64 replies to this topic

[Wes350]

I am what could be called a casual Nascar fan - mostly because for the casual TV viewer here in the U.S. it is the most promoted motor sport. But I have my issues with Nascar's product, which is why I remain casual.

 

I can directly blame watching the movie Rush for piquing my interest in F1, and then the two Tom Rubython books, Rush to Glory and The Life of Senna, for increasing my interest enough for me to decide follow F1 this year.

 

Google and Wikipedia are rather useful if you don't know anyone who can get you up to date on what's what in F1.  I've wasted more than a few hours on the net reading a lot of stuff to try and educate myself on the recent history and who's who of the sport since the early 80's.

 

So after watching the Australia and Malaysia races I've decided to post my half formed thoughts... 

 

 

With my set of fresh eyes on the sport; F1 has a lot of positives:

 

I find the team aspect of the sport far easier to track and follow - everyone basically building their own chassis makes things far more interesting.

I also like the uniformity of the paint schemes. And the way the drivers and teams are set up does add a bit more drama than the conventional 1 driver 1 team setup they use in nascar.

 

The 2 hour race length means I don't have to block out half a day to see a race. And the limited size of the field (in comparison to nascar) makes it easier to keep track of everything going on in the race.

 

FYI if you live on the west coast like I do, DVR is your friend.

 

As for the racing itself - well to me it just looks more of what real racing should be like - (I don't know how else to phrase it - I'm probably not going to make much sense here...)  Yes, you get a little processionitis - but this is not video game racing, and the lead can't be constantly swapping back and forth every race. I like how passing/overtaking is very important at any point in the race, and the ability of the teams and drivers to keep a pace is more pronounced with just a 2 hour window to do their thing. I also like the strong sense of urgency from the teams and drivers to make each race matter.

 

I don't have a single driver that I favor  - but Bottas and Hulkenburg are interesting underdogs to follow.

 

Here in the US to follow F1 you have to make an effort, took me a solid internet search to find what time and channel it was on in my area, and luckily I have a cable package that has it. Monster truck stadium events have more promotion.

 

 

F1 does have a few things that make me scratch my head though:

 

Double points in the last race? WTF? Do you believe in your product or not? I may be new to F1, but even I know something is ass when I see it.

 

And why the point inflation? What was wrong with 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1?  Am I missing some math thing? Or is it a case of "ohh, lots of points, yummm" ?

 

And the sound complaints; I don't get it. Why all the fuss?

I youtubed some early 80's turbo era races, listened to their sound, and I don't see a problem.

But that's probably because I have no preconceptions having just started following the sport. 

 

 

Oh, for anyone else who watches the NBC sports commentating; it might just be me, but those guys seem to really like Jenson Button...

 

 

I'm here all week to offer deep insights from my fresh perspective. I solemnly promise that my opinions will be worth exactly what you pay for them. 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RuleyRamundo]

Welcome to F1, enjoy the ride.

[discover23]

Welcome .. For someone who just started watching F1 this year, it appears that you have done your homework and getting the full grasp of what F1 is all about pretty quickly.

[RubalSher]

You have done your research well and welcome to F1

[sock22]

Welcome 

 

It's interesting to get your perspective on the spectacle this year, given your fresh view, particularly about the sound of the engines. They have definitely lost something of the wow factor from recent years (if you have heard an F1 car in person you'll know what I mean), but they are still impressive by more general standards.

 

As for your head-scratching points. Yes, double points is absurd and hated by the vast majority of fans. The 25-18-15... points system was introduced in 2010 when the field expanded from 20 to 24 cars. The reasoning was that they wanted points to go back to tenth place to reflect the larger field. To preserve the points ratios for the higher positions they increased the number of points awarded. As it is, those new teams are still yet to score points even with the change.

[Nemo1965]

Welcome... You sound like an excellent addition to the fanbase. 

 

Tip: there are some excellent documentaries on youtube about the history of F1. There is an excellent BBC-doc about the real story between Hunt and Lauda. If 'Rush' kindled your interest, that documentary will surely enhance your interest.

[Zoetrope]

Welcome. F1 has it's flaws. It can get boring at times. But it's still fascinating.

So who do you reckon is the best driver and does it actually even matter? 

[pathogen]

Wellcome to my nightmare (in Alice Cooper words)

[Gyan]

The points increase from a 10 point system to a 25 point one was mainly because the teams had achieved near bullet proof reliability, which meant that the top 10 achievers were mostly there on merit. Earlier on, you had like, 12 retirements from a 22 driver field and a top 6 or top 8 system made sense.

 

Since you couldn't have a simple 10-1 points system due to no real difference between the points, the 25 points system was implemented, giving a race win further weightage. Also, Bernie wanted a medals system where the driver with the most wins would be champion and a 25 points system was more acceptable than that. The double points however, has been met with widespread criticism. Look at any F1 website, forum or blog, everywhere 90% people are against it, an overwhelming majority.

 

The sound for me, is not the best. I've been far too used with the older engines and these seem tame and too 'non-racey' in comparison. However, that's a issue I have with electric engines in general. I do believe that F1 should be using newer engines but they should also do something about the noise as well.

 

Anyways, Welcome to Formula 1.

[uffen]

Welcome, you seem to have a balanced view of things - try to keep it that way!

[Wes350]

 

Gyan:

The points increase from a 10 point system to a 25 point one was mainly because the teams had achieved near bullet proof reliability, which meant that the top 10 achievers were mostly there on merit. Earlier on, you had like, 12 retirements from a 22 driver field and a top 6 or top 8 system made sense.

 

Since you couldn't have a simple 10-1 points system due to no real difference between the points, the 25 points system was implemented, giving a race win further weightage. Also, Bernie wanted a medals system where the driver with the most wins would be champion and a 25 points system was more acceptable than that. The double points however, has been met with widespread criticism. Look at any F1 website, forum or blog, everywhere 90% people are against it, an overwhelming majority.

 

Sock22:

As for your head-scratching points. Yes, double points is absurd and hated by the vast majority of fans. The 25-18-15... points system was introduced in 2010 when the field expanded from 20 to 24 cars. The reasoning was that they wanted points to go back to tenth place to reflect the larger field. To preserve the points ratios for the higher positions they increased the number of points awarded. As it is, those new teams are still yet to score points even with the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it was all for some media based BS reason to “put more excitement” into the sport. Very flawed reasoning in my opinion. (NASCAR is continually falling prey to this - I hope F1 doesn't fall into the same temptation)

 

The size of the field is irrelevant to me. In every racing series I have ever followed if you are not a consistent top five finisher then you will never be a championship contender.

 

You either have the tools and the talent to compete with the best or you don’t.  A few token points tossed to the also-ran’s doesn't change anything. There are no second place winners in racing.

 

 

Zoetrope:

Welcome. F1 has it's flaws. It can get boring at times. But it's still fascinating.

 

F1 isn’t perfect, but no sport is. But even with all its foibles it is still light years better than nascar’s artificial racing. (I have a whole rant on that.)

 

.

Edited by Wes350, 03 April 2014 - 02:37.

[Wes350]

Zoetrope:

So who do you reckon is the best driver and does it actually even matter? 

In all racing, I believe that the cream rises to the top and the top teams more or less attract the best drivers.  But in F1 a good car really matters, a lot. So the timing of when  a driver joins a team can play a big part as well.

 

 

Now, are you ready for some fresh off the boat neophyte wisdom?

 

My perception of the best drivers:

 

Based on results of the last four years:  Hamilton, Alonso, Räikkönen, and  Vettel, are the current elite talent. With a slight nod to Alonso and Vettel.

 

Button, Rosberg, and Massa, are consistent top ten threats that keep the elite honest and could become champions if certain things go their way.

 They could walk into a premium ride, go on a win streak, and/or have things fall their way during some races.  Most likely, all three would need to occur in some kind of combination throughout the season.  In my opinion Button’s 2009 WDC would be an example of this.

 

The most interesting of the rest:

 

Hulkenberg has been very consistent.  He’s been nibbling at, and recently getting into the WDC top ten the over last three years despite bouncing around the B-teams. I’d be very interested to see what he could do in a premium ride.

 

Grosjean is another quality prospect, just breaking into the WDC top ten for the last two years. I would also like to see him in a premium ride. But I think that this year he drew the short straw to say the least.

 

Bottas looks like a man with talent. While not premium, I think his ride is competitive and he could make a good showing of himself. Worth watching to see how he develops.

 

Magnussen started well, but he also walked into a good ride right out of the gate. He has potential worth watching, but it’s too early to call.

 

Ricciardo walked into what looks to be becoming a premium ride. He has talent or red bull would have dumped him already, but he hasn’t really done anything to catch the eye his three years before Australia. But he was consistently improving and advancing up the rankings, and he is young. I also put him in the too early to call category.

 

Chilton; the not quite Danica Patrick of Formula One.  Whilst appearing effete, he does not have her looks, media exposure, big sponsorship drawing power, or apparently her equivalent driving skill. Even she didn’t come last in the nascar sprint cup 2013 standings. But Marussia needs money from somewhere. Too early to call.

 

 

.

[Tourgott]

 

And the sound complaints; I don't get it. Why all the fuss?

I youtubed some early 80's turbo era races, listened to their sound, and I don't see a problem.

But that's probably because I have no preconceptions having just started following the sport. 

 

Here is why:

[wrcva]

Welcome to F1! 

 

So, what is your take on JPM from the Nascar side.   He was a pretty good hot blooded F1 driver at one time.  

[bourbon]

Welcome to F1 West Coast Style.  I've been hooked on F1 since a young squirt, so I am used to getting up in the wee hours for the euro races and actually feel a bit odd in the early part of the season when the races are more time friendly for us.  I get up for everything - practice, qualifying and more if it is aired. 

 

One alternative to the NBC broadcasters is to get the $10 live timing app for either Android or iOS.  Not only do you get a wealth of data and information regarding the cars, drivers and teams for each session, it includes live commentary from the BBC team.  To be honest, they are generally more in the know and more on the ball (and more biased toward the commonwealth drivers, but you can't have everything ).  The commentary is hands, feet and legs above what NBC gives us, probably because they just have the one man on sight (Will Buxton) and the rest are stateside watching what we are watching and reporting as we go, with updates and insight from Will Buxton.  BBC has a greater on sight race presense.

 

My 2 cents:

 

Drivers to Watch:  Raikkonen, Vettel, Kyvat

 

Eyes on: Alonso, Hamilton, Rosberg, Perez, Magnussen, Bottas

[V8 Fireworks]

 

The size of the field is irrelevant to me. In every racing series I have ever followed if you are not a consistent top five finisher then you will never be a championship contender.

.

 

The funds from FOM are based on WCC (Constructors championship) position

 

So for 5th best team and back...

 

If then P1-8 are always taken by best 4-5 teams, then how do you decide which order the lower teams should receive their championship income?

 

That's why it is done that way.  Else 1x8th place finish, say when half the field crashes out at first corner, is worth more than 10x9th places finish for a lower order team when millions of euros are at stake.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 April 2014 - 07:31.

[Wes350]

Welcome to F1! 

 

So, what is your take on JPM from the Nascar side.   He was a pretty good hot blooded F1 driver at one time.  

 

Nascar racing on the high banked ovals is a very unique form of racing, it demands a very specific skill set from the drivers.  I really don'y think JPM was really able to fullyadapt his skills to it.

 

I actually kind of looked into the crossover of various drivers into nascar recently, and without fail highly skilled F1 or Indy drivers never really seem to be able to make the switch.

 

I think that the nascar ovals have demanded a driving style that when developed to a high level, makes for an extremely steep curve for drivers coming in from other forms of auto-sport. It is very telling that many nascar teams have specialist drivers they hire just to drive the one or two road course events nascar puts on each year.

 

.

Edited by Wes350, 03 April 2014 - 08:11.

[Wes350]

Here is why:

*snip*

 

Unfortunately you're kind of speaking to a lost cause here. V8-12's were loud and impressive sounding.

 

But the mid 80's 1.5 turbo's were also part of F1, and from the videos I've watched they sound fine to me.

 

I'm really not into loud for the sake of being loud. My attitude is that  if the performance is there, I can care less what it sounds like.

 

.

[Tourgott]

Unfortunately you're kind of speaking to a lost cause here. V8-12's were loud and impressive sounding.

 

But the mid 80's 1.5 turbo's were also part of F1, and from the videos I've watched they sound fine to me.

 

I'm really not into loud for the sake of being loud. My attitude is that  if the performance is there, I can care less what it sounds like.

 

.

 

The 80's Turbo era was a short period compared to F1 history which always was naturally aspirated engines. So I don't understand why some people call the Turbos any kind of "nostalgic".

Anyway: Obviously you never experienced the V10 or even V8 live otherwise you would care about the sound.

[Wes350]

The funds from FOM are based on WCC (Constructors championship) position

 

So for 5th best team and back...

 

If then P1-8 are always taken by best 4-5 teams, then how do you decide which order the lower teams should receive their championship income?

 

That's why it is done that way.  Else 1x8th place finish, say when half the field crashes out at first corner, is worth more than 10x9th places finish for a lower order team when millions of euros are at stake.

 

 

Sounds to me like the lower teams are just getting crumbs anyway with that system. The top teams are still pulling the lions share and are set to continue to dominate.

 

At the risk of sounding ignorant - that it not a very fair system.

 

It is going to be based purely on points then you might as well go the nascar route where even the last car on the grid is guaranteed to get at least a few points. 

 

 

If I were to run F1 based on my limited knowledge...

 

After management takes its cut, whatever that is negotiated to be...

 

The majority of the remaining funds, 60%, give or take should be spread evenly among all the teams.

 

The rest should be divided by the number of points available during a season and earned accordingly.

 

 

 

.

Edited by Wes350, 03 April 2014 - 09:25.

[CoolBreeze]

Welcome...sorry to say but you came at the worst possible time   

[PayasYouRace]

 

Double points in the last race? WTF? Do you believe in your product or not? I may be new to F1, but even I know something is ass when I see it.

 

And why the point inflation? What was wrong with 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1?  Am I missing some math thing? Or is it a case of "ohh, lots of points, yummm" ?

 

And the sound complaints; I don't get it. Why all the fuss?

I youtubed some early 80's turbo era races, listened to their sound, and I don't see a problem.

But that's probably because I have no preconceptions having just started following the sport. 

 

 

Welcome to F1. Try not to get put off by all the Negative Nellies and Grumpy Old Men.

 

None of us seem to fathom the double points in the last race. Nobody but the FIA/FOM seemed to want it. But we're stuck with it.

 

It was to 1. Increase the relative reward for winning to second place over the quite small 10, 8 system and 2. To have points stretch further down the field with more cars finishing regularly. This was to make the points standings more representative of the relative performances. Historically about 2/3rds of finishers would score points.

 

F1 fans tend to be afraid of change. Don't let it bother you.

[jjcale]

If your gonna stick around you need to find some more interesting drivers to support .... those two are good but they put the milk in Milquetoast 

[Wes350]

The 80's Turbo era was a short period compared to F1 history which always was naturally aspirated engines. So I don't understand why some people call the Turbos any kind of "nostalgic".

Anyway: Obviously you never experienced the V10 or even V8 live otherwise you would care about the sound.

 

I will readily admit that never having heard them live is a significant factor. I know that tv/video just can't convey sound the same way as real life, no matter how good your system is.

 

All I can offer in they way of a defense is that no F1 race has been held in California since 1983 at Long Beach, and never in the Bay Area that I live in, some 380 miles north.

 

83 was the beginning of the turbo era, so had I made the trip to long beach at 7 years of age, my opinion would probably still be warped from only remembering the sound of the early turbo's!

 

So either way I have obviously missed out!

[skid solo]

Unfortunately you're kind of speaking to a lost cause here. V8-12's were loud and impressive sounding.
 
But the mid 80's 1.5 turbo's were also part of F1, and from the videos I've watched they sound fine to me.
 
I'm really not into loud for the sake of being loud. My attitude is that  if the performance is there, I can care less what it sounds like.
 
.

Welcome to F1

I think you have a good handle on pretty much everything. I agree with you about the sound. Never did like the high pitch of the V8 era. Much prefer a low revving high torque growl myself

[AvranaKern]

I will readily admit that never having heard them live is a significant factor. I know that tv/video just can't convey sound the same way as real life, no matter how good your system is.

You used to hear engines with your whole body. Now ears do suffice.

[Tourgott]

So either way I have obviously missed out!

 

Unfortunately you missed the Golden era of F1.

Nowadays we have DRS, refueling was banned, tires only last a half lap and, which is worst this year (beside the sound), because of the Turbos, drivers have to consider their fuel consumption, so they have to slow down and short shift at around 10k rpm.

[KiloWatt]

Welcome...sorry to say but you came at the worst possible time   

 

In all fairness, to the watching fans on the sofas (like you, me and everyone else on this board), 'now' is always the worst time.

[stanga]

Unfortunately you missed the Golden era of F1.

Nowadays we have DRS, refueling was banned, tires only last a half lap and, which is worst this year (beside the sound), because of the Turbos, drivers have to consider their fuel consumption, so they have to slow down and short shift at around 10k rpm.

 

When was the 'Golden Era' you speak of?

[Tourgott]

When was the 'Golden Era' you speak of?

 

Actually everything before they started to fake the sport, so obviously before DRS & Pirelli (2011). Back then F1 was about racing. That's a well-known truth.

Personally I think F1 had their Golden Era between 1990 and 2006.

[caccamolle]

I will readily admit that never having heard them live is a significant factor. I know that tv/video just can't convey sound the same way as real life, no matter how good your system is.

 

All I can offer in they way of a defense is that no F1 race has been held in California since 1983 at Long Beach, and never in the Bay Area that I live in, some 380 miles north.

 

83 was the beginning of the turbo era, so had I made the trip to long beach at 7 years of age, my opinion would probably still be warped from only remembering the sound of the early turbo's!

 

So either way I have obviously missed out!

 

your prior point about sound less important than actual performance is well understood of course, and in general hard to disagree.

 

However I would like to insist on the fact that sound is really part of F1 history and it is a component that is inside the vast majority of fans who have been to races.  It is just breathtaking.  It is F1.

 

When you are watching from home, it is not at all about your sound system, rather it is the fact that the true sound (its full spectrum that is) simply is not there because there is no way of capturing it with technology currently used for F1 audio recording.   Hence going to a race means, well used to mean for sure, that you would be able to hear sounds that your TV or no matter what sound system at home never even played.

 

Anyhow, as many have noted, we shall get over it, especially if the racing gets good, but we will surely miss it.

[Gyan]

Sounds to me like the lower teams are just getting crumbs anyway with that system. The top teams are still pulling the lions share and are set to continue to dominate.

 

At the risk of sounding ignorant - that it not a very fair system.

 

It is going to be based purely on points then you might as well go the nascar route where even the last car on the grid is guaranteed to get at least a few points. 

 

 

If I were to run F1 based on my limited knowledge...

 

After management takes its cut, whatever that is negotiated to be...

 

The majority of the remaining funds, 60%, give or take should be spread evenly among all the teams.

 

The rest should be divided by the number of points available during a season and earned accordingly.

 

 

 

.

 

F1 unfortunately has a highly political system of distributing prize money. 'Historical' teams get extra money and that includes the not so 'historical' Red Bull Racing. The teams clamber over each other when it comes to resolving issues, so a equitable form of money distribution is extremely unlikely and the top teams will always get that lions share. I don't mind seeing other teams getting some points on board hence.

 

So, I don't mind the points distribution currently used. I'd rather have a 15-10-8 system, but I've warmed up to this. To me, it's a tolerable balance between a top 5 only and a whole field scoring system.

 

I do understand your point though - it was always a delight to see Minardi get a rare point. They were the veritable underdogs of F1 until almost 10 years ago. They rarely scored a top 6 finish and it was an amazing achievement when they did. They raced, simply because they loved racing.  Having said that, Caterham and Marussia are filling up that role these days, so things balanced out with the reliability issue.

[kenkip]

Welcome to F1!You have balanced views and hopefully they hold when you start supporting a driver!

I especially like the video game analogy.Most casual fans think F1 is full of wheel to wheel racing all the time and the lead changing 10 times a race but it realy isnt.There is alot more to F1 than racing,the politics,technology,drivers,teammate wars etc... so am glad you have the right mentality of following F1.

A unique thing about being an F1 fan is you have to invest alot of time following the sport or you will be left behind.For example,if Redbull wiin this weekend,i know that the upshift in performance is due to the software upgrade from Renault and new parts coming in.But a casual observer may struggle to understand why Mercedes can be so far ahead one race and in the other the rivals are breathing down their necks!

Oh and ignore the grumpy guys talking about the golden era,they moaned even worse then in that period and will moan more during the next 'golden era'!

[sopa]

When was the 'Golden Era' you speak of?

 

Sometimes it is claimed the real Golden Era was the 1930s.

[noikeee]

If you managed to survive past the Malaysian GP with a hint of enthusiasm, you're here for good, so welcome. It wasn't the worst race ever but it wasn't very good.

 

Just stay away from team-mate vs team-mate threads for now whilst you're on the fence about this whole F1 thing, as some of the opinions you'll see expressed there are a bit... "special". Enough to turn anyone into a massive cynic.

[Mox]

Welcome to F1, WES350. Don't buy all the naysaying!

Yes, there have been changes compared to the past, and there will always be people who feel the past was better (most of them are old farts like me  ;-) ( sorry, all you other old farts)).

Personally, I refuse to spend time worrying about things not being as good as in the past. I try to focus on the things in F1 that still makes it interesting today, like the tech-development and the driver rivalries. It is not as dramatic as in the 70s, but there are plenty of interesting things to enjoy, and F1 is about much more than what goes on every other sunday on the blacktop!

Change is the only constant in life, as Heraclius said in 500BC. Might as well embrace it. :-)

[Collombin]

I would advise trying some other authors if you want to expand your knowledge of the history of the sport. If you enjoyed the two books that you read, then the only way is up.

[SHODAN]

When was the 'Golden Era' you speak of?

 

Any time but the present moment. As it always is.

[DampMongoose]

I would advise trying some other authors if you want to expand your knowledge of the history of the sport. If you enjoyed the two books that you read, then the only way is up.

 

Beat me to it EB! I was just about to make a point very similar! I'm impressed that Wes350 found his way here though, my initial reaction to Mr Rubython's writing made me consider removing my eyes with a teaspoon. 

 

Regarding his 3 head scratchers, I have to say I agree on all counts.   Although I prefer the points to 6th personally.

[Fastcake]

Welcome, and enjoy.

On points, you will find that some people do think they should be awarded right down the grid. They are only there for deciding championship positions after all.

Actually everything before they started to fake the sport, so obviously before DRS & Pirelli (2011). Back then F1 was about racing. That's a well-known truth.
Personally I think F1 had their Golden Era between 1990 and 2006.

You're in very, very small company if you think that is F1's golden era.

[Tourgott]

You're in very, very small company if you think that is F1's golden era.

 

And you know that why?

There are some facts which approve my view, e.g. highest TV ratings of all time, most and best engine-manufactures (Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyota, Honda), most sponsorship, fastest lap times ... and the best racing action (which of course is subjectively).

Edited by Tourgott, 03 April 2014 - 12:24.

[BullHead]

Welcome indeed. F1 may not always be exciting, but it is always fascinating.
The noise debate is getting boring now, as is the era vs era stuffiness.
But I will agree that you have come in as the sporting element is killing itself. As you correctly point out, the double points idea is sheer lunacy.
I only wish as much multimedia / universal fuss was made over this as there seems to be over the noise. There's hope yet, though, as the season goes on. (IMO)

[Fastcake]

And you know that why?

There are some facts which approve my view, e.g. highest TV ratings of all time, most and best engine-manufactures (Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyota, Honda), most sponsorship, fastest lap times ... and the best racing action (which of course is subjectively).

 

You can't really have facts to support your view of what makes a golden era, as by it is subjective by its very nature.

 

Of course we could use facts anyway to dispute your view. E.g. decreasing viewing figures through the Schumacher years, manufacturers and sponsors pushing up prices and driving out the privateers, lap times increasing at the expense of overtaking, and racing action consisting of cars on rails passing each other through fuel stops. 

[Tourgott]

decreasing viewing figures through the Schumacher years 

 

Wrong. Provable highest ratings of all time in Germany and Italy.

 

manufacturers and sponsors pushing up prices and driving out the privateers

 

 

Not true.

 

lap times increasing at the expense of overtaking

 

 

Bullshit.

 

and racing action consisting of cars on rails passing each other through fuel stops. 

 

 

Strategically more interesting than "Save your tires, save fuel, let him pass!"

 

Conclusion: You got no point here.

Edited by Tourgott, 03 April 2014 - 15:31.

[Collombin]

Sometimes it is claimed the real Golden Era was the 1930s.

Nah. Rubbish TV ratings.

[R Soul]

And the sound complaints; I don't get it. Why all the fuss?

I youtubed some early 80's turbo era races, listened to their sound, and I don't see a problem.

The engines don't sound powerful. I like the lower pitch but drivers should not have to change up at 10 or 11 thousand RPM, with a limit of 15000. Some restrictions make sense but teams already have an incentive to limit how much fuel they carry (it's heavy). I think letting them rev higher would improve the sound. Some capacity limit would be okay but I'd like a driver to be able to go for it when he's fighting for position.

[RealRacing]

Welcome to F1. Not necessarily the best year to pick it up, but on the flipside, the probabilities of it improving are in your favor.

 

Don't be fooled about the 2 car team being a good thing as it discourages racing. If you follow racing because of the drivers mainly, manipulations of the racing to benefit the team will piss you off. I would actually prefer if it was like Nascar.

 

Double points for last race? What can be said other than it's a product of people whose only talent is to spend money.

 

I don't know if I should recommend watching complete seasons, season reviews from other eras or the movie Senna as it may be counterproductive in your enjoyment of this season. "1" is an excellent documentary focusing on the issue of safety in F1 but giving a good insight into the whole history of the category.

 

I'm not going to say anything about drivers as I would like you to give us your fresh perspective as the season progresses. Just one warning: don't believe everything people say about drivers of course, but be even more cautious with what they say themselves.

 

Finally, if you have a recommendation of another category where the racing is better and more driver-focused, please let me know.

 

Enjoy the most entertaining political game in the world.

[Fastcake]

Wrong. Provable highest ratings of all time in Germany and Italy.

And we can take a look into DMN's ratings thread and see the British viewing figures significantly decline. I think there are more global figures in that thread somewhere as well.

Not true.

 
Not true? So the costs stayed the same from the 1980s into the 2000s? We still had the same number of independent teams in 1990 as we did in 2006? None of the much loved privateers had to sell up because they couldn't afford it any more?

 

Bullshit.

So you disagree that the aerodynamics making the cars faster produced so much turbulence overtaking was near impossible? Or the corner speeds increased to the point there was a potential safety risk at many circuits?  
 

Strategically more interesting than "Save your tires, save fuel, let him pass!"
 
Conclusion: You got no point here.

A lot of people would argue the years since your golden era ended in 2006 were better than the years preceded it. Even so, why compare it to the present? Have you seen many races before the nineties? They had their problems too, but drivers could actually get past each other out of the pits.

[Rob]

Nah. Rubbish TV ratings.

 

And Caracciola was too dominant. Boring!

[itsademo]

your prior point about sound less important than actual performance is well understood of course, and in general hard to disagree.

 

However I would like to insist on the fact that sound is really part of F1 history and it is a component that is inside the vast majority of fans who have been to races.  It is just breathtaking.  It is F1.

 

When you are watching from home, it is not at all about your sound system, rather it is the fact that the true sound (its full spectrum that is) simply is not there because there is no way of capturing it with technology currently used for F1 audio recording.   Hence going to a race means, well used to mean for sure, that you would be able to hear sounds that your TV or no matter what sound system at home never even played.

 

Anyhow, as many have noted, we shall get over it, especially if the racing gets good, but we will surely miss it.

 

sorry no its easy for people who don't want change to blame others but the fact is mics can capture full F1 sound its your TV that cannot reproduce it!

But please feel free to blame anyone but yourself or your desire to make your neighbours go deaf or you could go get a full on sound system and watch the police cart you off as the electricity company bankrupt you.

All sound can be reproduced its simple pressure waves moving through the air but can you afford to reproduce them