49 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

I guess artifical regulation can be defined as those that are not strictly necessary for the sporting purposes of motor racing.  Instead certain rules seem to be implemented more for show.

 

In the baguette corner we have:

 

Standing restarts

Lapped cars may overtake

Drag Reduction System

Titanium skid planks *discarded

Must use both compounds of tyre

Must start on the tyre you qualify on

Tyres degradge on purpose

10 place grid penalty on top of penalties in the previous race

Double points final race

 

In the BBQ rib corner we have:

 

Double file restart

Lucky dog

Restrictor plates

Green-white-chequer

Competition yellow

On track contact is rarely punished with a penalty

Chase for the cup

 

Hmmm... 

 

Edit - Double points final race for F1 & chase for the cup Sprint Cup (I forgot  )

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 July 2014 - 02:25.

[ForeverF1]

Voted for NASCAR, but, it is based on my perception from the few races that I have seen, not on knowledge.

 

Edit: Although, I would have liked to see the option "Both are equal in their stupidity"

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

FIA wins in my view, as some of the NASCAR rules aren't too bad (yes they're a bit artificial but not as bad as the FIA ones you mentioned).

 

Of the FIA things mentioned I dislike: All of them pretty much

 

Of the NASCAR things mentioned I dislike: Competition yellow (so the track might have changed due to some rain, deal with it) and GWC (though it can lead to the race not ending under yellow, it still can do, plus it can sometimes cause drivers to run out of fuel when that wouldn't normally happen so that's pretty unfair in my view)

[Seanspeed]

You're really stretching with some of the FIA ones in terms of the 'artificial'ness of them.

NASCAR is still the more entertainment-focused motorsport.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I forget, which series is it that has rules none of their fans bitch about? Or the one where the drivers never have to conserve anything. Or is it that the same series?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(actually the answer might be something like Rallycross)

[Ickx]

It is getting closer. Way too close. Still, Nascar "winns" in my opinion due to the chase for the cup format. 

[Atreiu]

I don't mind it with NASCAR, they don't try to pretend they are the 'holier than thou' apex of world motor racing.

Edited by Atreiu, 01 July 2014 - 17:34.

[John B]

A reasonable question given the lists presented, but NASCAR gets the dishonorable mention for 4 drivers even points at the last race, not to mention the mind-numbing process that leads to it (starting with a 16-driver chase field that presently includes someone 26th in points and others with no wins outside the top 10 in points).

[LuckyStrike1]

I forget, which series is it that has rules none of their fans bitch about? Or the one where the drivers never have to conserve anything. Or is it that the same series?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(actually the answer might be something like Rallycross)

 

 

Joker lap anyone? 

 

Although from two completely different spectras I say this poll is too close to call.

[Rob G]

NASCAR was miles ahead, but the FIA is catching them rapidly, especially with the new F1 rules discussed for 2015. The glaring thing missing from the OP's list is NASCAR's Chase. To be fair to NASCAR, though, their policy on penalties for on-track incidents has never really changed throughout their history, and the restrictor plates were implemented to prevent a car from flying into the grandstands, thereby ensuring that there would still BE a show.

[Afterburner]

I don't mind it with NASCAR, they don't try to pretend they are the 'holier than thou' apex of world motor racing.

And this is honestly the crux of the question. NASCAR doesn't try to pretend it's something it isn't, while F1 does.

And as far as the sanctioning bodies implementing ridiculous rules is concerned:

IMSA/NASCAR
Performance-balancing competitors (TUSC)
Double-file restarts (stock cars)
Lap-down wave-by (TUSC/stock cars)
Competition cautions (stock cars)
Dodgy stewarding (TUSC/stock cars)
GWC finishes (TUSC/stock cars)
'Chase for the Cup' (stock cars)

FIA
Performance-balancing competitors (FIA GT/WEC)
Double-file standing restarts (F1)
Lap-down wave-by (F1)
Dodgy stewarding (F1)
Overtaking aids (F1)
Intentionally-fragile tyres (F1)
Safety certification standards which result in sterile circuits (all series)
Hypocrisy regarding said standards (WEC/'the tree' at Le Mans 2013)
Drivers using two cars in a race (Formula E)
'Fanboost' (Formula E)
Race 'soundtracks' (Formula E)
Arbitrary double-points finale (F1)

This is just off the top of my head. You tell me which one you think has made more ridiculous decisions as of late. In the interest of being generous to the FIA, I threw in IMSA as a part of NASCAR so they wouldn't have a monopoly on performance balancing.

Edited by Afterburner, 01 July 2014 - 23:41.

[ardbeg]

I used to put "purity" very high on my list for most things that I was interested in, regardless if it was music, food, sports or friendship. I have loosened up considerably, specially when it comes to motor sport. I want to be entertained and NASCAR and Indycar manage to entertain me. I want fairness, yes, but no matter how you design the rules, luck and circumstances will play a huge part in the outcome. Currently F1 is uphill for the losers and downhill for the winners. What is good about that? Having at best 4 cars that can win is not entertainment, specially if the car/driver you root for is not in any of those cars. If "artificial" rules are needed to increase the competition and remove some predictability, then I am ok with that. Up to a point. It should not turn silly, like the two compound rule.

[BullHead]

It's sad that F1 can be compared to NASCAR in credibility standards. F1 has a double points finale, that must surely be winner for the FiA.

[Afterburner]

It's sad that F1 can be compared to NASCAR in credibility standards. F1 has a double points finale, that must surely be winner for the FiA.

Oops. Forgot to add that to my list.

[loki]

It's sad that F1 can be compared to NASCAR in credibility standards. F1 has a double points finale, that must surely be winner for the FiA.

Yes it is sad. Sad for NASCAR...

[whitewaterMkII]

Pretty hilarious that F1 and NASCAR end up in the same sentence, let alone having there rules structures discussed. F1 wins the artificiality poll, for any number of reasons, but in my book the top three are the saccharin quality of the circuits, the ridiculous DRS and running strangled engines.

[Afterburner]

Pretty hilarious that F1 and NASCAR end up in the same sentence, let alone having there rules structures discussed. F1 wins the artificiality poll, for any number of reasons, but in my book the top three are the saccharin quality of the circuits, the ridiculous DRS and running strangled engines.

I'm convinced that if, at this point, the FIA realised this was the common reception of F1, they'd take it as a compliment.

[John B]

When NASCAR had the first COT going several years ago you could say both series were about funny looking winged cars making pit stop contests, the difference being you watch the first corner in F1 and last restart in NASCAR.

[whitewaterMkII]

When NASCAR had the first COT going several years ago you could say both series were about funny looking winged cars making pit stop contests, the difference being you watch the first corner in F1 and last restart in NASCAR.

heh

Here's another one, F1 constricts their engines with bizarro technological hurdles, NASCAR throttles their engines with running ancient engine tech.

[HP]

heh

Here's another one, F1 constricts their engines with bizarro technological hurdles, NASCAR throttles their engines with running ancient engine tech.

According to PR it boils down to the same reason. F1 wants to keep the manufacturers interest, to build technology they sell in everyday cars. In NASCAR they use the engine as they are close to what their fans / car customers use.

 

Ain't that nice, the rules are done because the customer is king.. Hey.. Wait a minute, what am I writing

Edited by HP, 02 July 2014 - 03:26.

[chipmcdonald]

Voted for NASCAR, but, it is based on my perception from the few races that I have seen, not on knowledge.

 

Edit: Although, I would have liked to see the option "Both are equal in their stupidity"

 

 

 

They're not equally stupid, because one group is spending 10x the amount of money and stands to lose a global, instead of a national audience.  

[jonpollak]

Superb topic.
We are experiencing Motor Racing evolution first hand.
As goes the world so goes the thoughts and fears of corporate interests that drive our passion and it's decline into a manner of attention seeking.

 

Jp

[KingTiger]

Nascar has some silly stuff but FIA is worse now. Everything they've done in the last 10 years is mind bogging stupid. 

[FerrariV12]

Was going to say F1, but I wonder if that's just my perception based on how rapidly F1 has degraded as opposed to where they actually stand, so I'll try and look at this rationally, although not following NASCAR does make this a bit hard and subject to error:

 

Championship - F1 has double points, but doesn't NASCAR have a winner takes all finale now?

"Winner": NASCAR.

 

Lapped Car wavearounds - F1 waves all cars around regardless of position, doesn't NASCAR just wave around those between the pace car and the leader?

"Winner": F1, but may be a tie if my info is incorrect.

 

Overtaking - Maybe passing is easy in NASCAR, but that's a natural consequence of the cars allowing slipstreaming and so on, it doesn't have DRS as far as I can tell

"Winner": F1

 

Car Numbers - While similar, at least the permanent numbers in NASCAR are attached to teams rather than drivers

"Winner": F1 narrowly.

 

Restarts - Since NASCAR doesn't have standing starts at all, I'm going to say their double file restart and F1's standing starts are essentially an equivalent

"Winner": Tie.

 

Finishes - F1 doesn't have GWC. Yet.

"Winner": NASCAR

 

Tyres - Both have spec tyres, but as far as I know Goodyear haven't been asked to produce a substandard product in recent seasons for the sake of "the show"

"Winner": F1.

 

Fake Yellows - NASCAR still takes this by a mile, for all F1's faults with the safety car procedure, I've never been aware of a recurring theme when it has been brought out many times in dubious instances.

"Winner": NASCAR

 

Technology - F1 has degraded much in recent years on this front, but at least have new engines this year and at least the semblance of an ongoing technical competition.

"Winner": NASCAR

 

Entries - NASCAR really pisses all over F1 here in this regard and has for a while, at least allowing smaller teams the opportunity of showing up with a legal car and making the field in qualifying (even if some entries are seeded and guaranteed a start, at least no-one is locked out), as opposed to F1's arbitrary entry tenders and full season commitment BS.

"Winner": F1 by a mile

 

Performance Balancing - This was always NASCAR territory, but with the way F1 froze the engines in 2006 and then allowing upgrades to make them equal I'm tempted to call this a tie, but then at least from a car point of view F1 allows development and while it will ban things, its a few steps away from throwing all F1 cars in a central windtunnel to equalise their performance.

"Winner": NASCAR

 

Which leaves my final score as:

 

F1 4 - 5 NASCAR

 

So NASCAR still "wins" the most-artificial battle for me but only just, although if my info about the wave arounds is incorrect it means the score is 5-3 in "favour" of NASCAR.

[Seanspeed]

How are 'car numbers' artificial? They don't affect the racing or anything at all. Seems a weird category to list.

[Prost1997T]

It's worth noting that you can't pit if you take the wave around during a Nascar caution period.

[HoldenRT]

"Lucky dog" = NASCAR wins..

 

F1 is trying it's best to compete though.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The Lucky Dog rule makes sense within the context and history of NASCAR racing, and dealt with the issue of guys racing back to the timing line when the yellow came out.

[Andrew Hope]

I guess artifical regulation can be defined as those that are not strictly necessary for the sporting purposes of motor racing.  Instead certain rules seem to be implemented more for show.

 

In the baguette corner we have:

 

Standing restarts

Lapped cars may overtake

Drag Reduction System

Titanium skid planks *discarded

Must use both compounds of tyre

Must start on the tyre you qualify on

Tyres degradge on purpose

10 place grid penalty on top of penalties in the previous race

Double points final race

 

In the BBQ rib corner we have:

 

Double file restart

Lucky dog

Restrictor plates

Green-white-chequer

Competition yellow

On track contact is rarely punished with a penalty

Chase for the cup

 

Hmmm... 

 

Edit - Double points final race for F1 & chase for the cup Sprint Cup (I forgot  )

 

NASCAR has it's fair share of bullshit but F1 has left it in the dust. For NASCAR, double file restarts are not any more artificial than single file restarts and the Lucky Dog is a pretty reasonable rule in my view. Restrictor plates are definitely lame but as this artificiality is mainly intended to prevent the far lamer idea of a car flying into the stands at 240mph and killing 150 people I can live with it. Green-white-checkers has a lot of haters but let's be real, no one prefers a race to finish under the cawshun and the shitty part of GWC isn't that it exists but how it's applied, as NASCAR seems to go into every race hoping to be able to enact that rule and trying their best to avoid anyone winning by more than half a car length. Competition yellows are **** but again, it's not a big deal like invisibris yellows (which are far more common). There's only so many times you can watch a yellow be thrown for a hot dog wrapper 4 miles off the racing line in turn 3 before you begin to abandon any warmness you feel towards NASCAR attempting to air on the side of safety. Their attitude towards safety is bullshit anyway, since the cars are probably the safest race cars in the world drivers can get away with wrecking each other. The Chase is... eugh.

 

F1 is even more ridiculous. I'm not really too pissed about standing restarts because I think it will be interesting and I don't really care that it makes F1 marginally less safe either. If it's safe enough to do once it's safe enough to do twice. If you race cars for a living you essentially won the job lottery and you know that while you're playing a dangerous game you're living an extraordinary life because of it. If you don't think it's safe, boycott it. Mike Conway had the balls to say he wouldn't race on ovals anymore, so it's not like there's no recent precedent. It's going to be more challenging next year and that's what every F1 fan supposedly wants F1 to be. DRS is silly but the lesser of two evils, and poorly-implemented when a copy of IndyCar's far superior Push-2-Pass system would've sorted the problem out nicely. Where IndyCar seems to copy other series' rules and regulations as if trying to prove it is indeed a real racing series, F1 seems phobic to copying any ideas other series came up with first, even if it would make the racing ten times better. Tyre rules are definitely artificial and ****. Penalties will always be arbitrary. If there had always been a 1-place grid drop for a certain infraction but now it's 3 places that's no more or less artificial than if it had always been 5 spots and now it's 10. We just had 3 or 4 seasons of the stewards giving you a 3-race ban if you farted too close to Fernando Alonso only for the FIA in the middle of this season suddenly decide they're going to be lenient. You want artificial? Grosjean got a race ban specifically for taking out title contenders in that snuff film he recorded at Spa a few years back. That's what the FIA statement said - it mentioned title contenders specifically, meaning presumably that if he had taken out Max Chilton and Esteban Gutierrez no one would've given a ****. I guess because driving for teams with more money than the GDP of the Czech Republic isn't enough of an advantage in F1 already, so you need the FIA to threaten small teams to be scared to drive within a mile of a big team for fear of a racing incident turning into avoidable contact because you hit a Mercedes-Mercedes instead of a McLaren-Mercedes. Double points is just hilarious, particularly for one of the worst tracks on the calendar. I don't even like different points values for prestigous/grueling races and wish for every series it was the same right down the middle, and if the teams have a problem with a 90-minute race at Long Beach being worth just as much as a 24-hour race at Sebring they should drop Long Beach and replace it with something more difficult.

Edited by Andrew Hope, 03 July 2014 - 16:47.

[Seanspeed]

NASCAR has it's fair share of bullshit but F1 has left it in the dust. For NASCAR, double file restarts are not any more artificial than single file restarts

I disagree with most of your post, but I think this right here gets to the gist of it - you're being way too lenient on NASCAR and too harsh on F1, even making stuff up like the 3 race ban if getting near Alonso, which there have been no incidents remotely close to that to even justify an exaggeration.

You don't see how double file restarts are more artificial than single file? Honestly? I really think you're smart enough that I shouldn't have to explain it.

Edited by Seanspeed, 03 July 2014 - 16:59.

[whitewaterMkII]

I disagree with most of your post, but I think this right here gets to the gist of it - you're being way too lenient on NASCAR and too harsh on F1, even making stuff up like the 3 race ban if getting near Alonso, which there have been no incidents remotely close to that to even justify an exaggeration.

You don't see how double file restarts are more artificial than single file? Honestly? I really think you're smart enough that I shouldn't have to explain it.

You have 43 cars in NASCAR vs.18-20 in F1, if they didn't have double wide restarts the last guys in line would be 1/2 a lap back at the restart, or in the case of the short tracks, fighting to keep out of the leaders way.  For an example of what can happen to legit cars in the back, take a look at the consequences of single file restarts at Long Beach, where the last car in line hasn't even gotten around a 20 MPH hairpin and the leaders are already in sixth gear.

[Andrew Hope]

I disagree with most of your post, but I think this right here gets to the gist of it - you're being way too lenient on NASCAR and too harsh on F1, even making stuff up like the 3 race ban if getting near Alonso, which there have been no incidents remotely close to that to even justify an exaggeration.

You don't see how double file restarts are more artificial than single file? Honestly? I really think you're smart enough that I shouldn't have to explain it.

Double-file restarts are necessary in NASCAR because of the size of the field. You can't have a train of 43 cars (so roughly 86 car lengths from leader to last) on a 1/2 mile oval track. The leader would be barreling into turn 1 while the last place guy hasn't even entered turn 3. I'm a little lenient on NASCAR and tougher on F1 because NASCAR's artificiality to my eyes comes from a slightly-more understandable place, i.e. fear that the heights it hit in the late 90s/early 00s will never be seen again. When NASCAR makes a stupid rule change it's easier to empathize with their thinking compared to F1 where seemingly every new rule change is awful, poorly thought-out, usually unfair and always borne out of ignorance and complete disregard for anything that might serve to improve the spirit of racing.

[Seanspeed]

You have 43 cars in NASCAR vs.18-20 in F1, if they didn't have double wide restarts the last guys in line would be 1/2 a lap back at the restart, or in the case of the short tracks, fighting to keep out of the leaders way.  For an example of what can happen to legit cars in the back, take a look at the consequences of single file restarts at Long Beach, where the last car in line hasn't even gotten around a 20 MPH hairpin and the leaders are already in sixth gear.

I understand their place in NASCAR, but with the amount of restarts they have to make, I'd say that it certainly creates more 'artificialness' than a single file restart. Especially on restrictor plate tracks where being in the right lane can be the difference between winning and losing.

Double-file restarts are necessary in NASCAR because of the size of the field. You can't have a train of 43 cars (so roughly 86 car lengths from leader to last) on a 1/2 mile oval track. The leader would be barreling into turn 1 while the last place guy hasn't even entered turn 3. I'm a little lenient on NASCAR and tougher on F1 because NASCAR's artificiality to my eyes comes from a slightly-more understandable place, i.e. fear that the heights it hit in the late 90s/early 00s will never be seen again. When NASCAR makes a stupid rule change it's easier to empathize with their thinking compared to F1 where seemingly every new rule change is awful, poorly thought-out, usually unfair and always borne out of ignorance and complete disregard for anything that might serve to improve the spirit of racing.

That doesn't really explain much. You accept stupid rules in NASCAR why, exactly?

And I think *most* F1 rules do have a pretty rational explanation for them. You're exaggerating things, which supports my idea that you're being unnecessarily harsh when it comes to F1 for some reason or the other.

[loki]

According to PR it boils down to the same reason. F1 wants to keep the manufacturers interest, to build technology they sell in everyday cars. In NASCAR they use the engine as they are close to what their fans / car customers use.

Ain't that nice, the rules are done because the customer is king.. Hey.. Wait a minute, what am I writing

The engines used in Cup are nothing like what the street cars in the US use. They sell cars based on brand identity and the most recent pushes have been made to make the race cars look more similar to the street car version. The manufacturers have determined there is a direct correlation between having a competitive effort and selling cars so they are willing to invest. I think it could be argued rather easily than in terms of vehicle sales Nascar is a much bigger driver of auto sales to consumers than F1.

[Afterburner]

That doesn't really explain much. You accept stupid rules in NASCAR why, exactly?

I think 'because NASCAR doesn't pretend to be the pinnacle of motorsport whilst F1 does' is a pretty legitimate reason for that. F1 taking itself too seriously is the reason most people like Andrew and me have the opinions they do. The more F1 attempts to build itself up, the harder it should be ready to get torn down for every stupid decision its leaders make.

[Seanspeed]

I think 'because NASCAR doesn't pretend to be the pinnacle of motorsport whilst F1 does' is a pretty legitimate reason for that. F1 taking itself too seriously is the reason most people like Andrew and me have the opinions they do. The more F1 attempts to build itself up, the harder it should be ready to get torn down for every stupid decision its leaders make.

But surely in a discussion about artificialness, NASCAR's openness about it being a show-based sport almost pre-qualifies it to be 'most artificial' by default?

I mean, most proper sports look 'serious' by NASCAR standards. But most sports, including F1, also don't pretend that show isn't a part of things and have rules that aim to help that aspect. I don't think F1 tries to present itself quite as serious as you think it does, its just some preconceived notion you have that, in turn, colors your views of anything it does.

[LuckyStrike1]

But surely in a discussion about artificialness, NASCAR's openness about it being a show-based sport almost pre-qualifies it to be 'most artificial' by default?

I mean, most proper sports look 'serious' by NASCAR standards. But most sports, including F1, also don't pretend that show isn't a part of things and have rules that aim to help that aspect. I don't think F1 tries to present itself quite as serious as you think it does, its just some preconceived notion you have that, in turn, colors your views of anything it does.

 

 

44,19 % or 19 people agree with you. Or 18 if you have voted. (Too lazy to recalculate the percentage although it's actually very simple) 

[ch103]

Very interesting thread - many great posts on the topic.  If I could add one thing. 

 

When people say FIA or Nascar are making artificial rules, we need to keep in mind that what I may consider artificial may be considered normal to another race fan.  I think that the more racing a person watches the more accustomed she/he is to seeing racing in a certain manner.  In other words, older F1 and Nascar fans have their own memory of how racing was and can compare "today's" racing against it.  Thus concluding that changes to make the "race" more entertainment oriented, versus a being focused on completing a race distance in the fastest possible time, believe today's product is "artificial."  Newer fans just consider it normal. 

 

Newer nascar fans, who started following the sport after the Chase was introduced, have no historical context to compare to.  So for those fans, the integrity of the sport isn't tarnished.  For them its normal.  

 

As for the poll - voted for Nascar.  IMO, their fan base is more accepting of changes to the sport than F1 fans are.  Therefore the executives in Nascar can have competition cautions, strategic cautions and worst of all the Chase "playoff" for the Cup.

[Afterburner]

But surely in a discussion about artificialness, NASCAR's openness about it being a show-based sport almost pre-qualifies it to be 'most artificial' by default?

I mean, most proper sports look 'serious' by NASCAR standards. But most sports, including F1, also don't pretend that show isn't a part of things and have rules that aim to help that aspect. I don't think F1 tries to present itself quite as serious as you think it does, its just some preconceived notion you have that, in turn, colors your views of anything it does.

I replied to your question regarding why one would accept dumb rules in NASCAR. I don't care which is more artificial in a direct comparison, because your question was about why one would accept artificial rules in one series but not another--to reiterate the answer to that: because the two sports are different in what they represent for the world of motorsport, the amount of 'artificial' regulations I'm willing to accept in each one is also different. Make sense?

And as for the rest of your post, I really can't be bothered to write an essay's worth of examples, so I'll leave you with this: if a weekend ticket at an F1 race costing as much as it does to spend a whole week at three other races in other series isn't a sign of F1 taking itself too seriously, then I honestly don't know what is.

[Seanspeed]

I replied to your question regarding why one would accept dumb rules in NASCAR. I don't care which is more artificial in a direct comparison, because your question was about why one would accept artificial rules in one series but not another--to reiterate the answer to that: because the two sports are different in what they represent for the world of motorsport, the amount of 'artificial' regulations I'm willing to accept in each one is also different. Make sense?

And as for the rest of your post, I really can't be bothered to write an essay's worth of examples, so I'll leave you with this: if a weekend ticket at an F1 race costing as much as it does to spend a whole week at three other races in other series isn't a sign of F1 taking itself too seriously, then I honestly don't know what is.

So Busch Gardens being fairly expensive means its a super serious place to visit?

[Afterburner]

So Busch Gardens being fairly expensive means its a super serious place to visit?

Come on, mate--you know what I was getting at. I'm not defending NASCAR and truth be told I will probably always prefer F1 more, but I am certainly not likely to praise F1 for very much at the moment. Best drivers in the world racing the fastest cars in the world on the most challenging tracks in the world is what F1, in my opinion, is supposed to be--and was consistently until not even five or so years ago. As the series that ignited my passion for racing, it's only natural that I hold it to the highest standards, I think. Does it have the best cars still? Maybe--but the quality of the field and the circuits has tanked in the past couple of years, and the quality of its management has been below even NASCAR standards as of late, in my opinion--yet F1 still seems to think it carries the same weight it did when when Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Lauda, et al were racing. I simply feel that it doesn't.

Clearly we have differing opinions, so I'll leave it there. Have neither said nor felt you were wrong--just that we felt differently about things.

[Seanspeed]

the quality of the field and the circuits has tanked in the past couple of years

100% not true. You're not the first person I've seen say this and I can only assume that its a result of people exaggerating and overblowing things when they're unhappy about something.

[whitewaterMkII]

100% not true. You're not the first person I've seen say this and I can only assume that its a result of people exaggerating and overblowing things when they're unhappy about something.

OK, I'll say it too, and I believe I did mention the saccharin quality of the circuits above. The drivers field is at least half of them predicated on what sponsors/money their drivers bring to the table.

[eff1fan]

But surely in a discussion about artificialness, NASCAR's openness about it being a show-based sport almost pre-qualifies it to be 'most artificial' by default?

 

I mean, most proper sports look 'serious' by NASCAR standards. But most sports, including F1, also don't pretend that show isn't a part of things and have rules that aim to help that aspect. I don't think F1 tries to present itself quite as serious as you think it does, its just some preconceived notion you have that, in turn, colors your views of anything it does.

 

Only difference between the two is that NASCAR doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is.

[Gorma]

 

Must start on the tyre you qualify on

 

You must start with the tyre you used to drive your fastest lap in Q2 if you qualify for Q3.

[PlatenGlass]

The whole Q1, Q2, Q3 system in F1 is pretty gimmicky but with everything else it seems to generally escape unnoticed.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The only problem with the qualifying system is it took them so long to implement it. Knockout qualifying is great and it was nearly perfect once they dropped the fuel load requirement. I wish we'd had it in the late 90s and early 00s. 

[DanardiF1]

NASCAR's Lucky Dog is a corporate-sponsored sporting regulation. That says it all.

 

Until we see 'DRS, brought to you by Rolex', I'll stick with NASCAR being the more 'entertainment' based regulation set.

[Rob G]

 

Until we see 'DRS, brought to you by Rolex', I'll stick with NASCAR being the more 'entertainment' based regulation set.

 

Not Rolex. Flomax.

[PlatenGlass]

The only problem with the qualifying system is it took them so long to implement it. Knockout qualifying is great and it was nearly perfect once they dropped the fuel load requirement. I wish we'd had it in the late 90s and early 00s.

I think it's better than what it immediately replaced - single-lap qualifying - but I just see it as a gimmick way to spice things up. Qualifying from 1996 to 2002 was generally pretty good anyway I thought, and although you'd often get teams doing nothing for 15 or 20 minutes or so, that would have easily been solved by shortening the session. They just needed to base the length of session on the amount of times it takes to get through the tyres available.