General Message Board
Is it to find the best driver in the world?
Is it to find the best constructor in the world?
Is it a test bed for the development of automotive engineering?
Is it something else?
Jody Schecter said that for the teams F1 is three races.
Race one - Financial. The ability to raise finances will largely determine which part of the race scene in which a team will potentially find itself - among the front runners, the backmarkers, or the rest.
Race Two - Technical. The quality of research and development will turn all those finances into reality. Thus a poorly financed team that has blisteringly good R&D might actually nudge upwards into the pack. Conversely, a well financed team might end up in the also-rans if the R&D is poor.
Race Three - the Drivers Race. This is where the guys actually put rubber down on the track and do the best they can with their cars. Clearly, races one and two have a major impact on this.
Add in his comments that the FIA is a dictatorship gone wrong, and that the majority of the income from F1 should go to the teams and not to Bernie and FIA who take the major share at present. Add in also his thoughts that the regulations governing the cars is too tight at present - why not have cars with 8, 10, and 12 cylanders competing as used to happen.
All in all, I think this suggests that the various 'stakeholders' in F1 have different expectations from the sport. For me personally, my expectations as a stakeholder (ie Fan) seem to be completely different from Max Mosley (also a stakeholder.)
I think it was probably something else, and Max and Bernie are trrying to change it, and ruining it in the process.
F1 has always been over the top. A complete and utter waste of money, attracting mad drivers, mad constructors, mad team owners and mad people who just want to hang around with them all. The fact that it has in fact benefitted mass production cars is a bonus rather than anything anyone really set out to do.
When anyone starts to talk about what something costs in F1, they are missing the point. It doesn't matter what anything costs. It just has to be the best thing you can do under the rules, and if possible slightly outside the rules so that there's something scandalous to talk about. If you start banning things in an F1 car that a spectator has in his road car he will start thinking that something is wrong.
Formula 1 has to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and mustn't in any repect be worse than any other series. So thank God we have slick tyres back for a start.
I'm not saying that any of this is moral or sensible, but this is why Formula 1 was always the exclusive and magical thing that it was. That is also why Ferrari have to stay in F1. Many of us may not like them but they are a legend.
Personally I don't like what Max and Bernie have done to F1. They have reduced the whole show from magical to just "pretty fast" while keeping the prices out of the reach of most real motorsport fans. That is why I (and it seems others of you here) prefer to go and see other moer affordable racing, e.g. historics, where we can talk to the drivers and basically enjoy people having fun at a motorsport event.
- 1 Reply to probablygraham
Graham you forgot one thing about historic racing too.
you have a great chance to speak to todays F1 drivers who are really enjoying being away from all the #$%$ that is F1 and just having fun.
roll on the goodwood festival of speed
best birthday present i get each year
I pretty much agree with all 3 of you. If Ferrari goes, others will follow and I will not watch or care anymore. In America, The Indianapolis 500 started out as a PROVING Ground. Where the Manufacturers had to advance their engineering every year. Now, honda engines are used 100%, I do not watch or care. They have lost the initial intent. It is all about the money, in any sport. SAD, SAD, SAD.