75 replies to this topic

[f1steveuk]

Having roundly slated Motorsport magazine for it's lack of original thinking in doing yet another "list" feature, today on Autosport we have this;

 

 

http://plus.autospor...racing-drivers/

 

 

Is it just me me, but I have this mental picture of a group of mid twenty something, fresh from "Uni'" journo's, sitting around a table and actually patting each other on the back for this "awesome" idea, which to me has to be the laziest, weak idea to make print in some time, done because it's easier than actually researching and writing an article on "real" motor racing. I can already hear "we did it as a lighthearted seasonal feature", but from now on, not only will I be saving the cost of buying Motorsport, I can now save on renewing my Autosport subscription as well. How much lower can journalism go, what about a list of the top ten drivers facial hair?  (Maybe I should finish on the words "bah humbug", but this really is journalism of the laziest kind).

 

Is it just me?

[D-Type]

As I don't have an Autosport subscription I can't read it.  I don't feel any sense of loss.

 

To be fair to Autosport, they traditionally have had a 'silly' feature at Christmas.  I recall a road test of the Heineken motorised beer barrel, including performance tests on the Mulsanne straight.  Then there was a test of a "wheeled sleigh" - a training rig for huskies for use in places like the UK that have, by Arctic standards, limited snowfall.

[ensign14]

Bit of space filler at a time when there is no racing?  I've no real objection to having such a list.

 

However, I object to its content...no Stroker Ace?  No Junior Jackson?  No Billy Coy?  No Bobby Deerfield?  Smacks of them only being able to remember three films.

 

And are we going to have a literature list as well (Forrest Evers/Ron Hutton/Skid Solo/Carlotti Smith/Michel Vaillant)?

[KWSN - DSM]

My gripe is that Michel Vaillant was not number 1.

 

[Allen Brown]

Blame Buzzfeed

[Sharman]

Nah Allen, blame meejah studies. Printed word or television documentary they are all tarred with the same brush. I detest the format taught to all the failures by half baked trendies, you know the one." We'll divide the subject into sections so that they  (the audience) don't have too much to digest at once and while we're at it you do the commentary whilst walking and looking over your shoulder. And Dan, you whisper and wave your arms to stress the points that we've recapped at the beginning of each section"

Edited by Sharman, 27 December 2013 - 13:50.

[bradbury west]

And I bet there is no mention of the fabled Mr Jessop
Roger Lund

[AJB]

The article is sub-titled "Who was the silver screen's greatest ever racing driver?" and unfortunately I don't think the late, great Mr Jessop ever made that transition.

 

I say 'late'; I hope he's not sitting quietly somewhere thinking to himself, "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated”, to misquote Mark Twain.

[RA Historian]

At the risk of prolonging this thread, I am nominating the top driver of my favorite movie racing of all time, one that I suspect few have heard. My best? Johnny Dark !

[john aston]

Chillax(copyright Rt Hon D Cameron); as said, nothing happens this time of year and all the press have daft articles- always did

[LotusElise]

As I don't have an Autosport subscription I can't read it.  I don't feel any sense of loss.

 

To be fair to Autosport, they traditionally have had a 'silly' feature at Christmas.  I recall a road test of the Heineken motorised beer barrel, including performance tests on the Mulsanne straight.  Then there was a test of a "wheeled sleigh" - a training rig for huskies for use in places like the UK that have, by Arctic standards, limited snowfall.

 

I've driven a wheeled rig. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys speed. It's far more dangerous than a traditional sled, as it hurts when you fall off on to hard ground. On snow, you can fly quite a long way before doing any serious damage.

 

Also, you don't have to have been to university, or studied any subject in particular, to be a poor or uninspired writer. They've always existed.

[kayemod]

Also, you don't have to have been to university, or studied any subject in particular, to be a poor or uninspired writer. They've always existed.

 

Sadly, they're also infiltrating our (mostly) beloved Motor Sport.

 

The big feature in the current issue is Ferrari's 20 Greatest Drivers. Surprising? check. Controversial? check, which is probably the reason why they thought up the idea in the first place. If Damien reads this, no offence intended mate, but lowering yourself to Autosport's level isn't going to attract new readers. 

 

The obvious spoiler in this silly list is the total omission of Kimi Räikkönen and putting the Brummie whinger in at number 11, apparently his three wins trumps nine and a championship. I'm probably revealing my own prejudices here, but I was 'surprised' to see that Gilles Villeneuve is rated number one, above Ascari, Schumacher, Prost and of all people Fangio, sure, Juan Manuel only did a single season, but Villeneuve above Fangio, are they mad? Clearly actual results didn't count for a great deal in the deliberations, assuming of course that it was ever more than a back of an envelope exercise.

 

As Steve said in his opening post, these steadily-proliferating lists are getting ever sillier, do they think that readers can't cope with any feature without ratings or bullet points?

[Michael Ferner]

I was 'surprised' to see that Gilles Villeneuve is rated number one...

 

Well, that's ridiculous... The Trivialization of History!

[ensign14]

The obvious spoiler in this silly list is the total omission of Kimi Räikkönen and putting the Brummie whinger in at number 11, apparently his three wins trumps nine and a championship. I'm probably revealing my own prejudices here, but I was 'surprised' to see that Gilles Villeneuve is rated number one, above Ascari, Schumacher, Prost and of all people Fangio, sure, Juan Manuel only did a single season, but Villeneuve above Fangio, are they mad? Clearly actual results didn't count for a great deal in the deliberations, assuming of course that it was ever more than a back of an envelope exercise.

 

There would be absolutely no point at all in doing a results-based list, just go onto wikipedia and work it out.  This was more of an idea of who entered the hearts of the tifosi more.  There is little doubt that the tifosi revere Gilles in a way they never will Schumacher.  And they nicknamed Mansell Il Leone; did they give Kimi one?

[kayemod]

There would be absolutely no point at all in doing a results-based list, just go onto wikipedia and work it out.  This was more of an idea of who entered the hearts of the tifosi more.  There is little doubt that the tifosi revere Gilles in a way they never will Schumacher.  And they nicknamed Mansell Il Leone; did they give Kimi one?

 

They're writing for a UK magazine, so in what way is that relevant? They loved Jean Alesi, he's not in this top 20 either, so I don't think MS had pasta-eaters in mind.

 

And do you really think Kimi gives a toss?

[ensign14]

They're writing for a UK magazine, so in what way is that relevant?

 

Well, why have Lauda as a guest editor then?  It's just putting a different slant on things, perhaps providing some food for thought.

 

I blame the Antipodeans.  They should have re-invented the Tasman title to keep the journalists occupied.

[BRG]

 

And do you really think Kimi gives a toss?

No.  But that may be why the tifosi don't give a toss about him.  No passion and passion is what Ferrari runs on. 

Edited by BRG, 27 December 2013 - 20:39.

[Bloggsworth]

Terry Treadpedal wins it for me.

[ChrisM]

Two threads going on at once here. 

Some are bemoaning the lazy no-brains-required filler that even reputable magazines fall back on when they are short on good copy, and I whole heartedly agree with that complaint.

But then others are only encouraging such rubbish by adding their own thoughts to these 'lists' thereby justifying the editor's decision to include them. 

Next editorial meeting; "well done chaps, did you see how many commented on the Autosport forum, so what shall we list next?".......you have yourselves to blame.

[D-Type]

Two threads going on at once here. 

Some are bemoaning the lazy no-brains-required filler that even reputable magazines fall back on when they are short on good copy, and I whole heartedly agree with that complaint.

But then others are only encouraging such rubbish by adding their own thoughts to these 'lists' thereby justifying the editor's decision to include them. 

Next editorial meeting; "well done chaps, did you see how many commented on the Autosport forum, so what shall we list next?".......you have yourselves to blame.

I started to respond giving my list of Ferrari drivers - and then I realised I had fallen into the trap, and deleted it.

[LotusElise]

No.  But that may be why the tifosi don't give a toss about him.  No passion and passion is what Ferrari runs on. 

 

Kimi doesn't have passion. He has attitude.

 

I've warmed to him over the years, there's something a bit slyly old-school about him.

[ensign14]

But then others are only encouraging such rubbish by adding their own thoughts to these 'lists' thereby justifying the editor's decision to include them. 

Next editorial meeting; "well done chaps, did you see how many commented on the Autosport forum, so what shall we list next?".......you have yourselves to blame.

 

But now you're commenting on the commenting, which makes the whole thing meta.

[GMACKIE]

I started to respond giving my list of Ferrari drivers - and then I realised I had fallen into the trap, and deleted it.

Perhaps there should be a list of 'victims', who have fallen into that trap?

[TecnoRacing]

Stop being such a crank Steve. I can see complaining about some of the other lists which get rather tedious...but this is easily the best/most fun Autosport list in quite some time. If they had played it even straighter it would have been even better...

 

Incidentally I would put JP "I'm still the best!" Sarti at #1 I think...

[kayemod]

Stop being such a crank Steve. I can see complaining about some of the other lists which get rather tedious...but this is easily the best/most fun Autosport list in quite some time. If they had played it even straighter it would have been even better...

 

Incidentally I would put JP "I'm still the best!" Sarti at #1 I think...

 

No contest. If we're back to talking about fictional drivers, it's Strip "The King" Weathers, (the truly great Richard Petty in real life).

[Roger Clark]

Sadly, they're also infiltrating our (mostly) beloved Motor Sport.
 
The big feature in the current issue is Ferrari's 20 Greatest Drivers. Surprising? check. Controversial? check, which is probably the reason why they thought up the idea in the first place. If Damien reads this, no offence intended mate, but lowering yourself to Autosport's level isn't going to attract new readers. 
 
The obvious spoiler in this silly list is the total omission of Kimi Räikkönen and putting the Brummie whinger in at number 11, apparently his three wins trumps nine and a championship. I'm probably revealing my own prejudices here, but I was 'surprised' to see that Gilles Villeneuve is rated number one, above Ascari, Schumacher, Prost and of all people Fangio, sure, Juan Manuel only did a single season, but Villeneuve above Fangio, are they mad? Clearly actual results didn't count for a great deal in the deliberations, assuming of course that it was ever more than a back of an envelope exercise.
 
As Steve said in his opening post, these steadily-proliferating lists are getting ever sillier, do they think that readers can't cope with any feature without ratings or bullet points?

The article in question was written by Simon Arron. I hope most members of this forum will know that he is a serious and well-informed journalist and one with a fine sense of humour. He makes it clear that his list is subjective and does not claim to be definitive.

It's a pity, and probably not Simon's fault that the piece about Ascari in the iPad version is actually about Schumacher.

[arttidesco]

did they give Kimi one?

 

SOT I'm not sure how reverential it was or wether it refered to Kimi per se, but I have seen the odd reference to a Ferrari driver known as Ice Cream man

[PCC]

Clearly actual results didn't count for a great deal in the deliberations, assuming of course that it was ever more than a back of an envelope exercise.

And rightly so. To be a great Ferrari driver, one has to have more than mere results. One has to create excitement and mystique; to be not just effective or successful but inspiring. I haven't received the new issue yet, but I assume that one of its premises is that being a great Ferrari driver demands qualities over and above just being a great driver.

 

All that said, I don't love lists either. I think my favourite such compilation was in Motor Sport in 1994, in which the greatest drivers of each era were simply discussed chronologically rather than ranked. It was more of a celebration of what made the very diverse group of drivers great, rather than a contest of essentially incomparable drivers from different eras.

[f1steveuk]

Stop being such a crank Steve. I can see complaining about some of the other lists which get rather tedious...but this is easily the best/most fun Autosport list in quite some time. If they had played it even straighter it would have been even better...

 

Incidentally I would put JP "I'm still the best!" Sarti at #1 I think...

Crank? No. Witness that in Britain someone in TV land thought a programme on cooking would be a good idea. Now, if anyone in TV had original thinking, they'd come up with something different, but no. Instead they go for the lazy option, and here we are swamped with seemingly thousands of cookery programmes. I'd have no problem with a "list" based feature, if for example they interviewed a "name", asked for their opinion of the best ten 'whatevers', and allowed then to qualify their choice. But now it just seems to be, "got a gap, can't be bothered to research anything, bung in a "top ten" feature. It's not journalism, it's lazy and condescending to their readership. If, for example, you wanted to be the number one motor racing magazine, research your readership, and give them what they want. If you want to be the motor racing equivalent of "Heat" or "Hello", turn out a load of pointless twaddle, such as lists and top tens!!!

[f1steveuk]

And as for being a crank, and to prove my point, these lists are now weekly as well as weakly, today we have "Top Ten Turbo Drives",

 

Just waiting for the "top ten colour of driver's lucky pants" list that can only be, just around the corner.

 

I'd love for someone from Autosport to try and justify this "trend".

 

(and I am a happy chappy, not a miserable grouch, but as Peter Griffin would say, this "really grinds my gears"!!

[PCC]

And as for being a crank, and to prove my point, these lists are now weekly as well as weakly, today we have "Top Ten Turbo Drives",

 

Just waiting for the "top ten colour of driver's lucky pants" list that can only be, just around the corner.

 

I'd love for someone from Autosport to try and justify this "trend".

 

(and I am a happy chappy, not a miserable grouch, but as Peter Griffin would say, this "really grinds my gears"!!

I take your point, but I think such lists are on the whole pretty harmless and can even have their place. When they don't take themselves too seriously they can be a lot of fun; I think Simon Arron's Ferrari list is a good example of this. And they can generate some enjoyable discussion about drivers, drives and cars that we find/found inspiring or exciting.

 

The main problem I have with lists is the apparent need to rank the things listed, which invariably entails comparing fundamentally incomparable things and arriving at highly subjective and contentious conclusions. Those subjective conclusions, combined with the instinctive irritation that many people feel when confronted with opinions that differ  from their own (no, I emphatically don't mean you, Steve!), cause a great deal of grumpiness.

[ensign14]

Maybe they could shift it then to something like the Grauniad's "Joy Of Six", not a definitive list but a focus on a few otherwise forgotten nooks and crannies.  E.g. 10 Forgotten One-Offs (Moreno qualifying the Andrea Moda, Neville Lederle's one GP, Ghinzani's one points finish, the Shannon-Climax), or 10 Fish Out Of Water (John Rhodes and Bobby Unser in Grands Prix, the Donlavey NASCAR team at Le Mans, Derek Bell in the RAC Rally), or 10 Great Liveries (the BAR 555 that Bernie nixed, the Embassy Tyrrell, Von Dutch's stripework on the Scarab)...

[Eric Dunsdon]

Well, that's ridiculous... The Trivialization of History!

Hear, Hear!. I skimmed through that list and shoved the mag' straight back into the WH Smiths rack. History isnt what it was when I were a lad.

[Michael Ferner]

I'll have to hand it to you, but that IS an excellent idea, Ennie!

[PCC]

Maybe they could shift it then to something like the Grauniad's "Joy Of Six", not a definitive list but a focus on a few otherwise forgotten nooks and crannies.

Now that's a kind of list I could get excited about!

[kayemod]

Maybe they could shift it then to something like the Grauniad's "Joy Of Six"...

 

Probably not a good idea, it would be a mass of misspellings. There was a reference in that paper a few days ago to someone doing "stirling work", but I don't think they meant The Greatest Living Englishman.

Edited by kayemod, 24 January 2014 - 11:55.

[Allen Brown]

How about a list of the top ten drivers not to have been featured in an Autosport list yet?

 

My favourite of course would be a list of top ten mistakes made by people when faking chassis plates.

[Jim Thurman]

How about a list of the top ten drivers not to have been featured in an Autosport list yet?

 

My favourite of course would be a list of top ten mistakes made by people when faking chassis plates.

 

Allen, do you seriously want to give them knowledge on how to beat the system?    Wouldn't that make your task even more difficult?

[Allen Brown]

Good point Jim. I'm happy to help in so many ways, but maybe not that way.

[Spaceframe]

Well, why have Lauda as a guest editor then?  It's just putting a different slant on things, perhaps providing some food for thought.

 

I blame the Antipodeans.  They should have re-invented the Tasman title to keep the journalists occupied.

 

Next time a prime minister needs a new spin doctor, you should apply   

[bradbury west]

these lists are now weekly as well as weakly, today we have "Top Ten Turbo Drives".  

Whilst I readily concede that I am not a trained engineer, surely there can only be one answer here. I understood that all turbos are exhaust gas driven.........
Exits stage left
Roger Lund

[Jean L]

     http://www.marketwat...lipboardbizfeed  

[sennafan24]

Is it just me me, but I have this mental picture of a group of mid twenty something, fresh from "Uni'" journo's, sitting around a table and actually patting each other on the back for this "awesome" idea, which to me has to be the laziest, weak idea to make print in some time, done because it's easier than actually researching and writing an article on "real" motor racing.

I am in my mid 20's and write for a F1 site and I have not yet done a top 10 list, so your general stereotype falls flat. I despite fitting your criteria put a lot of effort and thought into my articles, just because I am not a 50 year old good old boy, does not mean I come up with lazy and weak ideas.

 

Top ten lists can take a great deal of research, and if you write them with someone else I can imagine they take a great deal of compromise. It must take deep critical analysis, how does one rate driver A over driver B for example. If a list is displayed as just names on a list with no compare and contrasting done, then yeah that would be lazy, but if there is legitimate thought, consistency and time put into it, I fail to see how it can be seen as lazy.

Edited by sennafan24, 25 January 2014 - 14:58.

[PCC]

I actually despite fitting your criteria put a lot of effort and thought into my articles, just because I am not a 50 year old good old boy, does not mean I come up with lazy and weak ideas.

Thank you for making this point. I think we too readily dismiss people with different viewpoints. Those with whom we disagree can be just as passionate and committed and hardworking as we are. We often forget this.

[john aston]

Sennafan how can I put this ? If you are proposing to write for the general public can I suggest there's a bit more work to be done ? Because your post is - sorry - terribly written and hardly makes sense at all.

[f1steveuk]

Sennafan, while I see your point, and I concede it looks like I may be suggesting ALL 20 something writers are lazy, it is not what I said, it was clearly aimed at an office in Haymarket Publishing in regards to yet another list article in one of their own publications. I am well aware of the hard work and research involved in writing, as I do write myself, and left a web based F1 site because I felt they were going down the "Hello" fanzine route, because instead of taking  articles, for example, on the development of the flappy paddle gearchange (invented by John Barnard to minimise speed reduction caused by mechanical drag during gear changes) they preferred articles on what sunglasses drivers preferred to wear or what "celebrity" was pretending to "love F1 racing" because it meant they got on the grid to plug a film.

 

As for lists, no matter how much research, it will be a personal choice of the writer, hence my suggestion that if they had to do it, at least ask and ex driver, a designer, a team principal to make a list and why. If you can honestly look at any of the recent "top tens" in Autosport and see any in depth research, I would be surprised. Very surprised

[sennafan24]

 

 

Sennafan, while I see your point, and I concede it looks like I may be suggesting ALL 20 something writers are lazy, it is not what I said, it was clearly aimed at an office in Haymarket Publishing in regards to yet another list article in one of their own publications. I

 

Yeah, I understood

 

I just did not like the picture you painted of 20 year old's. I just felt it was a generalization that did not need to be made. I agree that some top ten articles would have more merit if they took up the suggestions you offered

Edited by sennafan24, 25 January 2014 - 14:14.

[PCC]

erm why? Considering a guy above thanked me for making a decent point, I would suggest you and your condescending  tone, how can I put this, get lost. Considering I already write for the general public, you clearly have problems reading, I suggest you put some more work into your eyesight.

Sennafan, you are being a bit thin-skinned. I did appreciate the point you made, but that doesn't mean that John's comments are without foundation. If you profess to be a writer, and use that status as a central plank in the argument you're making, then you can expect your writing to be critiqued. And if you read the first sentence of your second paragraph aloud to yourself, you will probably see what John meant.

 

Trust me, I know that blunt criticism can sting. But getting overly defensive and hostile in response does not move the discussion forward - nor does it help you hone your writing craft.

[sennafan24]

Sennafan, you are being a bit thin-skinned. I did appreciate the point you made, but that doesn't mean that John's comments are without foundation. If you profess to be a writer, and use that status as a central plank in the argument you're making, then you can expect your writing to be critiqued. And if you read the first sentence of your second paragraph aloud to yourself, you will probably see what John meant.

 

Trust me, I know that blunt criticism can sting. But getting overly defensive and hostile in response does not move the discussion forward - nor does it help you hone your writing craft.

Yeah, there were typos in there, which I have edited and I could have made me points clearer in general, I just did not like the guys tone. I do not always put the time and attention into my forum posts that I do my articles if I am honest.

 

Point taken though, I have edited my comments so not to cause an unwarranted argument.

Edited by sennafan24, 25 January 2014 - 14:18.

[john aston]

No intention at all to be condescending- but if you want to write for  public consumption then it's a good idea to get the basics right. You may well write like an angel(and I genuinely wish you all the best with it ) but if you profess to be a writer then some evidence of being able to do so would be a good starting point when you are posting on a forum full of pedants like me. By the way , my reading skills are just fine , as was my eyesight last time it was checked

Edited by john aston, 25 January 2014 - 14:55.