20 replies to this topic

[GregY]

I was just wondering what is the most important thing to you is in your enjoyment of auto racing.

For me it's good, close racing. Whether it's NASCAR, F1, or strickly stocks at my local dirt track doesn't even really matter. I really don't care about the technology, or what the cars look like, or the rules, or anything else. Just give me a good race.

How about you?

Greg

[Ice T]

I need to be entertained. Whatever's on the TV screen needs to grab my attention. This happens when there's close racing, overtaking moves and so on.

Technology and aesthetics are secondary considerations. I couldn't care less about politics.

[MortenF1]

Very hard to single out just one thing.
But the most important aspects to me is close racing and passing, technology and strategy.

[dai_ferrari]

the natural inclination is to pick close racing and passing. However, being a motorsport fanatic, and admitting to watching Nascar from time to time I can say that close racing and passing doesn't always equate good and entertaining racing.

I'd rather see half a dozen passes in an entire race if they fun to watch, are meaningful and weren't overtly easy, then watch 3 dozen passes in a race that don't mean much.

Technology is cool too, but only to a certain point, as I'd rather the driver make the difference other than the machinery being the ruling factor.

[djellison]

What I would LIKE to enjoy and what I end up 'making do' with - are different. I'd LIKE to enjoy close racing, but as it is, I have to find entertainment with the technology and the politics

Doug

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

For me its the overtake.
Its like a goal in football.
Its ALWAYS been difficult to overtake in F1.

[littlewoodenboy]

close racing is #1
hot pit babes is #2

[Sakae]

Racing is like river with its meanders, falls, darkness, and furor when it suddenly takes off from quiet break to the race-weekend. I think that world of racing includes a race with its heat, just as its business side, or little personal indiscretions we all had in one time or another over the winter break. In race, it's tension which builds up when we loose our car or a driver in distance on the track during a race, while we are waiting where the nearest rival is; we die a little when our car is loosing grounds in early laps, while strategy comes into mind; or it is solitude of the driver behind his helmet shield we think about?

It's so many things together that not one moment or aspect can described it with justice what the racing gives us in one form or another, but when it comes together, it leaves us fulfilled, asking for more.

[angst]

Originally posted by MiPe
Racing is like river with its meanders, falls, darkness, and furor when it suddenly takes off from quiet break to the race-weekend. I think that world of racing includes a race with its heat, just as its business side, or little personal indiscretions we all had in one time or another over the winter break. In race, it's tension which builds up when we loose our car or a driver in distance on the track during a race, while we are waiting where the nearest rival is; we die a little when our car is loosing grounds in early laps, while strategy comes into mind; or it is solitude of the driver behind his helmet shield we think about?

It's so many things together that not one moment or aspect can described it with justice what the racing gives us in one form or another, but when it comes together, it leaves us fulfilled, asking for more.

Dan 11? Is that you?

You are right and have put into far more ebullient terms what I would have said. There ain't no one particular facet that stands alone. Close racing, technical interest, dramatic looking cars on what should be dramatic circuits (well, we've still got Spa), watching the drivers at work, tactical nous coming into play......Jeez, really there's too much to list.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by MiPe
Racing is like river with its meanders, falls, darkness, and furor when it suddenly takes off from quiet break to the race-weekend. I think that world of racing includes a race with its heat, just as its business side, or little personal indiscretions we all had in one time or another over the winter break. In race, it's tension which builds up when we loose our car or a driver in distance on the track during a race, while we are waiting where the nearest rival is; we die a little when our car is loosing grounds in early laps, while strategy comes into mind; or it is solitude of the driver behind his helmet shield we think about?

It's so many things together that not one moment or aspect can described it with justice what the racing gives us in one form or another, but when it comes together, it leaves us fulfilled, asking for more.

Couldnt even come close to bettering what you have written.

[billm99uk]

Given the options above, I don't see how anyone can pick anything other than close racing. But if close racing (i.e. multiple lead changes and a large number of possible winners) is so important, why does the IRL, which certainly meets those criteria, fail to draw many viewers. Why does something like Formula Ford in the UK draw audiences of the 'three men and a dog' variety?

Truth is, I believe that most people watch F1 because (outside of the US, anyway) it is perceived as being 'the best', the very pinnacle of acheivement. If it doesn't have the best twenty drivers and ten teams in the world (and I don't think most thinking F1 fans would claim it has), then at least it has more of them than any other series. The IRL fails because it is perceived as ' North Americans who weren't quite good enough for NASCAR' vs. 'Europeans (and South Americans) who weren't quite good enough for F1'. F1 (and NASCAR in North America) are perceived to be top level racing series. They're where virtually every young, ambitious driver wants to be. While great racing probably doesn't do a series any harm, it's secondary to what most people watch for. I mean, let's face it, there have been a few mind-numbingly boring seasons, both recently and in the dim and distant past, but F1 still draws the numbers...

[dgsg]

Looking at how this poll is going makes me wounder why some people are on this board and not a Nascar board

[dworsham]

I believe technology and competitivness go hand-in-hand. I want to see our sport deregulated. Let the engineers go and dream - then let them race.

Enough of the dumbing down of the sport with V8s, engine limitations, tire reg... share the revenues fairly and equally then let them race.


F1 ain't Nascar IRL or CHAMP.

[flymo]

I think the essential factor is the spectacle - the sheer improbability of cars pelting madly through a course at speeds that seem impossible compared with our everyday physical circumstances, with supremely skilled drivers doing their utmost to keep the car under control, while simultaneously having the racecraft to coolly outwit and outmaneuver their opponents.

The spectacle is enabled by the technology, but the technology is not the spectacle.

It is a competitive event, but competition on its own is not necessarily that compelling. It has to be competition that appears to be on the edge of impossibility. If it is too accessible to us, it loses its appeal.

[djellison]

Originally posted by dgsg
Looking at how this poll is going makes me wounder why some people are on this board and not a Nascar board

42 tanks in a line doesnt equate to close racing in my book. Infact, it doesnt equate to racing at all

It's the chase, the hunt, the manouver down the inside - thats what I want. JB at the end of Monaco last year had be shouting and screaming at the screen. If the Formula were a little different w.r.t. aero - he could have done something about it at the end of the race.

Doug

[howardt]

There's also an element of human emotion involved, for which you'd need to know something about the drivers. Seeing Mika Hakkinen spin off at Monza and then start crying would look a bit silly, if you didn;t know that he thought (at the time) that he'd just missed his best shot at being the champion.

But I think what we need more of is 'unpredictability'. There were some races last year where you could *know* that Michael was going to win. The bookies weren't even taking bets, it was that certain. But the races we remember are the ones where there are 4 or 5 contenders for the win, or it's not decided until the last few laps. Think back to all of your favourite memorable races, and I'm sure you'll find that the hallmark of each is not how many overtaking manoevers there were in the race, but how so many could have won, or how it wasn't settled until the last corner, and that's what kept you on your seat.

I was lucky enough to be in Monaco for the GP last year. If you remember, the Renaults were looking very strong, but Michael had been untouchable all season. A straw poll of my mates before the races yeilded about 6 different predictions for winner. There was the controversial collision in the tunnel btwn Michael & Montoya, and Alonso also crashed in the tunnel, and then Button (who was looking average for much of the race) came to life and hunted down Trulli, and chased him all the way to the flag. Ask me how many overtakes ther were in that race, and I couldn't say. But I know I was yelling my heart out at the end cos while he fat lady was stepping up to the microphone I still didn't know who was gonna win.

[fifi]

close racing for me as well

[dick]

Originally posted by dgsg
Looking at how this poll is going makes me wounder why some people are on this board and not a Nascar board

I never ceases to amaze me that as soon as someone voices a desire for closer racing in F1 he's labelled a NASCAR lover. F1 and close racing are not mutually exclusive. We had close racing at one time. The last 5 or 6 years were just plain boring and I think many F1 fans just can't accept the fact that watching a parade every 2 weeks is kind of silly. Maybe "close racing" is the wrong term. How about more competitive?

[billm99uk]

Originally posted by dick


I never ceases to amaze me that as soon as someone voices a desire for closer racing in F1 he's labelled a NASCAR lover. F1 and close racing are not mutually exclusive. We had close racing at one time. The last 5 or 6 years were just plain boring and I think many F1 fans just can't accept the fact that watching a parade every 2 weeks is kind of silly. Maybe "close racing" is the wrong term. How about more competitive?

Yes, but that doesn't really answer my question, does it? If close racing is the only important thing, why isn't everyone watching the IRL?

Look, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more close racing in F1. Last year bored me rigid (although I'd disagree that the last six years have been consistantly bad - there have been a few terrific races in that time) I just don't think close racing in itself is a recipe for higher audiences that some people seem to think it is :

[lmfdabo]

Cars running nose to tail and trading places, that is racing.

Racing is racing, battle for positions and se whos the fastest from start to finish.

But if you like F1 and the whole circus, you have to be involved in the politics as well. That can also be fun. But as I said, racing is racing and should take place on a track.

[Jodum5]

I voted close racing

Ableit The technology and the quality of racing are equally important. Im not interested in some dumbed down series with close racing, although Im also not interested in a techie series with little racing. So of course somewhere in the middle (whith an emphasis on the technology) is where Id be happy