12 replies to this topic

[R.W. Mackenzie]

I just finished watching the Italian GP. Martin Brundle made the comment that after another Ferrari sweep, they'll be more talk about what's wrong with Formula 1. I agree there's something wrong, but it's not Ferrari's dominance that bothers me about this race, it's the running time of the race. By my rough calculation it lasted a mere 1 hour and fifteen minutes. How short does a race have to be before it becomes a "sprint" race instead of a race worthy of World Championship status?

With all of the money that goes into running these cars and these races and the cost of attending them, it seems ridiculous that it's all over in such a hurry. Besides missing the added element of endurance the opportunity for making up for misfortune is cut short. I can't help but ask myself what Trulli and Coulthard might have done with 45 more minutes of racing.

The first two places might not have changed but I would have felt that they at least earned the victory and worked for their money. This thread may not seem like it belongs in the Nostalgia Forum but I think that Formula 1 needs to look back a few years and recognize what made Grand Prix racing great. What other sport of international or even national status finishes their championship games in less than an hour and a half?

[Mark Beckman]

The reason this thread doesnt belong here is because its within 24 hours of the race without a warning it has results of todays race in it

WHICH I HAVENT SEEN YET.

[Barry Boor]

The 1958 Belgian Grand Prix lasted 1 hour 37 minutes, which at the time was half an hour or so less than the average.

There was much discussion along the lines of the first post in this thread.

"Plus ça change......"

[Ray Bell]

That time deficiency at Spa was also something else...

It was less time than the minimum time required by the rules of the day.

[Wolf]

I think it's a symptomatic thing that nowdays we have maximum length of a race prescribed... OK, driving now may be a bit harder physically on the driver, but OTOH back then I presume the races were menatally harder on drivers...

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
The reason this thread doesnt belong here is because its within 24 hours of the race without a warning it has results of todays race in it

WHICH I HAVENT SEEN YET.

too!

Just for future reference, the convention in RC and PC is to add the word "spoilers" in brackets

[Option1]

Originally posted by Wolf
I think it's a symptomatic thing that nowdays we have maximum length of a race prescribed... OK, driving now may be a bit harder physically on the driver, but OTOH back then I presume the races were menatally harder on drivers...

Wolf, the only reason for a maximum length is for television so that the broadcasting stations can accurately schedule the race. It's easy enough for TV to pad out a timeslot, but harder when things run over time.

Neil

[LittleChris]

Pity the BBC didn't 'pad out' the Rockingham coverage today so that I got a decent understanding of the race. Who the hell edited the tape

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by LittleChris
Pity the BBC didn't 'pad out' the Rockingham coverage today so that I got a decent understanding of the race. Who the hell edited the tape

and...

Originally posted by Option1
Wolf, the only reason for a maximum length is for television so that the broadcasting stations can accurately schedule the race. It's easy enough for TV to pad out a timeslot, but harder when things run over time.

Ahh... the best case yet for getting rid of those annoying full course yellows...

[Ralliart]

Grands Prix used to be 200 miles or two hours, whichever came first. I don't know when that practice stopped but a race under an hour and a half is somewhat of a joke, I feel.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Ralliart
Grands Prix used to be 200 miles or two hours, whichever came first. I don't know when that practice stopped but a race under an hour and a half is somewhat of a joke, I feel.

Its the fastest race of the year though, if we were to change its length should we then adjust the slowest race as well as I personally think Monaco is too long ?

I would prefer to see 2 x 1 hour races on Sunday myself as I've always thought GP's were too long.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Wolf
I think it's a symptomatic thing that nowdays we have maximum length of a race prescribed... OK, driving now may be a bit harder physically on the driver, but OTOH back then I presume the races were menatally harder on drivers...

After the Belgian GP we had several threads about this as well, while the distance was not shorter than usual.
And there have been quite a few shorter Monza GPs, see http://www.forix.com...&l=0&r=5007&c=1

In fact, it's the minimum length of the race that is prescribed by the FIA: 305 kms!
Only the Monaco GP is allowed to be shorter than that, as a result of the Bandini accident.
Of course, there is a 2 hour maximum for all GPs.

I think you can't complain about F1 cars being fast!
The real problem is that the race looked effectively over after only 5 or 6 laps....

[baggish]

Originally posted by Option1
It's easy enough for TV to pad out a timeslot...

Neil

Apparantly not so easy for ITV, who felt the need to cut Eddie Irvine off in mid-flow

Jon