Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

Should F1 be about drivers or teams?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

Poll: Should F1 be a driver or team sport? (102 member(s) have cast votes)

Should F1 be a driver or team sport?

  1. driver (58 votes [56.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.86%

  2. team (44 votes [43.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.14%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:06

Horner, "F1 needs to be about the drivers being the heroes, and in Hungary they were. That is F1 at its best, not just in Hungary but in Germany as well."

 

I agree. Corporativism is killing the sport, which should be about drivers first and teams second. Your thoughts?



Advertisement

#2 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:15

I think F1 is dominated by big corporations with marketing divisions that have worked out that hyping drivers sells brands, and being dull and using team orders when you're dominant, as Ferrari did in the early 2000s, doesn't sell as well, and that's why constructors don't like to be seen to be imposing team orders if it upsets a certain kind of fan. Not necessarily the kind of fan that has a consistent and principled position on this issue, as I know the OP does, but more the kind of fan who reads Bild or the Sun and gets upset about the sort of thing that happened on Sunday. And I think that's a shame.

 

Despite that, regardless of what it should be, F1 is a team sport and that's a matter of fact. So the question is a bit like asking whether a duck should quack - whether it should or shouldn't is kind of a moot point, because it will quack no matter what anybody here has to say about it.


Edited by redreni, 30 July 2014 - 15:18.


#3 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:29

It's a team sport and people who act like the teams exist solely to provide the driver with a car to race are taking their hero worship a little too far.



#4 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,465 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:36

I don't think a distinction necessarily has to be drawn because I don't think it needs to be a zero sum game. There can be room for people who appreciate it from the team perspective, an overall, non-partisan approach and yes, those who follow the action entirely solely and entirely through the perspective of what it means for their favourite driver.

...the kind of fan that has a consistent and principled position on this issue, as I know the OP does, but more the kind of fan who reads Bild or the Sun and gets upset about the sort of thing that happened on Sunday. And I think that's a shame.

And I think looking down on people for their reasons for following the sport during declining viewing figures seems unproductive, patronising and needlessly divisive.

Edited to add: link to the Autosport article which includes Christian Horner's words: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/115208

"Sometimes it feels that the races are a bit too managed," he admitted.

"In conditions like we had in Hungary - just look at [Fernando] Alonso and how fantastic he was. [Lewis] Hamilton came from the back and look at Daniel making his passing around the outside and doing incredible things."



#5 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:43

I always thought the sport's strength was the fact it was both a team and individual sport all at the same time.

 

But given a choice I'll go with team, based on the fact I enjoy WEC (where the driver is just one third of a car) more than pretty much any other series right now, while the centrally-run team-less MSV F2 series is the one series where I've gone "that sounds rubbish, I refuse to watch it", and then actually followed through with said threat.


Edited by FerrariV12, 30 July 2014 - 15:44.


#6 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:43

The word should is perhaps a bit unfortunate, but I'd say teams. The drivers are much more interchangeable than their 'Biggest Fans' are likely to admit. Where was Rosberg last year? Where is Vettel now? Who outside of the people likely to visit sites like this noticed Schumacher was even around in 2011?

 

That said, it's probably much easier to sell the drivers. Boybands in racing overalls. :p



#7 NoSanityClause

NoSanityClause
  • Member

  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:45

Both.  Always was, always will.



#8 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 7,251 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:49

Horner, "F1 needs to be about the drivers being the heroes, and in Hungary they were. That is F1 at its best, not just in Hungary but in Germany as well."

I agree. Corporativism is killing the sport, which should be about drivers first and teams second. Your thoughts?

What Horner is saying has nothing to do in terms of f1 being about teams or drivers. It's only that drivers should be free to express themselves without free of a talking to from the fia, team or sponsors. They should bee able to speak their mind...

It's nothing about teams.. F1 is teams... Drivers come and go... Teams are what last the longest. Without Ferrari, mclaren and Williams and key partner like Mercedes and Honda f1 wouldn't be what it is. Drivers only last a decade at most typically...

Edited by Paco, 30 July 2014 - 15:52.


#9 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 30 July 2014 - 15:57

I don't think a distinction necessarily has to be drawn because I don't think it needs to be a zero sum game. There can be room for people who appreciate it from the team perspective, an overall, non-partisan approach and yes, those who follow the action entirely solely and entirely through the perspective of what it means for their favourite driver.
And I think looking down on people for their reasons for following the sport during declining viewing figures seems unproductive, patronising and needlessly divisive.

 

I don't intend to look down on the people who only follow the drivers. But I do have more respect for views that are consistent and principled (whether I agree with them or not) than for views that are inconsistent and reactionary so, for example, when you get no particular outcry when Mika Salo and Michael Schumacher gift race wins to Eddie Irvine, then a massive outcry when Rubens Barrichello gifts a win to Michael Schumacher, then no outcry for numerous blatant examples of team orders executed during the supposed ban (e.g. in favour of Kimi at Interlagos in 2007 and Hamilton at the same track in 2008), then a massive outcry for a team order against Massa in 2010, it bothers me. People ought to make their mind up what they think about these sorts of issues in terms of the broader principles, and if they don't, whilst they're still entitled to their views, I don't think the sport's competitors ought to feel obligated to alter their approach to the sport based on what people who haven't thought their position through might think.

 

I'm sorry if that comes across as a snooty or disrespectful position, but I'm afraid I think people have to take the sport as they find it and, if they don't like it the way it is, they can consider watching something else. There are plenty of other categories of motor racing. And I don't see it as my responsibility to worry about the viewing figures.



#10 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,465 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:16

I don't intend to look down on the people who only follow the drivers. But I do have more respect for views that are consistent and principled (whether I agree with them or not) than for views that are inconsistent and reactionary so, for example, when you get no particular outcry when Mika Salo and Michael Schumacher gift race wins to Eddie Irvine, then a massive outcry when Rubens Barrichello gifts a win to Michael Schumacher, then no outcry for numerous blatant examples of team orders executed during the supposed ban (e.g. in favour of Kimi at Interlagos in 2007 and Hamilton at the same track in 2008), then a massive outcry for a team order against Massa in 2010, it bothers me. People ought to make their mind up what they think about these sorts of issues in terms of the broader principles, and if they don't, whilst they're still entitled to their views, I don't think the sport's competitors ought to feel obligated to alter their approach to the sport based on what people who haven't thought their position through might think.
 
I'm sorry if that comes across as a snooty or disrespectful position, but I'm afraid I think people have to take the sport as they find it and, if they don't like it the way it is, they can consider watching something else. There are plenty of other categories of motor racing. And I don't see it as my responsibility to worry about the viewing figures.


But why do you believe that adopting a team-centred worldview is necessarily going to go hand in hand with fairness and objectivity? Have you never seen people who seem to support a team's every action as being somehow always correct? I don't deny there's a human inclination to look more favourably on actions when we like an individual than when we don't, but I don't see the Team View as the way forward for getting rid of this. I think it just is less apparent because the numbers of people who are in it just for the team but don't care about drivers one way or another are a smaller group.

#11 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:22

F1 is about drivers and teams, so a championship that was just about one wouldn't really be F1. Although to say it's a driver and team sport isn't entirely accurate. The "sport" part is drivers racing round a track. You could also include what the pit crews do during a race. But designing and building cars isn't really sport - it's stretching the term somewhat. It's part of a competition, but it's an engineering part. So F1 is a driver and team competition, part of which involves the sport of racing cars, you could say.

That all aside, you could ask the question: Should the pinnacle of motor racing be purely a driver sport? And I'd argue yes. I watch F1 because it's the "main" motorsport (in these parts anyway) and seen as the pinnacle, but if there was a rival system that managed to attract the same level of drivers that was all about the drivers, then to me it would be a far superior system. Something like this: http://www.tobyperei....uk/racing.html

#12 Mila

Mila
  • Member

  • 8,564 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:35

Boybands in racing overalls. :p

 

Yeah, they're worked wonders in recent years to infantilize F1 drivers. Now that they've made their bed, they don't want to sleep in it?



#13 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:42

Agree with Sophie - it's both and that's a strength of the sport.



#14 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:46

But why do you believe that adopting a team-centred worldview is necessarily going to go hand in hand with fairness and objectivity? Have you never seen people who seem to support a team's every action as being somehow always correct? I don't deny there's a human inclination to look more favourably on actions when we like an individual than when we don't, but I don't see the Team View as the way forward for getting rid of this. I think it just is less apparent because the numbers of people who are in it just for the team but don't care about drivers one way or another are a smaller group.

 

I don't, necessarily. I'm entirely happy with people who take RealRacing's approach, for example. So I'm not tarring everyone who doesn't follow the sport for the inter-team rivalries with the same brush, I'm simply saying that the people who are prepared to be consistent about this (like RealRacing and a few other forum regulars, for example) don't constitute the bulk of the people who occasionally come together to create a massive outcry, like the one that followed on from Hockenheim 2010, for example. Accordingly I think the sport should be prepared to listen to people like RealRacing and those who agree with him, but I don't think they should pay too much attention to the vast majority of the people who became enraged (for a short time) after Hockenheim 2010 and then went away again and got cross about something else, because we can tell from the very different response we get to comparable instances of team orders, that those people have no coherent position on this issue and so won't necessarily be satisfied by any coherent approach to regulating it that the sport might adopt.

 

One thing I think the sport could usefully do, though, and this ties into my original point about marketing, is to try to reduce the gap between what the sport is and the way it's presented to the television audience. Allocating numbers to the drivers instead of allocating two numbers to each team, having broadcasters focus almost exclusively on the WDC rather than the WCC, calling the WDC the WDC even though it never has been, and never will be, a straight fight on a level playing field between all the drivers; all these things may help to sell the sport, but they contribute to an expectation that your favourite driver is going to get a fair crack at winning each race, and maybe the title, and this can understandably lead to aggrieved viewers and fans. We saw that on Sunday because of the mechanical failure and team order that hindered Hamilton, we see it regularly, and I'm not sure it's helpful to create the expectation that the sport's going to deliver up a straight contest between two or more drivers when that's not necessarily the case. Maybe being more honest about the nature of the product on offer would help to combat the sense of gimmickery and fakeness that, in my humble opinion, may lie behind F1's popularity crisis?



#15 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:48

I also agree with Sophie.

 

That's what makes F1 a unique motorsport.

Both the team and the driver have a high public profile.

We only need to look at the forum pages here.

Nothing wrong with that.



#16 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 9,302 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:52

No vote for both?

#17 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:54

I don't, necessarily. I'm entirely happy with people who take RealRacing's approach, for example. So I'm not tarring everyone who doesn't follow the sport for the inter-team rivalries with the same brush, I'm simply saying that the people who are prepared to be consistent about this (like RealRacing and a few other forum regulars, for example) don't constitute the bulk of the people who occasionally come together to create a massive outcry, like the one that followed on from Hockenheim 2010, for example. Accordingly I think the sport should be prepared to listen to people like RealRacing and those who agree with him, but I don't think they should pay too much attention to the vast majority of the people who became enraged (for a short time) after Hockenheim 2010 and then went away again and got cross about something else, because we can tell from the very different response we get to comparable instances of team orders, that those people have no coherent position on this issue and so won't necessarily be satisfied by any coherent approach to regulating it that the sport might adopt.

 

One thing I think the sport could usefully do, though, and this ties into my original point about marketing, is to try to reduce the gap between what the sport is and the way it's presented to the television audience. Allocating numbers to the drivers instead of allocating two numbers to each team, having broadcasters focus almost exclusively on the WDC rather than the WCC, calling the WDC the WDC even though it never has been, and never will be, a straight fight on a level playing field between all the drivers; all these things may help to sell the sport, but they contribute to an expectation that your favourite driver is going to get a fair crack at winning each race, and maybe the title, and this can understandably lead to aggrieved viewers and fans. We saw that on Sunday because of the mechanical failure and team order that hindered Hamilton, we see it regularly, and I'm not sure it's helpful to create the expectation that the sport's going to deliver up a straight contest between two or more drivers when that's not necessarily the case. Maybe being more honest about the nature of the product on offer would help to combat the sense of gimmickery and fakeness that, in my humble opinion, may lie behind F1's popularity crisis?

I think your view of 'comparable team orders' is extremely broad, to the point that you will expect anyone who isn't either for or against all team orders (regardless of circumstance) to be hypocrites.

 

Personally, I find that rather simplistic, and your apparent superiority complex that stems from it (not saying you have one, but you might want to reread some of your posts for the impression they give) a little misguided.

 

Schumacher/Barrichello in Austria was, in my view, sufficiently different to Kimi/Massa in Brazil for someone to be ok with one, not ok with the other, and still remain consistent and reasonable in their views (incidentally, I was cool with both). 



#18 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:54

BTW, looking at the poll, the OP thinks it should be one or the other.

No option for 'Both', so I didn't vote.



#19 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 3,368 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 16:57

Yeah, it's about both and that makes it interesting.

Advertisement

#20 BlackCat

BlackCat
  • Member

  • 945 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 July 2014 - 17:05

sorry, but to have heroes you have to have some serious drama. for the last 20 years it has been like: let's stage Hamlet, but look out, nobody should get hurt. if nobody gets hurt, then it's a comedy and there are no real heroes in comedy.



#21 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 30 July 2014 - 17:07

I dont think the poll reflects the point Horner was making tbh, hence people saying its about both or not voting. Horner wasnt saying make it less about the teams more about the driver which is what the poll seems to ask.

 

Horner is saying the drivers should be allowed more freedom and with that comes the real hero status that people love and their profile rises. That need not be at the expense of the teams, indeed it can benefit them. I dont think he was saying the focus should be changed which is what the poll incorrectly implies.

 

For me, I agree totally with the point he makes (as I have understood it) I want to see drivers given freedom to express themselves, allow their personalities to show and feel less compelled to tow the 'corporate line' As an example Daniel Ricciardo swigging a can of Red Bull in his sky interview post race. Where are the days of the driver quaffing on champagne?

 

I also want to see far less Radio. I dont think you can ban it, but frankly I have no problem with restricting what can be communicated over it. The increase in Radio usage is the fault of the regulations though - a side effect of the fact races are no longer won by driving flat out for the whole race.

 

Ive a lot of time for eveything Horner has said lately. Im starting to think I'd really like him to become Bernie MK2.


Edited by Burtros, 30 July 2014 - 17:08.


#22 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 2,722 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 30 July 2014 - 17:19

Drivers. Most people tune in to watch the drivers battle each other, most people are fans of (and relate to) the drivers more so than the teams or corporations so I think they should be the priority.


Edited by bub, 30 July 2014 - 17:22.


#23 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 30 July 2014 - 17:41

I think it's worth pointing out that over the years, quite a lot of people have said to me (so it must have happened to some of you too) that they don't consider F1 to be a proper sport because it's mostly down to what car you're driving. It's hard to disagree with that. Yeah, you can argue it's a team sport, but engineering isn't really a sport is it?

#24 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 18:01

It's a team sport and has been for decades. Don't like it follow something else.



#25 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 18:35

I dont think the poll reflects the point Horner was making tbh, hence people saying its about both or not voting. Horner wasnt saying make it less about the teams more about the driver which is what the poll seems to ask.

 

Horner is saying the drivers should be allowed more freedom and with that comes the real hero status that people love and their profile rises. That need not be at the expense of the teams, indeed it can benefit them. I dont think he was saying the focus should be changed which is what the poll incorrectly implies.

 

For me, I agree totally with the point he makes (as I have understood it) I want to see drivers given freedom to express themselves, allow their personalities to show and feel less compelled to tow the 'corporate line' As an example Daniel Ricciardo swigging a can of Red Bull in his sky interview post race. Where are the days of the driver quaffing on champagne?

 

I also want to see far less Radio. I dont think you can ban it, but frankly I have no problem with restricting what can be communicated over it. The increase in Radio usage is the fault of the regulations though - a side effect of the fact races are no longer won by driving flat out for the whole race.

 

Ive a lot of time for eveything Horner has said lately. Im starting to think I'd really like him to become Bernie MK2.

I think it's possible to interpret both some of Horner's quotes as well as the article itself as implying a focus on drivers vs. teams without being incorrect, especially since these comments come after LH's "disobendience" of TOs, which are a team-focused element of F1 in detriment of drivers.

 

Article:

 

"That is because there is too much influence on strategy and performance coming from the pitwall rather than the cockpit..."

 

"Horner also reckons that an over-reliance on team radio information is giving the impression that drivers are simply following instructions rather than being masters of their own destiny.

'Sometimes it feels that the races are a bit too managed,' he admitted."

 

"I said some things earlier in the weekend that I stand by - because when we focus on the racing we have a great sport," he said.

"F1 needs to be about the drivers being the heroes, and in Hungary they were. That is F1 at its best, not just in Hungary but in Germany as well.

"For me that is what I enjoy, what I love to see, and that is all part of competition. We need to keep going down that route and make sure that happens."

 

I think he's talking about drivers being the center of the racing as much as he is about drivers being allowed to express themselves and be more natural. At the end of the day, no one would give a damn about driver's personalities if they would not race or not be allowed to race. As such, I think it's fair to say that he's implying the teams should let their drivers race more, as opposed to being little more than corporate employees.

 

The "both" option was not included because I wanted to get an idea of what people were mostly inclined towards.



#26 masa90

masa90
  • Member

  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 30 July 2014 - 19:49

Its a teamsport but most attention goes to wdc and battles between drivers and the teams get the 2nd place in amount of interest from fans i think.



#27 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 19:54

Another poll I can't give an honest answer to. It would have been better to have a scale (say 1-10 with 1=just a team sport, 10=just a driver sport and 2-9 being somewhere in between). I think it's both. I like the concept of the team designing and building the best car they can and helping set it up to race as fast as possible on the day, but I would like to see the driver very much in control come race day.

 

Edit:

Of  course, it's also a business. Results mean money for the teams. That has to be considered too.


Edited by pdac, 30 July 2014 - 19:55.


#28 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 30 July 2014 - 21:16

I think your view of 'comparable team orders' is extremely broad, to the point that you will expect anyone who isn't either for or against all team orders (regardless of circumstance) to be hypocrites.

 

Personally, I find that rather simplistic, and your apparent superiority complex that stems from it (not saying you have one, but you might want to reread some of your posts for the impression they give) a little misguided.

 

Schumacher/Barrichello in Austria was, in my view, sufficiently different to Kimi/Massa in Brazil for someone to be ok with one, not ok with the other, and still remain consistent and reasonable in their views (incidentally, I was cool with both). 

 

Really sorry for the essay, but...

 

I've taken your advice, Gareth, and re-read my posts. I can see where you and Sophie are coming from, and I am sure I would come across better if I would say that F1 ought to value the opinions of all its fans. Saying that some peoples' views are effectively not worth listening to isn't necessarily going to go down well. But having reflected on my position, honesty obliges me to say I still think it would be a mistake for F1 to pay too much attention to the opinion of the majority, on this sensitive and emotive issue in particular. And the people who's opinions shouldn't, in my humble opinion, be listened to are a particular category, and I'll try to clarify as much as I can what that category is, because I want to be careful not to cause any unnecessary upset. Anyone coming on this thread to discuss this issue, or even onto this forum, automatically disqualifies themselves from the group of people I'm talking about, and I respect the opinion of everybody here, without exception, on this topic and every other.

 

So at the risk of digging myself further into a hole, I'd like to clarify that if, on the question of team orders in particular, you take RealRacing and I as representing opposite ends of the spectrum of views, with him taking the view that it's all about the driver and that team orders get in the way of that and should be done away with, and me taking the view that it's all about the teams and the problem, if there is one, lies in getting drivers to be team players; I am not saying that those who take a position somewhere in between are hypocrites, or that they don't think about the issues coherently. I can see how you could interpret my comments that way, but I don't think that. I think it's perfectly possible to take a coherent position whereby team orders are sometimes okay and sometimes not, depending on circumstances. I think it's harder to take a position that team orders should be banned, either altogether or just in certain circumstances, because it's really difficult to tune the regulations to make everything fair, and to allow "good" team orders while preventing "bad" team orders. But there's a broad range of perfectly respectable opinion there, all of which should be listened to by the sport. But I worry that the sport would make a mistake if it reacted to every outcry, because outcries are driven by the broadcasters and the tabloid press, and are therefore not based on coherent or consistent views or principles, but rather on what makes a good story.

 

The broadcasters and the more senstationalist press like to pick the juiciest story out of a race and run with it in a big way, and accordingly, the reaction to cases of team orders tends to depend if the incident is picked up as an "angle" or not. So Sunday's team orders incident between the Mercedes drivers was picked up, and would have been a big story regardless of whether Hamilton had accepted the instruction or refused it, whereas BMW Sauber's team order at Montreal 2008 wasn't picked up as a story to anything like the same degree, because the preferred story of that race was, understandably, that a driver, Kubica, who was tipped for big things, had scored his maiden win, not what would have happened if Heidfeld had declined to let him go when they were on different strategies. So you get a big reaction to one case of team orders, and next to none for the other, and those are definitely comparable cases. In fact the Kubica/Heidfeld incident ought to have been more controversial not only because the team order was acted upon and affected the result (it was for the win, not a squabble over third), but also because it was done in defiance of a regulatory ban on team orders, which may be another reason why the broadcasters didn't run with the story, despite the very obvious nature of the manoeuver where Heidfeld let Kubica past - it was in the era where team orders could and did occur, but nobody dared speak their name. We used to have a very unhealthy situation where the broadcasters, teams and everybody else had to treat team orders as a dirty little secret, which everyone knew about but nobody could stop or talk openly about, and I worry that that all arose out of the sport introducing a bad rule because of an outcry that was driven by the media, and mostly involved people who aren't hypocrites, but who simply don't take as deep an interest in the sport as we do, and therefore won't have thought all the issues through or formed a coherent, defensible position on these matters. My answer is: let there be an outcry occasionally. Outcries are good for business, and that's why the media whips them up.


Edited by redreni, 30 July 2014 - 21:26.


#29 maximilian

maximilian
  • Member

  • 8,112 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 21:16

Ideally, teams should be equal enough in strength to allow the drivers to make a difference.  I really dislike any results list where it's:

 

1 Team A

2 Team A

3 Team B

4 Team B

5 Team C

6 Team C

7 Team D

8 Team D

etc.

 

Suggesting that it matters much more which car you drive, rather than how good of a driver you are. :down:



#30 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 3,368 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 21:17

Another poll I can't give an honest answer to. It would have been better to have a scale (say 1-10 with 1=just a team sport, 10=just a driver sport and 2-9 being somewhere in between). I think it's both. I like the concept of the team designing and building the best car they can and helping set it up to race as fast as possible on the day, but I would like to see the driver very much in control come race day.

Edit:
Of course, it's also a business. Results mean money for the teams. That has to be considered too.


This.

#31 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 22:08


Horner suggests teams must loosen their restrictions on driver behaviour.
"We need to allow the drivers to express themselves more without them being hit by criticism," said Horner, who faced his fair share of controversy in recent years when former team-mates Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber hit out at each other.
"We need to allow their personalities to come out. They have opinions, they have personalities and we should encourage them to see more of them."


 

@AussieGrit
“@charlie_whiting: I think @aussiegrit just rolled his eyes. “@OWeingarten: Christian, I agree with you! http://www.autosport...t.php/id/115208 …”kettleblack?

 
 
https://twitter.com/...520244820393984
 
:rotfl:



#32 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 22:18

If the cars didn't make the difference then F1 would die over-night. Whether you like it or not, the fact the cars are so different is what actually fuels interest in the drivers. 

 

If F1 was a spec series someone finishing the the points for the first time would be a non-story. But take Bianchi at Monaco. A massive story for a driver. With spec series you need to win to be the story, when you have cars that have differing performances then you actually get stories throughout the grid.

 

Also, it means drivers are more marketable because you don't have to be winning to be an attractive proposition. You don't win in 3.5 or GP2 and no one cares a jot.... but F1? You can be like Alonso. You get a top 5 and your the best driver int he world.

 

So be careful what you wish for. The day the cars don't make the difference is when the drivers no longer become the story too.



#33 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 22:20


 

Another poll I can't give an honest answer to. It would have been better to have a scale (say 1-10 with 1=just a team sport, 10=just a driver sport and 2-9 being somewhere in between). I think it's both. I like the concept of the team designing and building the best car they can and helping set it up to race as fast as possible on the day, but I would like to see the driver very much in control come race day.

 

Edit:

Of  course, it's also a business. Results mean money for the teams. That has to be considered too.

The Beauty of Grey? As said, I just wanted to get a feel of what people primarily thought.

In any case, it just got me to noticing that, lately, many in F1, including in this instance, Mercedes and Horner, are giving thought to this in one way or another. It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment is that LH was right not to let NR through. It's as if teams have started to notice that they stand to gain more (in PR, marketing, brand goodwill) if they let their drivers race, than if they win a championship by fixing results. Of course, this year that's kind of easy to do because they'll win the WCC anyway, but still, it gives you food for thought that the drivers have every right to put their interest before that of the team, taking into account that, after all, they are in this for sporting glory as well (or mainly).


Edited by RealRacing, 30 July 2014 - 22:23.


#34 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 30 July 2014 - 22:55

It's a team sport and has been for decades. Don't like it follow something else.

It's not as simple as following something else though. Personally, I don't really care about the teams that much. I'd much rather see the top x drivers all in the same cars battling it out to see who is the best. So why not just watch a spec series? Because F1 is seen as the pinnacle of motorsport. Just picking some arbitrary spec series doesn't work because it wouldn't have attracted the best drivers. Not that the 22 drivers in F1 are the top 22 drivers in the world, but on average, you'd have to say the talent is higher than any other series. So you can't follow something else because there's nothing else to follow.

I've heard people say before that it would be boring if everyone was in the same cars because you'd know straight away who the best drivers were. Well, it would be like any individual sport in that respect. So if you want to write off tennis, golf, track and field athletics etc. in that manner then go for it. So I'm not saying F1 should be just about the drivers, because that wouldn't be F1. I am saying it would be good if another series took over as the perceived pinnacle of the sport that had drivers in equal cars.

Why do I care which company can produce the best machinery for a job? That's not sport; it's an engineering competition.

#35 zachary2142

zachary2142
  • Member

  • 245 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 30 July 2014 - 23:04

It "should" be a driver sport but in reality it was, is and will be a team sport for years to come.

Now that I think of it "sport" is a bit too much. Others said here that it is an engineering competition. I think that's true, I see F1 in that way and that's why I tune in every race weekend.

Edited by zachary2142, 30 July 2014 - 23:09.


#36 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 30 July 2014 - 23:35

GP2 is a spec series, and I couldn't care less about it. I've heard of some Renault spec series, but heard of is as far as my interest has gone. True this are "junior" formulae, but I don't think that's why I'm disinterested.

 

Indycar is, barring engines, a spec series and I quite enjoy it. But only quite. It has some very talented drivers, some interesting tracks, and seemingly less BS than F1. But for me it's lacking a certain something - Engineering differences. An element of teams developing their cars is proposed for "one day", and I'm really looking forward to it.

 

F1 to me is a blend of differently designed cars being raced hard by very skilled drivers. I would like to see an excellent driver in an average car beat or at least match an average driver in an excellent car, but that would require tracks that seperate the good from the great, as well as cars that can actually differ in crucial areas (as opposed to aero, and aero alone, being king).

 

I'm not really a fan of any particular team, but I do want F1 to remain a team sport, where the team makes the difference and the driver is a part of the team.



#37 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 23:37

I'd say it should be 50:50.

 

Personally I've become more of a team fan. Once Schumi retired, there's been no drivers who were driving already when I started following F1 whereas there are still Williams, McLaren, Ferrari, and Sauber, and of course Benetton ... Lotus, Jordan ... FI, Minardi ... STR, Stewart ... RBR, and (quite loosely) Tyrrell ... Mercedes. It's like in football: players change, clubs remain.

 

 

Indycar is, barring engines, a spec series and I quite enjoy it. But only quite. It has some very talented drivers, some interesting tracks, and seemingly less BS than F1. But for me it's lacking a certain something - Engineering differences. An element of teams developing their cars is proposed for "one day", and I'm really looking forward to it.

 

Yeah, IndyCar lacks something with single-spec chassis.


Edited by August, 30 July 2014 - 23:38.


#38 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 July 2014 - 23:45

It should be about the sport of racing.

#39 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 31 July 2014 - 00:26

Both.

Advertisement

#40 Madera

Madera
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 31 July 2014 - 01:29

The best driver in the best car always seems to rise above the rest. Regardless of which team it is. This is an ever shifting landscape year after year. So I dont think it's about the driver or the team, it's how they come up with that winning combination. As post #38 Frank Tuesday said "it should be about the sport of racing"

As a life long fan I have been dedicated to teams /drivers over the years but as seasons go on you tend to gravitate to the next combination.(Daniel/Redbull/ Hungaroring?)

This has nothing to do with the politics of F1, I tend to ignore all of that. I just want the best driver in the best car to win.



#41 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 7,251 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 July 2014 - 01:44

That all aside, you could ask the question: Should the pinnacle of motor racing be purely a driver sport? And I'd argue yes. I watch F1 because it's the "main" motorsport (in these parts anyway) and seen as the pinnacle, but if there was a rival system that managed to attract the same level of drivers that was all about the drivers, then to me it would be a far superior system. Something like this: http://www.tobyperei....uk/racing.html


Last few seasons, I've watched without any significant following of a driver and even then I tend to sway even who I'm routing for. I was leaning towards Lewis but can't get behind his current pouting and demeanour.. Like Fernando but since joining Ferrari seems to have taken his edge off..

Why do I watch then.. Cause I have always like seeing teams try and push so for me it's more about what is MGP messing up.. What redbull upto and is Williams finally going to make a comeback.. And laughing mclaren current form... That tome is and has always been the interesting part of F1... How farce inter team battles and team vs team.. Not driver vs driver.

#42 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 4,141 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 31 July 2014 - 05:43

I agree with Horner, teams should let drivers be drivers and not interfere to manipulate things to suit their own internal politics.

 

I look forward to his earnest apology to Webber and Seb vacating two of his world titles post-haste. 



#43 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 July 2014 - 07:09

The poll needs the option 'Both'. 



#44 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 31 July 2014 - 11:55

I always thought the sport's strength was the fact it was both a team and individual sport all at the same time.

 

/thread

 

The headline show is the individual's competitions, but the team's competition adds an extra element that is a core part of the sport, and they're the ones that pay the bills and make up most of the performance anyway. You simply cannot fully separate one from the other.



#45 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 31 July 2014 - 12:54

Both with an emphasis on the driving/sporting element.  It's a hard balance to find but when it clicks it's magic.



#46 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,842 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 31 July 2014 - 13:05

It's both, surely? I didn't vote.

Drivers though do get the larger slice of the attention, both in here and in the world in general. It's about team v team, driver v driver.

#47 superdelphinus

superdelphinus
  • Member

  • 3,175 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 31 July 2014 - 14:57

The opening post seems a little ironic to me. I took the seed of Horner's comments over the weekend to be from his frustration that the sport is always being talked down, rather than focusing on some of the positive things some of the drivers have been up to recently. Yet here is a post saying the sport is being killed, using his words in support!

#48 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 31 July 2014 - 16:15

It should be about the sport of racing.

To play devil's advocate. What do you think: if LH had obeyed the TO to let NR through, and if Mercedes had punished him for not doing it,  would F1 have been less or more about "the sport of racing".

 

Or, alternatively, if FM had refused to let FA through at HH 2010, would we have been able to witness more or less racing?

 

And so on...

 

Do you think exaggerated race management from the pits by the team, which reflects the higher importance given to the team vs. the drivers, with everything that it involves (TOs, preserving fuel and tyres, etc.) creates more or less racing? Has the focus on team result improved F1 or are people trying to change F1 for no reason?



#49 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 31 July 2014 - 18:06

To play devil's advocate. What do you think: if LH had obeyed the TO to let NR through, and if Mercedes had punished him for not doing it,  would F1 have been less or more about "the sport of racing".
 
Or, alternatively, if FM had refused to let FA through at HH 2010, would we have been able to witness more or less racing?
 
And so on...
 
Do you think exaggerated race management from the pits by the team, which reflects the higher importance given to the team vs. the drivers, with everything that it involves (TOs, preserving fuel and tyres, etc.) creates more or less racing? Has the focus on team result improved F1 or are people trying to change F1 for no reason?


Wouldn't we have seen just as much if not more racing last Sunday if Hamilton had let Rosberg through? Rosberg would have caught Alonso and then pitted, then he would have caught Hamilton and Alonso a bit earlier than he in fact did, giving us a longer battle between Rosberg and Hamilton and, had Rosberg passed Hamilton (or been allowed through again to give him aclear run at Alonso), between Rosberg and Alonso.

I'll give you Hockenheim 2010 as far as the race goes, but I don't think it would have done the WDC battle any good if Massa had managed to hold on.

#50 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 31 July 2014 - 18:16

Wouldn't we have seen just as much if not more racing last Sunday if Hamilton had let Rosberg through? Rosberg would have caught Alonso and then pitted, then he would have caught Hamilton and Alonso a bit earlier than he in fact did, giving us a longer battle between Rosberg and Hamilton and, had Rosberg passed Hamilton (or been allowed through again to give him aclear run at Alonso), between Rosberg and Alonso.

I'll give you Hockenheim 2010 as far as the race goes, but I don't think it would have done the WDC battle any good if Massa had managed to hold on.

Those are IFs. Nico was behind Lewis then and there, there was the potential for a battle (potentially the best type of battle, i.e., among most similar cars), let it happen. Every actual battle needs to be respected, especially if people believe that "racing" is the most important part of F1 and especially if the guys are battling for a spot in the WDC.

 

Re. Massa being able to hold on, that should have been a part of the championship. The first guy you have to be able to beat (pass) is your teammate. To me the final WDC position is irrelevant if there is no racing involved. To make it clearer: suppose that for FA to win the WDC FM would have had to do a HH on more occasions, the WDC would have been undeserved (it still would have been with one instance for me but you get the point).