318 replies to this topic

[Afterburner]

Belle of the Belle Isle Brawl Sebastian Bourdais claims that Formula One and great circuits are a thing of the past:

“It’s challenging (racing) on concrete. Driving in the rain at Detroit — it’s tougher than any Formula One track, including the streets at Monaco. F1 has ruined every track. They have taken the character out of them, made them vanilla. It hurts me. Monaco is now a frigging parking lot with a couple of turns.”

“Too much in Formula One is all about the wrong reasons,” Bourdais said. “Money and position — it is not about the racing.

“In IndyCar, no one makes money. It’s just great, pure racing.”

Full story here: http://sports.usatod...nner-formula-1/

Perhaps a little bit of hyperbole, but is he wrong? It seems every time I read about F1 tracks on here lately I hear pretty similar comments, about how F1 steals the soul of any venue and leaves it for dead. Maybe it's time to start going back to lesser known venues?

Also interesting is his comment about Detroit being harder than any F1 track. With fewer electronics and a variety of circuits--a myriad of ovals, road and street courses in roughly equal proportion--is Indycar arguably becoming a more pure drivers' championship than Formula 1? With a reputation as the most prestigious drivers' title in the world, should F1 consider introducing a greater variety of circuits, perhaps even an oval or two to make things different?

Food for thought.

[Atreiu]

Ovals, no, never.

Different circuits, certainly.

Abandon tarmac run offs, I've been saying it for ages.

[ninetyzero]

Failed F1 driver slams F1. Now there's a surprise...

[Gyno]

Failed F1 driver slams F1. Now there's a surprise...

 

The problem is he is 100% right.

[phrank]

Tarmac run-off at Parabolica

[MikeV1987]

Haha, he's not wrong.

[Zava]

The problem is he is 100% right.

come on, you cannot possibly agree with the "Monaco is now a frigging parking lot with a couple of turns" part 

but otherwise yeah, f*** tarmac runoffs.

[FerrariV12]

Tarmac run-off at Parabolica

 

Yep, watch the Euro F3 triple header at Monza the weekend just gone to see how well that's worked out.

[ANF]

Well, I wouldn't call Monaco a parking lot even if quite a few armco barriers have been (re)moved since 1996.

But Bourdais is absolutely right. Tarmac has killed some excellent circuits. Great corners like Pouhon, the Parabolica, Copse Corner, Spoon Corner have all been ruined. The thrill is gone. And frankly, Blanchimont looks like ****.

Here's a proper racetrack for you.

[P123]

He has a point about the tracks. Billiard table smooth track surfaces with acres of run off. Even Spa is a waste of a race now, unless rain intervenes, and even then a number of the drivers don't want to race in the rain.

But Indycar isn't perfect either. This year it has swung between the extremes of being brilliant to an absolute shambles.

[Nonesuch]

Detroit was certainly too hard for quite a few of the IndyCar drivers if that first race is anything to go by. It was more SafetyCar than IndyCar.

 

F1 drives on some pretty awful tracks, but what I guess he is mostly referring to are the tarmac run-offs. The problem here is mostly with the race directors who are not doing their job, which the regulations state is to penalize drivers who leave the track.

[JHSingo]

Failed F1 driver slams F1. Now there's a surprise...

 

Except we're hearing similar criticism coming from current F1 drivers now too. Recently read a column David Coulthard wrote for the BBC, in which he said that the drivers feel very disengaged with the sport currently, due to the slow cars and challenge being removed from a lot of the circuits.

 

It's hard to disagree with what Bourdais says, there. I think he has a point.

 

I was thinking about this just recently - particularly in relation to the Indy 500. No doubt the unintelligent and uninformed F1-centrics will always slam ovals as 'just driving around in circles' - but one tiny error at Indianapolis and you're in the wall. And you very rarely see people have small accidents at Indianapolis. My point being, driving 200 laps around there is probably a much greater challenge than driving 78 laps or wherever around a Tilkedrome. I guess that's kind of the point Bourdais is making.

Edited by JHSingo, 02 June 2015 - 22:05.

[Santosdf]

I watched the Detroit race and it was in deed good racing, but  non successful ex F1 drivers bashing F1 sound like sour grapes to me. 

[ANF]

I was thinking about this just recently - particularly in relation to the Indy 500. No doubt the unintelligent and uniformed F1-centrics will always slam ovals as 'just driving around in circles' - but one tiny error at Indianapolis and you're in the wall. And you very rarely see people have small accidents at Indianapolis. My point being, driving 200 laps around there is probably a much greater challenge than driving 78 laps or wherever around a Tilkedrome. I guess that's kind of the point Bourdais is making.

One can go so far as to say that a single lap around Indianapolis Motor Speedway is more challenging than this:

[Kristian]

He's right, we've all been saying it for ages now. The soul has been ripped out of so many F1 circuits. Look at all the tracks we've had on the calendar for more than 15 years.... 

 

Melbourne - Thankfully nothing has changed due to the protected park. Its one of the few tracks with gravel trap hazards, therefore no silly track limits issues, and it looks great. 

Barcelona - Last corner totally ruined with chicane, robbing the calendar of one of its biggest challenges. Other corners now asphalted. 

Monaco - Most tricky barriers moved back and nullified. This year's fairly incident-free race showed its not the challenge it used to be. 

Montreal - First corner ruined. Last chicane and Champion's wall ruined. 

Red Bull Ring - What was once a beautiful track an asphalt paradise since 2003. Mistakes not punsihed at all. 

Silverstone - A joke to be honest. God its ugly to look at now, and the track limits abuse is horrendous.

Budapest - At least its still a bit of a challenge, those again asphalt has taken away the fun of the more tricky corners.

Spa - No more heart-in-mouth moments at Eau Rouge or Pouhon etc. - oh look they've gone wide onto the asphalt!

Monza - Parabolica. And all the chicanes.

Suzuka - I think Degner finally got the asphalt treatment last year??? 

Mexico City - I can see why the Peraltda couldn't be restored. But the rest of the circuit has been ruined. I predict an asphalt paradise. 

Interlagos - Ugly as hell now, again asphaltageddon. 

 

And the rest are Tilke Dromes. 

[PayasYouRace]

Funnily enough I was thinking about this kind of thing earlier. Tarmac runoffs are great for safety but I don't think they're really enough of a step up over the traditional gravel trap to warrant them. At least, not how I feel about them at the moment.

 

Indycar shows that you can have good safety with F1 performance cars on more dangerous tracks. I'm thinking the FIA went a little too far for Grade 1 circuits.

[CurbPainter]

He's right about the tracks being tougher to race, but it's tougher to be successful in F1 because the level of competition is much higher. I think the level of competition in F1 has never been as high as it is today.

 

I agree with him IndyCar is more about racing nowadays as F1.

 

But there's also a bit of ego involved...Bourdais is definitely someone who likes to feel special and boosting his bruised ego by now claiming how tough Detroit is after he has won it is also about his ego...he should be glad the top 10 F1 drivers are now not driving in IndyCar.

[JHSingo]

He's right about the tracks being tougher to race, but it's tougher to be successful in F1 because the level of competition is much higher. I think the level of competition in F1 has never been as high as it is today.

 

 

Is it? When two drivers are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning a race?

 

IndyCar this year has had seven winners from eight races, and it has been like that for several years now. For that reason, I'd say the level of competition is actually higher in IndyCar. Sure, Penske, Ganassi and Andretti are the teams who are more likely than not going to win the championship, but it certainly hasn't been a one-sided contest for a while.

[CurbPainter]

Is it? When two drivers are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning a race?

 

IndyCar this year has had seven winners from eight races, and it has been like that for several years now. For that reason, I'd say the level of competition is actually higher in IndyCar. Sure, Penske, Ganassi and Andretti are the teams who are more likely than not going to win the championship, but it certainly hasn't been a one-sided contest for a while.

 

When Bourdais is being put next to most drivers in F1 he will come of looking as a pretty average driver was what I was referring too...I watched his reactions when he was given competition by Robert Doorenbos back in the days.

[icecream]

* Less tarmac runoff

* More overtaking

* Greater safety

 

pick 2. 

[Fastcake]

The problem comes down to people's ideas of the purpose of gravel traps, I think. They were laid down originally to attempt to slow cars down before an impact with the barriers, not to make the circuits more challenging or dangerous. Indeed, the older tracks would have presented much more of a challenge with the armco barriers or grass banks that were originally in place, and I'm quite certain there were some who opposed gravel traps just as vigorously as tarmac runoffs. Since they were there put in place for safety, it would only be safety reasons that factor in to a decision over their removal. Once it was realised they do not effectively stop a modern F1 car, they were tarmacked over without any concern about how it would affect the racing - which is the correct decision, as you cannot make safety decisions based on emotion.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that we shouldn't become fixated on the idea that gravel traps are the only way to properly enforce track limits and ensure driver errors are suitably punished. There should be ways to ensure that cars can be safely to brought to a stop, and provide a suitable impediment to going off track and continuing at speed.

 

An idea I have had for years is placing either a kerb or a narrow bed of gravel or some other material, depending on the corner, between the track and the runoff area. This should stop drivers from casually placing wheels off the track for better lap times, which is something we have universally complained about. It would also mean when drivers do go off the track (and retain control of the vehicle, as spinners are already punished enough) they would be forced to rejoin at a slower speed in order to avoid the boundary, rather than continuing with little penalty to their lap time, which is another thing that has often annoyed people over the years.

[ardbeg]

Is it? When two drivers are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning a race?

 

IndyCar this year has had seven winners from eight races, and it has been like that for several years now. For that reason, I'd say the level of competition is actually higher in IndyCar. Sure, Penske, Ganassi and Andretti are the teams who are more likely than not going to win the championship, but it certainly hasn't been a one-sided contest for a while.

It's tougher to get into F1, but when you're there you are competing against just one person - your team mate.



 

[paulb]

Oy vey people who are going out of topic by comparing Bourdais to current F1 drivers.  He was offering his opinion only on tracks and racing in general.

[ardbeg]

So many comments that evolve around the fact that Bourdais never really made it in F1 and therefore he should keep quiet. I suggest that those here who share that sentiment to be quiet as well, your opinions weigh even less than Sebastiens.

 

Personally I think that you do not have to be the best driver in the world to compare two things that he has personal experience from and furthermore I fully agree with him. At the same time I want to remind people that "Driving in the rain at Detroit — it’s tougher than any Formula One track" does not mean "Indycar drivers are better than F1 drivers". He never said that and I am sure he did not mean it either.

 

[CurbPainter]

The problem comes down to people's ideas of the purpose of gravel traps, I think. They were laid down originally to attempt to slow cars down before an impact with the barriers, not to make the circuits more challenging or dangerous. Indeed, the older tracks would have presented much more of a challenge with the armco barriers or grass banks that were originally in place, and I'm quite certain there were some who opposed gravel traps just as vigorously as tarmac runoffs. Since they were there put in place for safety, it would only be safety reasons that factor in to a decision over their removal. Once it was realised they do not effectively stop a modern F1 car, they were tarmacked over without any concern about how it would affect the racing - which is the correct decision, as you cannot make safety decisions based on emotion.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that we shouldn't become fixated on the idea that gravel traps are the only way to properly enforce track limits and ensure driver errors are suitably punished. There should be ways to ensure that cars can be safely to brought to a stop, and provide a suitable impediment to going off track and continuing at speed.

 

An idea I have had for years is placing either a kerb or a narrow bed of gravel or some other material, depending on the corner, between the track and the runoff area. This should stop drivers from casually placing wheels off the track for better lap times, which is something we have universally complained about. It would also mean when drivers do go off the track (and retain control of the vehicle, as spinners are already punished enough) they would be forced to rejoin at a slower speed in order to avoid the boundary, rather than continuing with little penalty to their lap time, which is another thing that has often annoyed people over the years.

 

With a small strip of gravel they will hit a ridge of where the tarmac starts.

 

Better to make something which will most likely blow their tyres, but the circuit won't be suited anymore for motor racing after that.

[Juan Kerr]

Failed F1 driver slams F1. Now there's a surprise...

That's too easy for you too, why don't you consider that he has worked extremely hard to win his first Indycar race having dominated in Champcars and taken the opportunity to praise the series after a win? It doesn't take Bourdais to say it either it's patently obvious, I've watched every F1 race since 1984 and read every bit of news I could ever get my hands on but Indycar right now has more to offer in variety and purity. There are things I don't like concerning the stoppages and a couple of the rules but the Oval races are fantastic, what a breath of fresh air they are. I totally agree with the above poster, if F1 had a couple of big oval races it would be amazing. Open races too.

Proper race tracks
Street circuits and hard ones at that.
Double-headers
Short ovals 
Long ovals
It's a great series, I look forward to watching every race. I start watching it about an hour in, forward the adverts and yellow flags and generally its then as long as an F1 race.

[CurbPainter]

So many comments that evolve around the fact that Bourdais never really made it in F1 and therefore he should keep quiet. I suggest that those here who share that sentiment to be quiet as well, your opinions weigh even less than Sebastiens.

 

Personally I think that you do not have to be the best driver in the world to compare two things that he has personal experience from and furthermore I fully agree with him. At the same time I want to remind people that "Driving in the rain at Detroit — it’s tougher than any Formula One track" does not mean "Indycar drivers are better than F1 drivers". He never said that and I am sure he did not mean it either.

 

The reason why someone say something can be just as interesting as to what he says...and if you don't care about that, there might be others who still are interested to know some more background into things, and who are you to decide what others want to know ?

[blackhand2010]

I've watched F1 since '94, and have only missed watching a handful of races in that time. Whiulst I've always been aware of Indycar, and have respected what they do, I've never watched an Indy 500 until this year.

And I have to say there was better, purer, and more exciting racing in that one race than I've seen in F1 so far this whole season.

 

Yes, the cars aren't as technologically advanced, yes some of the drivers run out of talent rather too quickly, and yes, other than the 500, the races are watched by about three people, but Bourdais has a point.

 

F1 continually tries to solve it's self generated problems, with ever more ridiculous ideas (it may have spiced up the overtakes, but does anyone take DRS seriously...? Has always reminded me of the boosts you used to get in Wipeout 2097).

 

I'll keep watching F1, but I do think that the current model, at least, is entering it's twilight years

[Juan Kerr]

F1 is rubbish at the moment, I still maintain it died when Senna hit that wall.

[CurbPainter]

I've watched F1 since '94, and have only missed watching a handful of races in that time. Whiulst I've always been aware of Indycar, and have respected what they do, I've never watched an Indy 500 until this year.

And I have to say there was better, purer, and more exciting racing in that one race than I've seen in F1 so far this whole season.

 

Yes, the cars aren't as technologically advanced, yes some of the drivers run out of talent rather too quickly, and yes, other than the 500, the races are watched by about three people, but Bourdais has a point.

 

F1 continually tries to solve it's self generated problems, with ever more ridiculous ideas (it may have spiced up the overtakes, but does anyone take DRS seriously...? Has always reminded me of the boosts you used to get in Wipeout 2097).

 

I'll keep watching F1, but I do think that the current model, at least, is entering it's twilight years

 

DRS is meant to work as getting a slipstream like in motor racing or F3. They should however make the flap opening variable and tone it down at certain circuits to a lesser percentage. In China overtaking was still difficult with DRS, as it should be, but in Barcelona it made it way too easy.

 

They just need to go back to tyres which last so drivers can push again.

[ANF]

The problem comes down to people's ideas of the purpose of gravel traps, I think. They were laid down originally to attempt to slow cars down before an impact with the barriers, not to make the circuits more challenging or dangerous. Indeed, the older tracks would have presented much more of a challenge with the armco barriers or grass banks that were originally in place, and I'm quite certain there were some who opposed gravel traps just as vigorously as tarmac runoffs. Since they were there put in place for safety, it would only be safety reasons that factor in to a decision over their removal. Once it was realised they do not effectively stop a modern F1 car, they were tarmacked over without any concern about how it would affect the racing - which is the correct decision, as you cannot make safety decisions based on emotion.

How about the integrity of the sport? I mean, what the actual **** is this? And this, also from the F3 weekend at Monza?

The thing is, I don't want to see drivers get hurt. So I wouldn't mind if there was a narrow strip of tarmac outside the very entry of corners like the Parabolica or Spoon, but I really don't see any good reasons to remove all the gravel and grass throughout the corners. Is it being done to improve safety or to keep the cars running?

Edited by ANF, 02 June 2015 - 23:39.

[MattPete]

...is Indycar arguably becoming a more pure drivers' championship than Formula 1?

 

 

Yes.

[blackhand2010]

DRS is meant to work as getting a slipstream like in motor racing or F3. They should however make the flap opening variable and tone it down at certain circuits to a lesser percentage. In China overtaking was still difficult with DRS, as it should be, but in Barcelona it made it way too easy.

They just need to go back to tyres which last so drivers can push again.

But the reason they introduced it was because it was so hard to overtake, and that's because the rules, over a couple of decades, have pushed designers to create cars that have ever more over body downforce.

As I say; gimmicks to mitigate against self generated problems.

If F1 is to survive in its current form (and not just become a renamed Formula E in a couple of decades time), it needs to accept that it has become needlessly over complicated in areas that the vast majority of viewers couldn't give a stuff about, and has lost any air of thrill and danger.

[George Costanza]

F1 is rubbish at the moment, I still maintain it died when Senna hit that wall.

Yes and No.

 

How much longer would have Ayrton kept on racing after 1994?

[CurbPainter]

But the reason they introduced it was because it was so hard to overtake, and that's because the rules, over a couple of decades, have pushed designers to create cars that have ever more over body downforce.

As I say; gimmicks to mitigate against self generated problems.

If F1 is to survive in its current form (and not just become a renamed Formula E in a couple of decades time), it needs to accept that it has become needlessly over complicated in areas that the vast majority of viewers couldn't give a stuff about, and has lost any air of thrill and danger.

 

If they go back to cars with which you can get slipstreams, car aero development has to stop...I don't think teams are wanting that. But if they make DRS variable, they could set it on certain circuits at 30 or 40%, others on 50 or 60%, etc...It's now too easy at some circuits, it should only just give a slight edge, making overtaking still difficult and nothing more.

Edited by CurbPainter, 03 June 2015 - 00:02.

[jonpollak]

F1 has disappeared up it's own ass.

Their loss is our Gainsborough nil.

 

Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 03 June 2015 - 00:11.

[techspeed]

The thing is, I don't want to see drivers get hurt. So I wouldn't mind if there was a narrow strip of tarmac outside the very entry of corners like the Parabolica or Spoon, but I really don't see any good reasons to remove all the gravel and grass throughout the corners. Is it being done to improve safety or to keep the cars running?

The reason Parabolica was tarmacked has nothing to do with F1 at all, there's a much greater chance of a bike rider going off there being killed or seriously injured if it was still gravel. Parabolica was changed to attract the World Superbike Championship, the tracks aren't closed all year except the F1 weekend and the tracks need to attract other series to put on events.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

OK, let's examine the differences between Formula One and Indycar, relevant to what Bourdais is talking about. The biggest difference is that in almost all road courses in Indycar, the tracks are brutally rough compared to the billiard smooth Formula One tracks. If anyone watched Detroit, they saw spots on the track that almost launched the cars in the air, the driver had to lift, and catch the car as it slammed down. Newgarden got it wrong in just that scenario. Combine that with concrete walls on each side, it is completely unforgiving.

 

In Indycar, the cars run much closer together. This is a combination of yellows and the aerodynamics. In Formula One, if you are within one second of the car ahead, you lose traction, and have to back out. Not so in Indycar. Additionally, the ovals frequently see cars running at 200 MPH side by side and inches from each other lap after lap after lap. In Formula One, the great majority of any driver's race is spent a few seconds at least from any other car. There is very few drivers battling, more of a time trial environment.

 

So in Indycar the drivers not only have to deal with the track and their car, but have to battle other cars, true battling.

 

I agree with Bourdais, Indycar is definitely more about drivers battling each other, while in Formula One it is drivers driving to a delta, rarely in close combat. One type is antiseptic and too staged, while the other is down and dirty in the mud.

[Paco]

Failed F1 driver slams F1. Now there's a surprise...

He's not incorrect. That said, this standard chassis bs is utter crap n why I don't watch.. The few times I tune in its just sooo blah. Granted, Indy500 was ok but said it was engine related like f1. Big established teams with right n success,

So bourdain can claim what he wants but Indy isn't better, just different. As for the racer... If your on the wrong engine, your still at the back.

[Watkins74]

Indycar is basically an oversized Formula Ford spec series. Which can be quite fun to watch when under green flag conditions. 

[whitewaterMkII]

When Bourdais is being put next to most drivers in F1 he will come of looking as a pretty average driver was what I was referring too...I watched his reactions when he was given competition by Robert Doorenbos back in the days.

The majority of F1 drivers are pretty average as well. A lot of them bought their way in. F1 by no measurement consists of the 'best' drivers in the world.

[whitewaterMkII]

That said, this standard chassis bs is utter crap n why I don't watch.. 

Part of the reason why the cars are so close, even the Hondas when you peruse the time sheets, is because you get the same box of parts that a Penske, Ganassi and Andretti gets when Dallara ships them. From there on it's all car prep and set ups. I do like that F1 gives the teams the chassis design freedom it has, but OTH from race one in F1 you got it right, or you are an also ran. The whole tremendous expense that an F1 team went through in the year(s) ahead can be flushed down the loo the first time they hit the track, and no matter if the ride has the re-incarnation of Senna/Schumacher behind the wheel, it doesn't matter what the engine is or what the chassis is, you are done. And that happens year in, year out. Realistically it leaves, in a good year, about six cars (3 teams) that have a shot at the championship. And that does not even approach the track issues, which are billiard board smooth with acres of run off to accept any mistakes and therefore provide all the excitement of watching cement dry. F1 has unquestionably lost it's way, and without a radical rethinking, I too, believe they are in their twilight.

[Jimisgod]

This season has only 5 non-street race road courses:

• Barber
• Indianapolis
• Mid-Ohio
• NOLA
• Sonoma

Indy is a mickey-mouse track comparable to a Tilke so it doesn't count. In the way of Road courses it has:

• Detroit
• Long Beach
• St. Petersburg
• Toronto

To be better than F1 it would at least need to run on Road America, Road Atlanta and Laguna Seca. A good season would be;

1. St. Petersburg
2. New Orleans
3. Long Beach
4. Fontana
5. Birmingham
6. Indianapolis 500
7. Detroit
8. Toronto
9. Texas
10. Milwaukee
11. Elkhart Lake
12. Iowa
13. Mid-Ohio
14. Pocono
15. Road Atlanta
16. Laguna Seca

Four street courses, six ovals and six road courses.

Edited by Jimisgod, 03 June 2015 - 03:56.

[whitewaterMkII]

Great list Jimi, but I'd scratch Laguna Seca. Don't get me wrong, beautiful place, been to many a CART race there,and I always hit the vintages, but it really is too small, and in a market that will not support it. It was great in the CART days for sponsor schmoozing, but that was about it, small crowds and the paddock is tiny.

[BoschKurve]

This season has only 5 non-street race road courses:

• Barber
• Indianapolis
• Mid-Ohio
• NOLA
• Sonoma

Indy is a mickey-mouse track comparable to a Tilke so it doesn't count. In the way of Road courses it has:

• Detroit
• Long Beach
• St. Petersburg
• Toronto

To be better than F1 it would at least need to run on Road America, Road Atlanta and Laguna Seca. A good season would be;

1. St. Petersburg
2. New Orleans
3. Long Beach
4. Fontana
5. Birmingham
6. Indianapolis 500
7. Detroit
8. Toronto
9. Texas
10. Milwaukee
11. Elkhart Lake
12. Iowa
13. Mid-Ohio
14. Pocono
15. Road Atlanta
16. Laguna Seca

Four street courses, six ovals and six road courses.

 

 

I'm sorry Jim, but to say IMS is comparable to a Tilke track is the height of ignorance, and the sign of someone who really has little to no understanding about how difficult that circuit still is. 

 

All 4 corners there are different in spite of whatever belief there is that they must be the same because the dimensions all happen to match up. 

 

A ton of drivers have died at that so-called Tilke track. 

[Jimisgod]

I'm sorry Jim, but to say IMS is comparable to a Tilke track is the height of ignorance, and the sign of someone who really has little to no understanding about how difficult that circuit still is. 

 

All 4 corners there are different in spite of whatever belief there is that they must be the same because the dimensions all happen to match up. 

 

A ton of drivers have died at that so-called Tilke track. 

 

I meant the road course version.

 

[HeadFirst]

Great list Jimi, but I'd scratch Laguna Seca. Don't get me wrong, beautiful place, been to many a CART race there,and I always hit the vintages, but it really is too small, and in a market that will not support it. It was great in the CART days for sponsor schmoozing, but that was about it, small crowds and the paddock is tiny.

 

I love Laguna Seca too, but I have to agree with you. Sad that with all the great courses in NA, we use so few.

[Prost1997T]

Would it make any difference if Juan Pablo Montoya or (when he was in Indycar) Rubens Barrichello said it?

[wingwalker]

There's no doubt in my mind that modern F1 tracks have way too much tarmac in places where gravel be enough. Run-off after a high speed section or corner, sure, that's an safety issue, but what is the reasoning in turning about every inch of off-track zone into an unused parking lot? Like what's the point of putting tarmac on exits of the corners (like La Source at Spa?)? Or look at that ridiculous sector 2 in Bahrain, which was thankfully only used ones. Tarmac 'elements' (not even run-offs) left, right and centre.

[Peat]

If F1, and it's die-hard fans, could remove their heads from their collective recta once in a while, they'd see young(old) SeaBass is right. 

 

IndyCar is just plainly more entertaining than F1 at the moment. I can't remember the last time (bar grizzly accidents) that i gasped during an F1 race. Watch IndyCar and see 20+ guys and gals properly going for it in proper racing cars. 

You just have to put up with the ads....