54 replies to this topic

[johnnycomelately1]

Due to regulations and the very effect of competition ..........any thoughts as to how this relates to the state of racing?

The main focus of this is regarding the machinery and mainly tarmac racing.

my opinion is that this is another factor producing relatively boring racing for the fans

[Jimisgod]

The change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations?

 

Well, Max seems better than Jos ever was as is Kevin to Jan. Schumacher Jr. is yet to be assessed, but Prost Jr. never even got a chance.

 

Mansell Jr. didn't inherit the 'stache and was obviously doomed from the start. Then again, lack of facial hair hasn't held back Rosberg Jr.

 

The Andretti family shows some level of talent loss with each successive generation, so maybe we need to start selectively cross-breeding racing dynasties to keep them at full strength.

[BillyWhizz]

STILL SHOUTING I SEE JOHNNY!

 

[HeadFirst]

First there were submarine races, then F1 Powerboats, then the motors emerged from the sea and the F1 World Championship for cars was born. MotoGP is some sort of weird off-shoot, like Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, ultimately doomed to extinction.

[BillBald]

Some scientists believe that MotoGP interbred with Formula 1.

[HeadFirst]

Some scientists believe that MotoGP interbred with Formula 1.

 

And perhaps therein lies the problem. Interbreeding aside, I believe that MotoGP has followed a parallel evolutionary path to F1, sharing a common ancestor. Proof of this may soon be found in the ruins at Paul Ricard in France.

[KnucklesAgain]

[SlickMick]

The change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations?
 
Well, Max seems better than Jos ever was as is Kevin to Jan. Schumacher Jr. is yet to be assessed, but Prost Jr. never even got a chance.
 
Mansell Jr. didn't inherit the 'stache and was obviously doomed from the start. Then again, lack of facial hair hasn't held back Rosberg Jr.
 
The Andretti family shows some level of talent loss with each successive generation, so maybe we need to start selectively cross-breeding racing dynasties to keep them at full strength.

Don't be so selfish Gene Jim.

[mangeliiito]

SerIOUSLY, what's WITH THE caps ON ALL THE TIME..?

[johnnycomelately1]

The main focus of this is regarding the machinery and mainly tarmac racing.

my opinion is that this is another factor producing relatively boring racing for the fans

[PayasYouRace]

I think it's about time that new members had thread starting restrictions. There always seems to be one new guy who just spams RC with new and pointless threads.

Though in an attempt to answer the thread, it's usual that with a stable set of regulations different constructors will "evolve" towards a more similar design and field spread reduces. That's how I interpret the question.

[Fatgadget]

While on the subject of boring....ZZZzzzzz

[RealRacing]

And they give warnings for driver comparison threads? That's about the poorest OP I have seen here in a long time.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

You can produce excellent racing with the current level of technology and still retain the essential level of safety.

 

First off, I will submit my own personal definition of "excellent racing". That would be a race where more than four drivers have even odds to win, yet more then ten are still possible winners. Where the cars can run close to each other with the option of attempting a pass without artificial aids. Each corner of each lap will have the fans sitting on the edges of their seats, mouths open in astonishment, never sure of the outcome but enthralled by the spectacle. The politics, concern about fuel consumption or tire wear are not a talking point, they do not determine the outcome or the action on the track. And the race winner will be determined by the driver, and driver alone, who drove a magnificent race, beating his rivals by the slimmest of margins.

 

And on the morning after, news services will announce that at least ten people died of heart attacks while watching the race. That, good folks, is an excellent race.

 

Now, let's examine some false assumptions that some believe are roadblocks from achieving this goal. The tires can be made good enough for such abuse yet still deliver adequate levels of grip. The cars can run close together, the effect of turbulence from the car(s) ahead can be bypassed by ground effects and/or minimizing too much reliance on wings. The tracks can be designed so that running past the race boundaries does inflict a substantial time penalty. And lastly, parity can be achieved, either through budget limits and/or some spec parts.

 

It is not the technology that gets in the way of having enjoyable racing, but the format, crazy rules, and dysfunctional politics.

 

Edited by BlinkyMcSquinty, 14 July 2015 - 00:39.

[V8 Fireworks]

Due to regulations and the very effect of competition ..........any thoughts as to how this relates to the state of racing?

 

Hard to say...  Onwards from 2010 with refuelling and Pirellis has seen the cars appear slower and less impressive.   

 

 

 

 

Evolution in Grand Prix Motor Racing viewed via the Monaco Grand Prix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm I don't like the step from 2005 to 2015 myself.   The others steps were natural evolution.  The 2015 step is too artificial and constrained by overly restrictive regulations.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 14 July 2015 - 02:18.

[V8 Fireworks]

Though in an attempt to answer the thread, it's usual that with a stable set of regulations different constructors will "evolve" towards a more similar design and field spread reduces. That's how I interpret the question.

 

This is a very interesting topic, as one observes the natural evolution of grand prix cars from 1905 through to 2015.     

 

Past evolution in Grand Prix Racing was about chasing performance...

 

Wire wheels instead of wooden wheels - increased performance             

Tubeframe instead of the traditional ladder chassis - increased performance

Disc brakes - performance increase compared to drums on early cars

Independent suspension - performance

Supercharging - performance (remember in those days there was a maximum weight)

Overhead cams - performance

Engine in the middle - performance

Aluminium monocoque instead of tubeframe - performance

Engine as stressed member - performance

Aerodynamic downforce - performance

Ground effects - performance

Sliding skirts - performance

Maturation of turbocharging - performance

Carbon fibre chassis - performance

ABS - performace

Active suspension - performance

Tractional control - performance

Beryllium coated pistons - performance

Increasing rpm of the engines - perfromance

Need I go on?

 

Hybrid - well it's much heavier and hugely complicated.  It seems a matter of regulation NOT the teams chasing performance on their own accord of natural evolution of grand prix racing cars.     

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 14 July 2015 - 02:19.

[johnnycomelately1]

i agree with the good (informative) posts of V8 Fireworks and Blinky

 

some other factors that seem to determine a race result rather tha outstanding driving and a diversity of technology in the cars:

• tyres, right down to a relatively small ambient temperature change
• pitstop strategy
• safety car
• getting the extremely finicky set up right - the sweet spot

[johnnycomelately1]

i spent a setup day at monza for a blancpain race and talking with one of the major support teams they said that they dont even think about engines due to the parity rules they concentrate on set up and pitstop strategy and we both just looked at each other in knowing amazement. it has obviously been a few years since i was involved.

[KingTiger]

This is a very interesting topic, as one observes the natural evolution of grand prix cars from 1905 through to 2015.     

 

Past evolution was about chasing performance...

 

Tubeframe instead of the traditional ladder chassis - increased performance

Disc brakes - performance increase compared to drums on early cars

Independent suspension - performance

Supercharging - performance (remember in those days there was a maximum weight)

Overhead cams - performance

Engine in the middle - performance

Aluminium monocoque instead of tubeframe - performance

Engine as stressed member - performance

Aerodynamic downforce - performance

Ground effects - performance

Sliding skirts - performance

Maturation of turbocharging - performance

Carbon fibre chassis - performance

ABS - performace

Active suspension - performance

Tractional control - performance

Beryllium coated pistons - performance

Increasing rpm of the engines - perfromance

Need I go on?

 

Hybrid - well it's much heavier and hugely complicated.  It seems a matter of regulation NOT the teams chasing performance on their own accord of natural evolution of grand prix racing cars.     

 

Wrong. Reusing braking energy for extra power is a logical step in racing cars. 

[johnnycomelately1]

This is a very interesting topic, as one observes the natural evolution of grand prix cars from 1905 through to 2015.     

 

Past evolution in Grand Prix Racing was about chasing performance...

 

Wire wheels instead of wooden wheels - increased performance             

Tubeframe instead of the traditional ladder chassis - increased performance

Disc brakes - performance increase compared to drums on early cars

Independent suspension - performance

Supercharging - performance (remember in those days there was a maximum weight)

Overhead cams - performance

Engine in the middle - performance

Aluminium monocoque instead of tubeframe - performance

Engine as stressed member - performance

Aerodynamic downforce - performance

Ground effects - performance

Sliding skirts - performance

Maturation of turbocharging - performance

Carbon fibre chassis - performance

ABS - performace

Active suspension - performance

Tractional control - performance

Beryllium coated pistons - performance

Increasing rpm of the engines - perfromance

Need I go on?

 

Hybrid - well it's much heavier and hugely complicated.  It seems a matter of regulation NOT the teams chasing performance on their own accord of natural evolution of grand prix racing cars.     

i suppose one of the points here is that the performance you refer to gets higher or better it narrows the potential for diversity, a number of cars all using higher performance produces trains of cars not having much chance to overtake because they are so similar and with sticky tyres and aero they all can corner at very similar speeds.......somewhere there has to be an opportunity to be different, under current onerous regulations we have not got that potential

Edited by johnnycomelately1, 14 July 2015 - 02:26.

[V8 Fireworks]

Wrong. Reusing braking energy for extra power is a logical step in racing cars. 

 

Then please explain why the cars are so heavy, some 60-70kg  heavier than the minimum weight some 20 years ago.    

[johnnycomelately1]

You can produce excellent racing with the current level of technology and still retain the essential level of safety.

 

First off, I will submit my own personal definition of "excellent racing". That would be a race where more than four drivers have even odds to win, yet more then ten are still possible winners. Where the cars can run close to each other with the option of attempting a pass without artificial aids. Each corner of each lap will have the fans sitting on the edges of their seats, mouths open in astonishment, never sure of the outcome but enthralled by the spectacle. The politics, concern about fuel consumption or tire wear are not a talking point, they do not determine the outcome or the action on the track. And the race winner will be determined by the driver, and driver alone, who drove a magnificent race, beating his rivals by the slimmest of margins.

 

And on the morning after, news services will announce that at least ten people died of heart attacks while watching the race. That, good folks, is an excellent race.

 

Now, let's examine some false assumptions that some believe are roadblocks from achieving this goal. The tires can be made good enough for such abuse yet still deliver adequate levels of grip. The cars can run close together, the effect of turbulence from the car(s) ahead can be bypassed by ground effects and/or minimizing too much reliance on wings. The tracks can be designed so that running past the race boundaries does inflict a substantial time penalty. And lastly, parity can be achieved, either through budget limits and/or some spec parts.

 

It is not the technology that gets in the way of having enjoyable racing, but the format, crazy rules, and dysfunctional politics.

 

well said

[KingTiger]

Then please explain why the cars are so heavy, some 60-70kg  heavier than the minimum weight some 20 years ago.    

 

What of it? 160 instantaneous horsepower is surely worth the extra weight, not all of which is due to the PU. 

[teejay]

Evolution has meant that the quality of the videos has increased somewhat that is for sure

[V8 Fireworks]

Longetivity of VHS tape is pretty bad mind you... :/

[johnnycomelately1]

Hard to say...  Onwards from 2010 with refuelling and Pirellis has seen the cars appear slower and less impressive.   

 

Evolution in Grand Prix Motor Racing viewed via the Monaco Grand Prix

 

 

 

Hmmm I don't like the step from 2005 to 2015 myself.   The others steps were natural evolution.  The 2015 step is too artificial and constrained by overly restrictive regulations.

As a matter of interest V8fireworks, which year/s do you enjoy the most?

[V8 Fireworks]

As a matter of interest V8fireworks, which year/s do you enjoy the most?

 

1937 is most spectacular.  The Nazi-funded chargers at the top of their powers...  Intense, brutal beasts.

 

1955 is quite interesting.

 

Lauda's expression after winning the '75 Monaco GP is most interesting.   A real precision drive.

 

I quite like 2005 too.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 14 July 2015 - 08:15.

[chipmcdonald]

Wrong. Reusing braking energy for extra power is a logical step in racing cars. 

 

 

  The problem with your statement is in the word "extra".  If the rules allowed it to be open to development, and technology couldn't get the cars to the present level of HP... THEN it would be "extra power".  As a mechanical process it is no more "extra" than the tires, it's a set contrivance in order to get the cars to a "normal" BHP level with the hamstrung IC engine.

[Jimisgod]

First there were submarine races, then F1 Powerboats, then the motors emerged from the sea and the F1 World Championship for cars was born. MotoGP is some sort of weird off-shoot, like Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, ultimately doomed to extinction.

 

I fore see a 'Planet of the Apes' scenario where the hunched over bike-monkeys outlive Homo Formula-Onesis.

[HP]

Evolution has meant that the quality of the videos has increased somewhat that is for sure

Image quality or content?

[BRG]

Current F1 cars go faster than any previous F1 cars, and on considerably less fuel and with less pointless aero assistance.  Evolution?  Yes.

[Henri Greuter]

Current F1 cars go faster than any previous F1 cars, and on considerably less fuel and with less pointless aero assistance.  Evolution?  Yes.

 

 

Indeed, that's a result of Evolution.

If all of this evolution have resulted into better and more attractive racing, I have my doubts. Some of that old footage posted here was much more enjoyable for me to look at thatn the highspeed processions of recent years that needed artificial aids in order to allow overtaking based on being faster than the car in front.

 

 

Henri

[HP]

Well even us humans, many of us when we get older, need artifical stuff to keep us going, like fake teeth, etc. Why should F1 be any different especially, if counting from 1950 it has reached retirement age   

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

When I was first interested in racing back in the late 60's, all that mattered was to increase performance. And it did happen, better and wider tires, the eventual introduction of wings and other aerodynamic devices, more useable power from the engines, better, quicker gearboxes, a multitude of changes and improvements that evolved into the cars we have now. And safety sort of kept up, someone would be seriously injured and changes were made. But along came the turbo and ground effects, with insane levels of power and even more insane levels of downforce.

 

Suddenly, the cars were capable of going so quick that it truly became dangerous. A plateau of performance was reached, where the cars were capable of going quicker than the frail human body could tolerate or manage. From that point forward the rules makers placed restrictions on the cars to limit their performance to remain below the plateau, and the engineers did their magic to make the cars quicker. And in an inevitable cycle, every few years the rules were/are changed to rein back performance in an attempt to stay below that plateau of performance.

 

For many decades Formula One led the way in the race for high performance. It was eclipsed by the monsters of Can Am, but limiting performance is not exclusive to Formula One. In NASCAR the cars at the super speedways (Daytona and Talladega) also got too fast for safety. So they were reined in by rules changes, they too have a self-imposed ceiling of performance.

 

So that's sort of a brief history of the march of technology in Formula One, and I left a lot out. If I attempted to really fill in the gaps, my post would run many pages. Getting back to the effect of technology relating to "boring", it did cause a higher level of performance, but the attempts to control the level of performance is a mish-mash of the evolution of rules in a crazy political climate. It's not rational or logical, it's political.

 

We could easily have incredibly exciting races and still enjoy the benefits of high technology, but the politics within Formula One inhibit any rational changes. Only in the interests of safety can the FIA react swiftly and make changes, they can't do much about it becoming boring or a poor financial climate for many.

[uffen]

When I was first interested in racing back in the late 60's, all that mattered was to increase performance. And it did happen, better and wider tires, the eventual introduction of wings and other aerodynamic devices, more useable power from the engines, better, quicker gearboxes, a multitude of changes and improvements that evolved into the cars we have now. And safety sort of kept up, someone would be seriously injured and changes were made. But along came the turbo and ground effects, with insane levels of power and even more insane levels of downforce.

 

Suddenly, the cars were capable of going so quick that it truly became dangerous. A plateau of performance was reached, where the cars were capable of going quicker than the frail human body could tolerate or manage. From that point forward the rules makers placed restrictions on the cars to limit their performance to remain below the plateau, and the engineers did their magic to make the cars quicker. And in an inevitable cycle, every few years the rules were/are changed to rein back performance in an attempt to stay below that plateau of performance.

 

For many decades Formula One led the way in the race for high performance. It was eclipsed by the monsters of Can Am, but limiting performance is not exclusive to Formula One. In NASCAR the cars at the super speedways (Daytona and Talladega) also got too fast for safety. So they were reined in by rules changes, they too have a self-imposed ceiling of performance.

 

So that's sort of a brief history of the march of technology in Formula One, and I left a lot out. If I attempted to really fill in the gaps, my post would run many pages. Getting back to the effect of technology relating to "boring", it did cause a higher level of performance, but the attempts to control the level of performance is a mish-mash of the evolution of rules in a crazy political climate. It's not rational or logical, it's political.

 

We could easily have incredibly exciting races and still enjoy the benefits of high technology, but the politics within Formula One inhibit any rational changes. Only in the interests of safety can the FIA react swiftly and make changes, they can't do much about it becoming boring or a poor financial climate for many.

There is much truth in there, Blinky. Well put.

I find that the latest "driving" technologies are what most bore me. Selecting engine map 7 and differential setting B along with clutch bite point alpha may involve wonderful new technology but it bores me to tears. I don't want to see that as part of the spectacle when I watch an F1 race. I can't discern the speed difference it engenders and while I acknowledge the work the driver pus into all that fiddling, it has noting to do with what I want to watch them do.

[KingTiger]

  The problem with your statement is in the word "extra".  If the rules allowed it to be open to development, and technology couldn't get the cars to the present level of HP... THEN it would be "extra power".  As a mechanical process it is no more "extra" than the tires, it's a set contrivance in order to get the cars to a "normal" BHP level with the hamstrung IC engine.

 

I don't understand what you mean. The KERS system is separate from the ICE. 

The ICE isn't really hamstrung either, the set rules are there for practical purposes. 

[Beamer]

Due to regulations and the very effect of competition ..........any thoughts as to how this relates to the state of forrumers?

The main focus of this is regarding the brain and mainly thread starting.

my opinion is that this is another factor producing relatively boring discussions for the fans

[noikeee]

Due to regulations and the very effect of competition ..........any thoughts as to how this relates to the state of racing?

The main focus of this is regarding the machinery and mainly tarmac racing.

my opinion is that this is another factor producing relatively boring racing for the fans

 

Uhhhh..... in a word, yes.

 

This is basically 80% of what we ever ranted about in this forum ever, or at least 80% of the root of the problem. It's also painfully obvious. Yes, the evolution of the technology in the cars and all around the sport is a massive contributing factor to the lack of excitement. Nobody will disagree with you. So I don't quite get what do you expect us to discuss. Perhaps how to solve this problem? Well, good luck on that one. Give all of the drivers a Lotus 49 and run all the races in the Nordschleiffe? There's a billion different theories on what we should do, and you will find a lot of threads about it. About a new one weekly really.

 

To be fair there's quite a few "special snowflakes" around here who never noticed this and think we can just roll back the times to the 1970s and uninvent all technology, so I suppose you've at least thought a little bit more about the issue than them.

[johnnycomelately1]

Uhhhh..... in a word, yes.

 

This is basically 80% of what we ever ranted about in this forum ever, or at least 80% of the root of the problem. It's also painfully obvious. Yes, the evolution of the technology in the cars and all around the sport is a massive contributing factor to the lack of excitement. Nobody will disagree with you. So I don't quite get what do you expect us to discuss. Perhaps how to solve this problem? Well, good luck on that one. Give all of the drivers a Lotus 49 and run all the races in the Nordschleiffe? There's a billion different theories on what we should do, and you will find a lot of threads about it. About a new one weekly really.

 

To be fair there's quite a few "special snowflakes" around here who never noticed this and think we can just roll back the times to the 1970s and uninvent all technology, so I suppose you've at least thought a little bit more about the issue than them.

it is quite unnecessary to have an attitude that uses  discriminatory  terms like "special snowflakes".

everyone has a right to voice their opinion, and quite often if one listens to the those deemed inferior they do have something worthwhile to contribute.

unless it is clogging up these incredible wheels of wisdom, respect others.

i am sure there are some very good examples in history to illustrate this happening. it would be a loss for everyone if this became a microcosm of that.

 

down to business, what i am trying to find the answers to by constructive discussion is , as you say, the root of the problem as to why a lot of racing is boring and hence all the flow on effects.

when racing was not boring why wasnt it?

one of the answers is the machinery was much more diverse.

evolution inherently produces less diversity, more specialised as we realise what works and what doesnt.

so, if we can capture or find an alternative to diversity racing can become exciting again. Processions can be stopped.

some have even tried reverse grids to compensate for this, but that misses the primary cause.

 

it appears to me that if you identify factors that give parity and alter that, processions will be stopped.

how best to achieve that, is the point of this post/thread/forum.

 

we are members of a fantastic sport, everyone involved.

we all should talk about this if we want.

a solution will come up.

[PayasYouRace]

Was racing ever not boring? Serious question. I can't imagine it was particularly interesting to watch Ascari or Clark drive off into the distance race after race.

Parity is not what causes processions. If anything having more diversity will do so, as cars with vastly different performance will just string out and nothing will happen.

The problem is, as always, rose tinted glasses. Nostalgia is inevitable. We naturally remember the good times and forget the long stretches of nothing in between.

[johnnycomelately1]

Was racing ever not boring? Serious question. I can't imagine it was particularly interesting to watch Ascari or Clark drive off into the distance race after race.

Parity is not what causes processions. If anything having more diversity will do so, as cars with vastly different performance will just string out and nothing will happen.

The problem is, as always, rose tinted glasses. Nostalgia is inevitable. We naturally remember the good times and forget the long stretches of nothing in between.

1 para. serious answer to the question "Was racing ever not boring?".....no, cannot answer that one. have a bo-peep at some of the videos above.

 

2 para. "vastly different performance" in my opinion, vastly different performance in different areas like brakes, power, kindness to tyres, suspension etc are where the racing comes from.

           but then some classes (aussie racing cars eg) with parity provide very exciting races. why the difference to F1? is it the cornering speeds?

           the point about evolution is that it ends up producing sticky tyres, carbon brakes etc (because that is what wins) and that gives parity, at least in that sense

           the question is , what can be done to stop the processions for the whole of the race, except for a few pitstops - we now rely on pitstops for interest !

 

          is the problem in the regulations? what if there was a control tyre (parity lol) that lasted the whole race that you didnt have to conserve, and operated in a wide band temperature?

 

i think the paradox of winning and exciting racing is the problem that needs solving.

[PayasYouRace]

Considering that the best open wheel racing has consistently been CART/Indycar in the modern era, you don't need vast differences for good racing. Just well formed regulations should be enough. Those US series had most teams running essentially the same or similar equipment, and it was fantastic.

I think you need to stop looking at the past for the wrong ideas about what made racing exciting. Highlight reels are always exciting by nature.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 15 July 2015 - 09:35.

[Beamer]

Go watch local tin tops. Put some drivers that make a lot of mistakes in any series and you've got exitement. Define any type of rules and engineers will come up with a solution near the optimum. Sometimes one gets it a bit better and you've got dominance. Always has been. Put 20 maldonados in a race and youve got exitement. Put 20 alonsos or hamiltons in a race and its gonna be precise and sharp but less exitement.

[johnnycomelately1]

i posted this elsewhere, but am very interested:

 

i'd like to ask everyone: if you had just one event to choose in your bucket list, what would it be?

an ice speedway on bikes, WRC in sardinia, motocross at unadilla, F1, motogp, sprintcar, top fuel cars, baja, bike dirt hillclimb, pikes peak, le mans, kartcross, world trials round, rallycross and petter solberg, NASCAR, extreme hill climb in Sweden, offshore powerboats, etc etc

[Beamer]

i posted this elsewhere, but am very interested:

i'd like to ask everyone: if you had just one event to choose in your bucket list, what would it be?
an ice speedway on bikes, WRC in sardinia, motocross at unadilla, F1, motogp, sprintcar, top fuel cars, baja, bike dirt hillclimb, pikes peak, le mans, kartcross, world trials round, rallycross and petter solberg, NASCAR, extreme hill climb in Sweden, offshore powerboats, etc etc

Please enlighten me: whats the relevance to this topic?

[johnnycomelately1]

Please enlighten me: whats the relevance to this topic?

the connection is this:

some of these sports still have excitement and good racing.

why is this so?

does it identify that F! has lost its interest? from yours and a few others attitude , all seems quite acceptable in F1, i find that confusing in light of the facts.

what has evolved in F1 that has not happened in the other still exciting racing?

surely you can see the connection?

elsewhere you claim to be a F1 driver, when did you drive?

i find it very wrong that nearly every post i make i have to spend half of the reply defending or explaining my point.

i am after all only trying to find an answer to very boring racing, a fact that the vast majority of fans all over the world can see.

i just happen to see the problem differently it appears, is that not acceptable?

your continuing tone (and a few others) creates very much a No culture in here, not good.

i am still very much involved in racing and i believe my views have merit particularly as they are from experience, albeit not continuous and at a lower level these days.

 

the value in forums and chatrooms is the collective wisdom that progresses things far more than the individuals can singularly.

Otherwise whats the point, just a fiefdom for non dissenters?

in order for that to happen there has to be a positive (Yes) culture, that is not apparent here. there is little good grace.

[johnnycomelately1]

Considering that the best open wheel racing has consistently been CART/Indycar in the modern era, you don't need vast differences for good racing. Just well formed regulations should be enough. Those US series had most teams running essentially the same or similar equipment, and it was fantastic.

I think you need to stop looking at the past for the wrong ideas about what made racing exciting. Highlight reels are always exciting by nature.

i best watch an Indy race then

i wish i could have seen Montoyas win recently

[johnnycomelately1]

Considering that the best open wheel racing has consistently been CART/Indycar in the modern era, you don't need vast differences for good racing. Just well formed regulations should be enough. Those US series had most teams running essentially the same or similar equipment, and it was fantastic.

I think you need to stop looking at the past for the wrong ideas about what made racing exciting. Highlight reels are always exciting by nature.

Further,

 what do you see as the magic formula?

is it Indy cars with their extra weight?

i am very keen to "hear" your answer

[Beamer]

the connection is this:

some of these sports still have excitement and good racing.

why is this so?

does it identify that F! has lost its interest? from yours and a few others attitude , all seems quite acceptable in F1, i find that confusing in light of the facts.

what has evolved in F1 that has not happened in the other still exciting racing?

surely you can see the connection?

elsewhere you claim to be a F1 driver, when did you drive?

i find it very wrong that nearly every post i make i have to spend half of the reply defending or explaining my point.

i am after all only trying to find an answer to very boring racing, a fact that the vast majority of fans all over the world can see.

i just happen to see the problem differently it appears, is that not acceptable?

your continuing tone (and a few others) creates very much a No culture in here, not good.

i am still very much involved in racing and i believe my views have merit particularly as they are from experience, albeit not continuous and at a lower level these days.

 

the value in forums and chatrooms is the collective wisdom that progresses things far more than the individuals can singularly.

Otherwise whats the point, just a fiefdom for non dissenters?

in order for that to happen there has to be a positive (Yes) culture, that is not apparent here. there is little good grace.

 

This 'tone' you're refering to might in some way, just maybe, perhaps, be linked to a certain tendancy to constantly starting new threads on subjects mostly already being duscussed in other threads or plain rants accompanied by an over anxious use of caps lock and the inabillity to understand irony or satire....

[johnnycomelately1]

This 'tone' you're refering to might in some way, just maybe, perhaps, be linked to a certain tendancy to constantly starting new threads on subjects mostly already being duscussed in other threads or plain rants accompanied by an over anxious use of caps lock and the inabillity to understand irony or satire....

thank you for your explanation, i will keep your comments in mind.

could you describe what your magic formula is for F1, please?

and you must have missed my question, when did you drive in F1?