114 replies to this topic

[Pontlieue]

Everyone is talking about improving the quality of racing, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what constitues "good racing". Measuring it in number of overtakes has led to the 2011 rule changes. The number of overtakes has tripled as a result, but for many fans, the enjoyment in F1 hasn't increased, or even decreased as a result. So if it is not overtakes only, what, in your opinion, makes the on-track action good?

 

For me, uncertainity is the most important factor. It's boring if you know that passing is impossible, but it is just as boring if overtaking is too easy. I like seeing drivers battle for position instead of just driving by on the straight.

[Peat]

It's subjective.

F1 tried to treat 'excitement' as a tangible commodity and gave us DRS.

If you get to the end of a race (or half way through in F1's case) and you regret giving it your time, it's not a good race.

[aramos]

I quite enjoy tense racing watching the sector times even without on track passing. It's a vastly under appreciated "racing" cars on different stragies running times even if they can't see one another on track.

[Bartonz20let]

Unpredictability, once something becomes predictable it becomes boring.

[Gyno]

Anyone enjoying this kind of racing got something wrong in their head.

 

Saving fuel, saving tires, saving brakes.

Lift 100m before the braking spot.

 

WTF is this?

 

I rather watch 2005 or 2004 imola race then watching this ****.

[TheRacingElf]

Anyone enjoying this kind of racing got something wrong in their head.

 

Saving fuel, saving tires, saving brakes.

Lift 100m before the braking spot.

 

WTF is this?

 

I rather watch 2005 or 2004 imola race then watching this ****.

Can't agree more! I consider myself as a Hamilton supporter but even I get fed up with this whole save this, save that, lift here coast there ****. I really consider doing something else on Sundays in the future, that's something I would have said lets say 10 years ago

[johnmhinds]

Anyone enjoying this kind of racing got something wrong in their head.

 

Saving fuel, saving tires, saving brakes.

Lift 100m before the braking spot.

 

WTF is this?

 

I rather watch 2005 or 2004 imola race then watching this ****.

 

But didn't you enjoy the half dozen replays of the cars slightly locking up.... /s

 

The fuel limits and DRS allowing passes mid way down the straights makes F1 look like a joke.

Edited by johnmhinds, 07 June 2015 - 20:38.

[realracer200]

at some circuits the DRS helps to improve the show by allowing overtaking which otherwise wouldn't be possible but at Montreal it makes overtaking too easy because when a slower car is ahead it has right about %0 chances to defend. i actually think Canada is one of the few circuits which would be better without the DRS.

[Doughnut King]

Is listening in on the radio an issue? 10 or so year ago we were ignorant of driving saving this and that or having various issues unless the team told a pit reporter or the car retired. Now we know indisputatbly that a driver isn't likely to fight or isn't pushing the limit.

[tmekt]

So if it is not overtakes only, what, in your opinion, makes the on-track action good?

The criteria change race-by-race in order to make it possible to moan over it being a snoozefest while embedding a generic video with a V10 engine. Guaranteed likes.

[kvyatfan]

Being able to push limits both on an individual and competitive basis.

 

Close, back and forth battles.

 

Generally equal cars to make skill the primary factor.

 

Skilled passes without any fake 'gamification' rules and gimmicks.

 

Just look at Alonso and Vettel racing wheel to wheel. That is exciting and the height of skill. The Hulkenberg incident suggests to me too much politics and a lack of wheel to wheel experience. when someone pushes your position like that you have to be willing to touch or even go off. But the seniority of a Championship racer will be threatening to some drivers (no doubt the risk of being punished is greater if you threaten a champion). And the lack of wheel to wheel racing can make some drivers uncertain of what to do.

 

Hulkenberg would get better from being able to challenge and defend. And Vettel would also have to get better because he wouldn't be able to politik his way through a position.

 

I don't really even see Rosberg and Hamilton. They aren't racing. That's all just a political Sunday drive.

[TheRacingElf]

The criteria change race-by-race in order to make it possible to moan over it being a snoozefest while embedding a generic video with a V10 engine. Guaranteed likes.

I seriously enjoy those embedded generic videos with a V10 engine more than this whole season combined though

[iakhtar]

Anyone enjoying this kind of racing got something wrong in their head.

 

Saving fuel, saving tires, saving brakes.

Lift 100m before the braking spot.

 

WTF is this?

 

I rather watch 2005 or 2004 imola race then watching this ****.

 

It's just gone too far, silly restrictions on every single thing in the name of bullshit cost saving. If it was your goal to destroy the sport and make it as dull as possible you probably couldn't create worse rules than we have right now.

[KingTiger]

Good:

 

Bad: 

awful     

[Nemo1965]

In answering the OP:

 

You could measure the quality of the racing by attaching heart-rate monitors to fans watching F1. In 2014 I had many, many races in which my ticker went at a higher rate than one could expect sitting or laying on a couch. While between 1994 and 2013 I often fell asleep on the couch.

 

Well, how do you get the heart-rate up? By having exciting cars. Or: camera-work that makes the car look exciting. Nowadays, camera are so excellent and razor-sharp the cars don't give a sense of speed. Very hard to establish if that the fault of the car or of the pixels doing their work.

 

Just some thoughts...

[Seanspeed]

I think 2010-2013, despite Red Bull's domination, had a lot of great racing. What changed?

Engines. Before, everybody was relatively equal in terms of power. Now, so much depends on what lump you've got in the back, and we all know it, so we know a Red Bull cant defend itself against a Mercedes powered car. It has definitely become too predictable in this regard. I've always been in favour of engine development, but I suppose it is one of those things that only really works if everybody is doing a competent job, which Renault and Honda are obviously not, making them sitting ducks on-track, and making them uncompetitive at the many places where power is important.

Hate to say it, but I think the racing would improve dramatically if they equalized the engines as much as possible. Not that this would be my recommendation, but I'm pretty sure it would work.

Edited by Seanspeed, 07 June 2015 - 21:12.

[P123]

I think 2010-2013, despite Red Bull's domination, had a lot of great racing. What changed?

Engines. Before, everybody was relatively equal in terms of power. Now, so much depends on what lump you've got in the back, and we all know it, so we know a Red Bull cant defend itself against a Mercedes powered car. It has definitely become too predictable in this regard. I've always been in favour of engine development, but I suppose it is one of those things that only really works if everybody is doing a competent job, which Renault and Honda are obviously not, making them sitting ducks on-track, and making them uncompetitive at the many places where power is important.

Hate to say it, but I think the racing would improve dramatically if they equalized the engines as much as possible. Not that this would be my recommendation, but I'm pretty sure it would work.

A lot of that great racing was down to the tyres, which Pirelli were slated for, and it would just become an aero battle again, or an engine software battle. Maybe aero could be equalised too for a spec formula.

The main problem with todays engines is the horrendously bad job both Renault and Honda are doing.

[Seanspeed]

A lot of that great racing was down to the tyres, which Pirelli were slated for, and it would just become an aero battle again, or an engine software battle. Maybe aero could be equalised too for a spec formula.

The main problem with todays engines is the horrendously bad job both Renault and Honda are doing.

The tires aren't too much different right now.

And yea, it was more of an aero battle, but when aero is the biggest differentiator, it at least left cars able to defend and overtake with relatively equality(not completely, but much tighter variance than now). Basically, it wasn't as predictable as it is now where we know that in a 'battle' situation what will happen more often than not if one car has 'x' engine and another has 'y' engine. The difference between powerplants is too big.

[Nitropower]

I find no thrill in already knowing who wins before the race starts. The fight in the back of the pack can be amusing but that's not why I'm here.

The cars sound like crap, cars belong to 3 different tiers with huge leaps in performance to one another. Overtaking is so artificial with DRS and only the big gap between engines is making it harder for the weaker engines... otherwise all passing moves would be cake easy like in the past few years.

 

Then if all the new circuits have no personality and look the same... you name it. Canada should've provided exciting racing but the gap between cars makes it hard. I changed channels by the middle of the race and checked a few times at most today.

[KingTiger]

The tires aren't too much different right now.

And yea, it was more of an aero battle, but when aero is the biggest differentiator, it at least left cars able to defend and overtake with relatively equality(not completely, but much tighter variance than now). Basically, it wasn't as predictable as it is now where we know that in a 'battle' situation what will happen more often than not if one car has 'x' engine and another has 'y' engine. The difference between powerplants is too big.

 

With the old engines teams would set their gearboxes with a short final gear so many times drivers wouldn't be able to pass even with DRS because they'd just hit the rev limiter. That is why even when there is a battle between identical PUs now, DRS passing is pretty easy - for example one of the TR's on Ricciardo today. 

[JHSingo]

For me, the reason I became interested in motorsport is because I like to see racing. Drivers battling wheel-to-wheel, overtaking and being overtaken, close competition, cars being able to follow each other closely, and yes, unpredictability.

 

Sure, Mercedes has done a superb job these last two years. But it's just as bad as the Schumacher/Ferrari era now. As others have said, you basically know who the winner will be before the weekend even starts. A lot of my enthusiasm for F1 has been lost this year because it's just a forgone conclusion. There is no incentive to watch if you have a very good idea what the result will be before the race even starts.

 

As I've said before, frankly I couldn't give a toss what the cars look or sound like. I just want to see exciting racing, with more than one team capable of winning.

 

I didn't think I'd ever say this, but I'd honestly be in support of an equalisation system, whether that's BoP, success ballast, or even single spec cars, despite how much that goes against the history of F1. It gets very boring seeing one team as dominant as they are now, particularly when Nico Rosberg seems unable to provide much of a challenge to his team mate this year.

[TheRacingElf]

At least in the past a team could do lots of testing and bring lots of updates in an effort to catch up. I'm sure Ferrari, Red Bull and Honda would have done that and we had at least the chance someone would manage to catch up with Mercedes. At the moment if you have the best car in Melbourne you can be almost sure you have the best car at the end of the year. There is nearly no chance for the others to catch up due to the ban on almost everything...

[robefc]

I think one of the problems with F1 is a driver and team achieving excellence is not exciting.

 

I could watch Barcelona and Messi all day whoever they're playing

Tiger Woods in his hey day, yes please.

The All Blacks? Federer? Stephen Hendry? Same applies.

 

Sport is always at it's best when two or more competitors reach that level and drive each other on but most sports are also a joy to watch when it's just one competitor performing like that...not F1.

 

Currently I am loving F1 because I'm a Lewis fan and even a race like today is tense as anything until the end, it's a bit like having your footy team go 1-0 at the start of the match and you couldn't give a fig how entertaining the match is from then on, you are just hoping that the score stays the same! But if I wasn't a big fan of a driver...I don't think I'd watch. I spend more time watching live timing as it is anyway!

 

I mentioned this in the Canada thread but some sort of reverse system is something that should seriously be considered imo...or some way of shaking put he starting order. Can anyone can honestly say that there  excitement in anticipation of a race isn't much much higher when something has mixed the grid up? I'm actually much more excited when Lewis qualifies down the grid even though I obviously don't want him to.

 

Unfortunately it goes against the DNA of the sport...but that DNA involves putting the quickest car at the front...and then moaning about the lack of overtaking..and then forgetting that you used to moan when moaning about the next era and misremembering that you loved the last one...

[vowcartaGP]

why do we have to restrict discussing quality of racing to just F1? A thoughtful study on how to improve racing across the board in several major championships might be a good thing.

I think this thread is really screaming for some suggestions to quantify quality racing. As long as we talk qualitatively people will just go round in circles. So how could one measure quality racing? I'd suggest a mixed format of the following:
-number of on track overtakes per race
-number of lead changes per race
-ratio of number of different winners to races in a season
-ratio of number of different pole sitters to races in a season
- ratio of number of different top 6 finishers in a season to number of races in a season
-average number of drivers in a different finishing position to starting position over a season

If you weighted the first two points more than the other points and then calculated the results numerically you could then compare where each series is lacking. I bet Indy Car wins out overall.

But this is the kind thing of F1 should be doing and then suggesting improvements based on numerical results.

[TheRacingElf]

why do we have to restrict discussing quality of racing to just F1? A thoughtful study on how to improve racing across the board in several major championships might be a good thing.

I think this thread is really screaming for some suggestions to quantify quality racing. As long as we talk qualitatively people will just go round in circles. So how could one measure quality racing? I'd suggest a mixed format of the following:
-number of on track overtakes per race
-number of lead changes per race
-ratio of number of different winners to races in a season
-ratio of number of different pole sitters to races in a season
- ratio of number of different top 6 finishers in a season to number of races in a season
-average number of drivers in a different finishing position to starting position over a season

If you weighted the first two points more than the other points and then calculated the results numerically you could then compare where each series is lacking. I bet Indy Car wins out overall.

But this is the kind thing of F1 should be doing and then suggesting improvements based on numerical results.

Problem is that the quality of racing isn't in the quantity of overtakes or lead changes or anything. We have a lot more overtakes with DRS but does it improve the quality of racing? No it doesn't, it just raises the numbers. Nascar has a lot of overtakes, a lot of lead changes, lot of different winners but I don't find Nascar offering the best quality of racing.

 

I think the quality of racing has to be measured by how many times a spectator is on the edge of his seat screaming at his tv. It's very very difficult to measure though

[scheivlak]

 

For me, uncertainity is the most important factor. 

Well, you get the highest amount of uncertaincy when you have the lowest quality of driving 

 

I must say that I like uncertaincy as well but only when it's couple with a high standard of driving. Today (OK, yesterday in my timezone) I read a lot of whinging comments about how boring this race was and how much people were hoping for a safety car. Well, we didn't have a SC and indeed, it could and probably would have shaken up a few things. But there wasn't one - and for quite some part that was because of the high standard of driving. It was amazing to see how the whole field went through the first couple of corners without contact - in many cases it a question of centimetres and in other classes (up to GP2 and Indycar) I imagine there would have been contact. I liked e.g. the Ericsson/Massa duel as well.

 

While this year in F1 doesn't seem to become a classic year as far as the excitement is concerned I think the quality of racing in terms of craftsmanship isn't too bad.

Edited by scheivlak, 07 June 2015 - 22:55.

[Atreiu]

Multiple genuine contenders for the win and podium spots and enough unpredictability for people to know not all weekends will be the same.

Mercedes lift and coast only because they can afford it. And unfortunately we know they will be in command every single weekend. The best of the race was watching Massa and Vettel charging through. Take a hint. Reversed grids...

[JHSingo]

Mercedes lift and coast only because they can afford it. And unfortunately we know they will be in command every single weekend. The best of the race was watching Massa and Vettel charging through. Take a hint. Reversed grids...

 

Given how dominant the Mercedes is, it'd probably only take about 15 laps before one was leading, even with reversed grids.

[RealRacing]

It's impossible to guarantee great racing every GP weekend. However, things would greatly improve if the PROBABILITY of having good racing increases. How to achieve that? Create as equal conditions between the drivers as possible and they will take care of the rest. Look at FA, even in that POS car, he wanted to race, try to block passing and telling them to go to hell when they asked him to save fuel. Drivers need to be given the best possible package every racing weekend as well; the whole car has to be optimized for them to push: engine, gearbox, brakes, tyres, fuel, etc. These days F1 is like asking a 100 m runner to do a race holding a spoon with an egg in his mouth.

 

Equalize, optimize, hope for the best.

[redbarron]

There is no quality racing in F1 at the moment. It's all smoke and mirrors. Surely someone like Hamilton would rather be battling Alonso or Vettel wheel to wheel rather than this save fuel and coast crap we are seeing.

Regulations are destroying this sport.

[phoenix101]

Anyone enjoying this kind of racing got something wrong in their head.

 

Saving fuel, saving tires, saving brakes.

Lift 100m before the braking spot.

 

WTF is this?

 

I rather watch 2005 or 2004 imola race then watching this ****.

 

Conserving tires, engines, and fuel is how F1 always worked. It wasn't until the electronics started managing everything, and the governing body declared indestructible tires, indestructible engines, and unlimited fuel that teams/drivers stopped caring about conservation.

 

In real racing, you'll never win a race by 1 minute, if you can win it by 1 second. You're just overtaxing the equipment and running the risk of failure. In fake racing, where electronics control everything and every component is designed to outlast the human race (cost savings, lol) drivers beat up their equipment with reckless abandon.

 

Drivers are supposed to push as hard as they can on the softest tire they can, without accidentally stepping over the line. There is no line anymore. That's the problem. In the case of Pirelli, the line is artificially dicatated by the governing officials, and it's the same for every team. Predictable and boring.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Although we fans all have different priorities, the quality of racing isn't in the numbers but whenever we sit up, gape at what's happening between drivers, and are 100% interested on what's going on. Monaco gave us a taste of it with Grosjean and Verstappen until it all went wrong. The quality of racing isn't about how fast the car goes or how pretty it is, but competition between drivers, in relatively equal machinery, fighting each other. Correction, battling each other.

 

We all watched Montreal, and despite what it usually delivers, today we saw all the ills of the sport on display. DRS was a joke, as well the fuel saving, the having to drive to deltas, and of course, the inequities in machinery. It got so bad I was hoping for a safety car, just to spice things up.

 

My personal belief is that to have something memorable, you need great athletes battling each other, the outcome determined by individuals rising up to the occasion. And the result is not determined by politics or huge gaps in performance, but what is inside the individual, heart, drive, motivation, call it what you wish.

[Gyno]

Conserving tires, engines, and fuel is how F1 always worked. It wasn't until the electronics started managing everything, and the governing body declared indestructible tires, indestructible engines, and unlimited fuel that teams/drivers stopped caring about conservation.

 

In real racing, you'll never win a race by 1 minute, if you can win it by 1 second. You're just overtaxing the equipment and running the risk of failure. In fake racing, where electronics control everything and every component is designed to outlast the human race (cost savings, lol) drivers beat up their equipment with reckless abandon.

 

Drivers are supposed to push as hard as they can on the softest tire they can, without accidentally stepping over the line. There is no line anymore. That's the problem. In the case of Pirelli, the line is artificially dicatated by the governing officials, and it's the same for every team. Predictable and boring.

Not like this thou.

 

Sure they used to conserve fuel or tires back in the day.

But they only concentrated on the fuel or tires or brakes NOT ALL 3.

They could still push alot more then what they do today.

 

Heck it still looked like they were going flat out when saving tires or fuel back then.

[TimRTC]

There is no quality racing in F1 at the moment. It's all smoke and mirrors. Surely someone like Hamilton would rather be battling Alonso or Vettel wheel to wheel rather than this save fuel and coast crap we are seeing.

Regulations are destroying this sport.

Surely the two factors in play here are:

Renault and Honda doing a poor job and being unable to compete with Merc directly on pace.

Merc not doing a good job of making their car fuel efficient, combined with the highlighting of radio messages telling drivers to fuel save. For all we know they were often doing this back in the day but we just didn't know.

Neither is a fault of the regs per se.

[vowcartaGP]

Problem is that the quality of racing isn't in the quantity of overtakes or lead changes or anything. We have a lot more overtakes with DRS but does it improve the quality of racing? No it doesn't, it just raises the numbers. Nascar has a lot of overtakes, a lot of lead changes, lot of different winners but I don't find Nascar offering the best quality of racing.

I think the quality of racing has to be measured by how many times a spectator is on the edge of his seat screaming at his tv. It's very very difficult to measure though

You make a fair point and I thought about this. Perhaps discount DRS overtakes. As for NASCAR, we don't count that anyway as it's rubbish.

[robefc]

I think with fuel saving we are missing the fact that the teams choose to underfuel their cars and then fuel save in the race.

[TimRTC]

I think the single most important issue is having multiple drivers, ideally in multiple teams, capable of winning each race on merit (ie. not relying on another driver to go out).

 

You get tension, you get a contested championship and you get overtaking that really matters - if there are five top drivers, then they can't all be on pole and should spend the race close together and pushing.

 

MotoGP at the moment is a decent example - yes only Lorenzo, Marquez and Rossi are likely race winners, but with Pedrosa, the Ducatis and Mr Cruchlow all genuine podium challengers there is often close racing and overtaking for key positions, even if sometimes the winner gets out into clear air on their own. Importantly there are no apparent limits on team mates battling.

 

There are two ways to get close racing - either by more regs that equalise a factor like boost or weight or that mandate spec parts, or by patience. F1 wants to be the pinnacle of racing, so GT style equalisation or large numbers of spec parts would be anathema, so patience, for the other teams to fix their issues and catch up with Mercedes is the only real option. Given the incredible complexity of the cars, this is not an overnight change however.

[jonpollak]

I don't find Nascar offering the best quality of racing.

 

As for NASCAR, we don't count that anyway as it's rubbish.

Not that he knows as much as the posters on an internet bulletin board do but...

 

You fcuker's ain't gonna like this..

 

Montoya emphasised that NASCAR is the world’s most competitive form of big-time motor racing.

 

Jp

 

[vowcartaGP]

Not that he knows as much as the posters on an internet bulletin board do but...

You fcuker's ain't gonna like this..

Montoya emphasised that NASCAR is the world’s most competitive form of big-time motor racing.

Jp

The link doesn't work so I googled it instead. It's quite a good article and an interesting insight into the only driver in modern times (apart from Max Papis?) to try F1, Indy and NASCAR.

But to me NASCAR will always be NASCRAP. Montoya knows what he's talking about more than me obviously, and certain aspects like the depth of quality in the field are certainly plus points. But the races are too long, the cars boring and primitive and the actual on track product is getting worse and worse.

The flaw in my suggestion to somehow quantify Good racing would probably be NASCAR coming out on top, I admit that. That's why we need to pretend it doesn't exist because it would be embarrassing. There are certainly aspects we can learn from NASCRAP (fan engagement) but for the most part, ignorance is bliss. Before anyone asks the view from my Ivory tower is lovely, I can see France from here. (The country, not Bill)

Logic of an Indy Car fan.

Because INDYCAR.

Edited by vowcartaGP, 08 June 2015 - 10:24.

[Retrofly]

If you want a better racing series then the rest of the teams need to up their game. I think engine freezing and tokens isn't helping this, but teams like Renault have lost speed not gained it.

 

I don't believe in engine equalizing or success ballast, but I don't believe in unlimited engine expenditure.

 

Its hard to keep the balance between cost cutting and engine development, maybe even impossible. Maybe these engines are just too hard to get right. Maybe F1 isn't ready for hybrid and they need to go back to a pure CE + Turbo setup.

This should reduce costs (potentially) and equalize power to a degree. Fuel limits and flow maybe need to go or not be so extreme.

 

Even with all these changes, a good team, with good designers and drivers can still dominate.

[jee]

Quality of Racing = Having cars with faster pace behind slower cars.

 

There is no matter how this is achieved (safety car, rain, tyres, different strategies, technical problems), it will lead to great races.

 

F1 has become more and more predictable and it rarely happens that a faster pacee car ends up behind slower ones, that is why the racing is so boring.

 

Option 1: Safety Car

The Safety Car does no longer bring any trouble to the lead car, because with the speed limit and open pit lane they will not use any time/positions for pitting unless they actually catch the Safety Car like Lewis did in Monaco. The closed pitlane was another fun factor which could lead to different strategies, but Renault...

 

Option 2: Rain

Safety Car and ultra durable and versatile Intermediates have destroyed the unfluence of rain to races.

 

Option 3: Tyres

Tyres are too predictable, teams have figured them out and are rarely running into problems by a wrong choice and if they do, they claim it is the tyre manufacturers fault.

 

Option 4: Different Strategies

This still works, but because of the dumbed down version of the first the options there are less variables...

 

Option 5: Technical Problems:

Last year Montreal was great with the Mercedes struggling, but these kind of problems do simply not happen often anymore because of the durable parts that are nowhere near the technical limitations. 

[TimRTC]

Quality of Racing = Having cars with faster pace behind slower cars.

 

There is no matter how this is achieved (safety car, rain, tyres, different strategies, technical problems), it will lead to great races.

 

F1 has become more and more predictable and it rarely happens that a faster pacee car ends up behind slower ones, that is why the racing is so boring.

 

Really? All this does is give a few laps of tension as the fast cars have to get past the slow ones and then they disappear into the distance. Nothing particularly fun there.

 

Overtaking is interesting when it is for race position and it is not inevitable, when drivers are in equally matched cars and fighting using driving skill.

[jee]

Really? All this does is give a few laps of tension as the fast cars have to get past the slow ones and then they disappear into the distance. Nothing particularly fun there.

 

Overtaking is interesting when it is for race position and it is not inevitable, when drivers are in equally matched cars and fighting using driving skill.

I was not talking about getting the faster cars behind at the start of the race, this is a process that should happend during the race.

[chunder27]

Good racing is what I watch most weekends, short oval full contact racing in the UK.

 

Lots of passing, intelligence (I know a lot you woudl disagree), racecraft, car control, ability to set a car up.

 

But that is not for everyone I know.

 

In terms of F1, good racing is knowing you have seen a guy driving to his limit.

 

Watching Alonso a few years ago in a Ferrari or a Minardi, watching Webber on a qually lap or Trulli.  Schumacher etc.

 

Listening to Hamilton say he had oit all in hand is not good racng, that is good management.  And it leaves us as fans cold, if you wnat that tripe go and watch endurance racing.

 

I wnat to see guys going flat out, sweating their knackers off and pushing the envelope, and F1 does not give us that very much right now, and they all  know it.

[redreni]

Unpredictability, once something becomes predictable it becomes boring.

 

Rolling dice is unpredictable, though. So whilst I agree with you, I don't think you can manufacture guaranteed exciting unpredictability every race.

 

In other words, you probably have to run the risk of the occasional boring race. If you make all the races contrived, random and unpredictable with safety cars or sprinklers or whatever, it might be hard to predict the outcome each week, but if it's so random that the team that does the best job usually doesn't win, it might become hard to care.

 

However bored people may have been by this weekend's uneventful race, nobody can say the most deserving team didn't win, and I don't really think you can fault the level of competitiveness between Mercedes and Ferrari. It's a shame Renault and Honda aren't up to standard, but at least Honda is showing signs of having the necessary commitment to get there.

[Jerem]

Viewing figures?

[Jon83]

Everyone is talking about improving the quality of racing, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what constitues "good racing". Measuring it in number of overtakes has led to the 2011 rule changes. The number of overtakes has tripled as a result, but for many fans, the enjoyment in F1 hasn't increased, or even decreased as a result. So if it is not overtakes only, what, in your opinion, makes the on-track action good?

 

For me, uncertainity is the most important factor. It's boring if you know that passing is impossible, but it is just as boring if overtaking is too easy. I like seeing drivers battle for position instead of just driving by on the straight.

 

It's impossible.

 

Some people will consider yesterday to be a great race, whilst some say it is the worst Canadian GP ever. I felt it was average and have seen a lot worse, but thoroughly enjoyed the Massa / Ericsson fight and consider it to be some of the best wheel to wheel racing I've seen this season. 

[TheFish]

Canada is often the best race of the season... obviously not this year.

 

However, look at some of the races that did make it brilliant. 2010, 2011, 2012 were all brilliant races. 2011 was mainly due to the changing weather conditions (and JB having the most ridiculous race of his career) and 2010 and 2012 were both about the tyres. Lots of overtaking and intrigue, but that came down to the tyres. 

 

The problem is that the teams are too good at understanding everything now. It would be great to have a mixture of stops that all came together at the end (1 and 2 stops, OOP, OPO, OPP etc) but when it's a 1 stop race for all the front runners barring random spins then it's going to be a procession.

[Dan333SP]

People keep referring to unpredictability as a mark of good racing. I agree with that. This year has been sorely lacking in that department and the product has suffered. Just look at the driver's points, the top 8 are currently team by team- Merc 1-2, Ferrari 3-4, Williams 5-6, RBR 7-8. When the cars are so clearly stratified in performance terms, it makes things quite predictable.

[P123]

People keep referring to unpredictability as a mark of good racing. I agree with that. This year has been sorely lacking in that department and the product has suffered. Just look at the driver's points, the top 8 are currently team by team- Merc 1-2, Ferrari 3-4, Williams 5-6, RBR 7-8. When the cars are so clearly stratified in performance terms, it makes things quite predictable.

 

That is the main issue with this season.  From Merc to Ferrari there is a gap, from Ferrari to Williams, from Williams to Red Bull...... unless there are mishaps they are all sort of out on their own. 

 

Sky showed a 'classic' Canada race, I think from '99 and it was damn awful, because they were all stretched out with no battles to be had anywhere.  Although this Canadian GP was much like the 2013 version, it certainly wasn't as bad as some we've seen previously.  I do think all the angst about fuel saving, engine noise, tyres, etc would be largely silenced if there was a closer field.  But it is up to all of them to up their game to give us that- especially McLaren/ Honda and the Red Bull/ Renault combos.