-iness of the V10 monsters in the late 90s, early 2000s.

 

Put it this way. If Formula One drivers all raced in bog standard Renault Clios or whatever, no matter how special Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton or anyone else is, it wouldn't be the same.

 

While the drivers get the fame and media attention, for me it is still the cars that are the stars. It's the same for things like Group B rallying and Group C sportscars. With a few exceptions like Toivonen, most people remember those fire spitting Audis and Lancias more than the people who drove them. Same with Group C, people will continue to revere the likes of the Porsches, Jags and Sauber Mercs and Mazda 787Bs long after those who drove them have passed on.

 

So I don't agree with the OP. However, unfortunately, I don't think the current F1 cars are as special now as they used to be. Maybe it is the rose tinted spectacles syndrome, but they're not as technically exciting as they should be, in my opinion. That, and the way that most people bemoan anyone with a car advantage these days, so the regulations get more and more restrictive. Great if you want to see the best driver win in an increasingly spec formula, not so great if you're a fan of the cars over the drivers.

Edited by JHSingo, 07 January 2014 - 17:38.

[Tombstone]

I started following F1 (well, all motorsport) from my interest in cars. As a kid, I had my picture taken alongside old F1 cars, not with famous drivers. My interest grew due to the "other world"-iness of the V10 monsters in the late 90s, early 2000s.

 

Put it this way. If Formula One drivers all raced in bog standard Renault Clios or whatever, no matter how special Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton or anyone else is, it wouldn't be the same.

 

While the drivers get the fame and media attention, for me it is still the cars that are the stars. It's the same for things like Group B rallying and Group C sportscars. With a few exceptions like Toivonen, most people remember those fire spitting Audis and Lancias more than the people who drove them. Same with Group C, people will continue to revere the likes of the Porsches, Jags and Sauber Mercs and Mazda 787Bs long after those who drove them have passed on.

 

So I don't agree with the OP. However, unfortunately, I don't think the current F1 cars are as special now as they used to be. Maybe it is the rose tinted spectacles syndrome, but they're not as technically exciting as they should be, in my opinion. That, and the way that most people bemoan anyone with a car advantage these days, so the regulations get more and more restrictive. Great if you want to see the best driver win in an increasingly spec formula, not so great if you're a fan of the cars over the drivers.

 

I was going to write something pretty similar, albeit I grew up 'with' DFVs et al in the mid 70s, so I won't repeat that which is written here.

Edited by Tombstone, 07 January 2014 - 18:29.

[stonebutter]

The driver gives a face and personality to the car and the team.  They're the most important person on qualifying and race day when it counts doing what the fans care most about, pushing the car around the track as fast as possible.

 

The cars most certainly win you championships -  I'd always bet on an okay driver in a great car over a great driver in an okay car.  The media can't interact with the machinery though.

[sopa]

I agree about the claims that the important thing is man and machine together.

 

Drivers wouldn't be remotely as interesting if they were crawling around in an ordinary street car.

Cars wouldn't have "personality on wheels" if they were robot-controlled without a human sitting in the car.

[alpinesmuggler]

Yes. The technology is what got me interested in the sport--the air-splitting look (and sound of the cars). I started cheering for drivers based on the car they were driving.

As the technological aspect of the sport has been progressively dumbed down over the years, I find drivers more relatable. I suppose this was the goal all along, as drivers are always more marketable than teams because they give the sport its human element, and better marketing equals more money for the higher-ups. Disappointing, because to me, F1 without the technological element is just a reality TV show with the drivers as the 'stars'. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, 'pinnacle of motorsport my achin' backside'.

I suppose it's at this point that I have to justify my interest in IndyCar, where the technological component is all but non-existent, to which I have a very simple reply: IndyCar is not and was never intended to be the pinnacle of motorsport, while F1 is continually marketed as such despite the differences between the two series decreasing year by year.

+1 for the Penn reference. The guy (well, the duo) is totally brilliant.

 

This also got me thinking. Would I have become a fan of Senna's had he not been competently driving what I earlier described as a cool--and quite competitive--black car? Probably not. Had I been French, I'd have probably ended up as a die-hard Prost fan. That said, even though some drivers are supremely marketable, we are men and that might explain the very romantic, sentimental connection with the guys on the track that goes beyond marketability.

 

It's tough discussing this topic without looking at other team sports, particularly cycling. I don't follow it as close as I do Formula 1, but I can talk about and relate to individual cyclists more than I can about the ever-changing teams. It is, once again, all about the human element. Guys doing things that neither I nor anyone I know can do.

 

And finally, living in Europe, I wish I could purchase a NASCAR and IndyCar package similar to what the NFL offers online. Come on, this is the Internet age, how hard can it be.

Edited by alpinesmuggler, 07 January 2014 - 18:16.

[JHSingo]

Cars wouldn't have "personality on wheels" if they were robot-controlled without a human sitting in the car.

 

No, but then at least we wouldn't have to hear all the BS drivers will often come out with after a race.

 

On a more serious note, for me, a Formula One car should look and sound like it has come from another planet. It should have 5,000bhp. I might be exaggerating, but you get my point, they should be the cutting edge of what is humanly possible right now.

 

I mean, as much as I admired (and still, to this day admire) Michael Schumacher when I was younger, I dreamt of owning one of his Ferraris, not a Michael Schumacher.

[Fatgadget]

It's  about shiite loads of things!..driver rivalry..smart engineers..tactics...egos....longevity....add to the list!   .....more importantly,how fat your wallet is!..Always has been.