5 ms·

F-1 has always baffled me as a sport. Not that it's inherently bad or boring, just that there are so many motor sports that make it look that way. Same with NA

F-1 has always baffled me as a sport. Not that it's inherently bad or boring, just that there are so many motor sports that make it look that way. Same with NASCAR. I don't understand how an audience for those exists when, for example, rally races exist.

Guthur 6y ago
Simple, F1 and nascar are both races. Rally is a time trial. Generally I think people find racing more exciting.
- smcl 6y ago
  Right - I can see an argument being made between Moto GP over F1 (less emphasis on starting position, far more passing) but not Rally over F1 as it's a different beast. I used to love F1 (partly since it was often well timed for hungover Sundays off work for me when I was at university) so I really get both the fun and the frustrations with Formula 1.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    The other thing that makes MotoGP much more interesting are that the races, being a good bit shorter, are made without pitstops. So the driver wins on the track, and not the pit crew in the pits.
    - Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
      There's also limited communication- the drivers can receive text messages from their pit crew and race direction, but there is no voice communication and no way for the driver to reply - and most teams still use traditional pit boards.
- russellbeattie 6y ago
  The problem is that at the top of the leaderboard there's rarely any passing in modern F1 that's based on skill. What I mean is, passing usually requires some sort of screwup or random external force (race start mosh pit, engine failure, flat tires, etc.) and rarely does it happen because one driver out maneuvered another. Races can be exciting, but if the end of the race has basically the same order as the qualifying time trials, then it really doesn't matter. Might as well say the qualifiers is the race.
  - joncrane 6y ago
    I have to disagree with you here. The cars can store and deploy energy. Often times the optimal strategy is to alternate storing and deploying energy on consecutive laps. So there is a ton of skill involved in staying as close to the driver in front while on a "harvest" lap so that they can pass the driver on the next "deploy" lap. This is just one of the many, many ways that skill comes into play. For more detail, I suggest watching the "track guide" videos by former Champion Nico Rosberg. He basically does sim laps while commentating the details that separate a pole position run from a 4th place run.
notatoad 6y ago
F1 does a great job of telling a story. the racing itself isn't too exciting, but as a casual spectator it's much more accessible to somebody like me who doesn't really follow it at all but pays attention once in a while. the rivalries are well publicized and the races are obvious. I have no clue what's going on in a rally race, but if i'm over at somebody's place and they've got F1 on the tv, i can probably find something about it to enjoy.
bayindirh 6y ago
F-1 was really interesting years ago. With no traction control or advanced aerodynamics and less regulations on engine power, it was a real arena for drivers. It was so fierce that Senna decided to hit his rival in the first corner of a race, taking out both, solidifying Senna's championship. It was exciting too. Since drivers need to take risks with 750+ HP beasts, Senna battling Schumacher, Villneuve battling Coulthard was fun. Pit-stop tactics was the cherry on top, not the secret sauce. Engines and drive trains were not regulated. After some deaths, non rational gains (Mercedes 7G-tronic was so quick when paired with their engine. It just accelerated uninterrupted so it got banned. Renault's Open Injection engine was so powerful so it got banned a year later) and hey, it's getting too expensive cries (and Ferrari-Gate), it lost its luster for the audience. Now the war is behind the scenes. Homologated parts, limited testing and simulation (they have yearly CPU instruction limits!) and some good people rule the sport. It's no longer about the drivers. It's about the car you drive and the people behind it. If you have the season's best engine and Adrian Newey in your car design team, you can just win. So it feels like the movie "Death Race" if you have a good car, you have advantage and if it doesn't break down, you win. That's it. I left watching it the day Ferrari admitted that they're basically financed by FIA (by getting 23% more advertisement revenue cut at the end, every year). Some more points: Standardized ECU just killed a lot of excitement by limiting remote engine tuning. Ferrari's domination slowly eroded excitement for most people. Drivers being immature and getting away with it eroded its prestige for me. I still miss Jaguar's green/gold cars. Boy, they were handsome. So its golden era is long gone. No wonder Honda is leaving.
- JshWright 6y ago
  > If you have the season's best engine and Adrian Newey in your car design team, you can just win. An Adrian Newey designed car hasn't won the championship since 2013.
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    That means 2013 was the last season that I've watched attentively.
- in3d 6y ago
orf 6y ago
It’s also an important vehicle for focused R&D. F-E for example has specific rules in place, that change each year, to stimulate the advancement of specific bits of electric car technology.
- Matthias247 6y ago
  I'm not sure whether that's true or not. I worked in one of the automotive companies which had a F1 team. It was a totally separate business unit. I haven't heard about collaboration between engineers on that team with ones which were working on regular products and the other way around.
TYPE_FASTER 6y ago
I'll never forget watching the Prost vs. Senna battles with my dad. It was as much fun as watching the WRC. The Netflix series covering F1 is fun to watch.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> I don't understand how an audience for those exists when, for example, rally races exist. People find competitive races more exciting than individual time trials. I don't think that's really unfathomable is it?
mhh__ 6y ago
Rally cars don't have the sex appeal that a F1 car does, and put bluntly neither does the sport itself. I do enjoy watching rallying but Formula 1 is so much more interesting to me both as someone who can understand the vehicle dynamics and a fan of racing.
justin66 6y ago
> F-1 has always baffled me as a sport. Not that it's inherently bad or boring, just that there are so many motor sports that make it look that way. Same with NASCAR. I don't understand how an audience for those exists when, for example, rally races exist. I expect the answer to that involves how well (or how poorly) rallying is televised.
saberdancer 6y ago
Almost all other motorsport series are either spec series or use Balance of Performance. In effect, they are "gamed" to make the cars equal to ensure closer competition. F1 is more of an engineering competition than a driver competition, but both are extremely important. There are very few similar motorsport series. Le Mans used to be that way (and died a slow death due to rising costs), Dakar is like that, rally? I believe is like that, but really don't know any others. I am an F1 fan and I really like the engineering aspect of it.

Guthur 6y ago

Simple, F1 and nascar are both races. Rally is a time trial. Generally I think people find racing more exciting.

smcl 6y ago
Right - I can see an argument being made between Moto GP over F1 (less emphasis on starting position, far more passing) but not Rally over F1 as it's a different beast. I used to love F1 (partly since it was often well timed for hungover Sundays off work for me when I was at university) so I really get both the fun and the frustrations with Formula 1.
- TylerE 6y ago
  The other thing that makes MotoGP much more interesting are that the races, being a good bit shorter, are made without pitstops. So the driver wins on the track, and not the pit crew in the pits.
  - Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
    There's also limited communication- the drivers can receive text messages from their pit crew and race direction, but there is no voice communication and no way for the driver to reply - and most teams still use traditional pit boards.
russellbeattie 6y ago
The problem is that at the top of the leaderboard there's rarely any passing in modern F1 that's based on skill. What I mean is, passing usually requires some sort of screwup or random external force (race start mosh pit, engine failure, flat tires, etc.) and rarely does it happen because one driver out maneuvered another. Races can be exciting, but if the end of the race has basically the same order as the qualifying time trials, then it really doesn't matter. Might as well say the qualifiers is the race.
- joncrane 6y ago
  I have to disagree with you here. The cars can store and deploy energy. Often times the optimal strategy is to alternate storing and deploying energy on consecutive laps. So there is a ton of skill involved in staying as close to the driver in front while on a "harvest" lap so that they can pass the driver on the next "deploy" lap. This is just one of the many, many ways that skill comes into play. For more detail, I suggest watching the "track guide" videos by former Champion Nico Rosberg. He basically does sim laps while commentating the details that separate a pole position run from a 4th place run.

notatoad 6y ago

F1 does a great job of telling a story. the racing itself isn't too exciting, but as a casual spectator it's much more accessible to somebody like me who doesn't really follow it at all but pays attention once in a while. the rivalries are well publicized and the races are obvious. I have no clue what's going on in a rally race, but if i'm over at somebody's place and they've got F1 on the tv, i can probably find something about it to enjoy.

bayindirh 6y ago

F-1 was really interesting years ago. With no traction control or advanced aerodynamics and less regulations on engine power, it was a real arena for drivers. It was so fierce that Senna decided to hit his rival in the first corner of a race, taking out both, solidifying Senna's championship. It was exciting too. Since drivers need to take risks with 750+ HP beasts, Senna battling Schumacher, Villneuve battling Coulthard was fun. Pit-stop tactics was the cherry on top, not the secret sauce. Engines and drive trains were not regulated. After some deaths, non rational gains (Mercedes 7G-tronic was so quick when paired with their engine. It just accelerated uninterrupted so it got banned. Renault's Open Injection engine was so powerful so it got banned a year later) and hey, it's getting too expensive cries (and Ferrari-Gate), it lost its luster for the audience. Now the war is behind the scenes. Homologated parts, limited testing and simulation (they have yearly CPU instruction limits!) and some good people rule the sport. It's no longer about the drivers. It's about the car you drive and the people behind it. If you have the season's best engine and Adrian Newey in your car design team, you can just win. So it feels like the movie "Death Race" if you have a good car, you have advantage and if it doesn't break down, you win. That's it. I left watching it the day Ferrari admitted that they're basically financed by FIA (by getting 23% more advertisement revenue cut at the end, every year). Some more points: Standardized ECU just killed a lot of excitement by limiting remote engine tuning. Ferrari's domination slowly eroded excitement for most people. Drivers being immature and getting away with it eroded its prestige for me. I still miss Jaguar's green/gold cars. Boy, they were handsome. So its golden era is long gone. No wonder Honda is leaving.

JshWright 6y ago
> If you have the season's best engine and Adrian Newey in your car design team, you can just win. An Adrian Newey designed car hasn't won the championship since 2013.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  That means 2013 was the last season that I've watched attentively.
in3d 6y ago

orf 6y ago

It’s also an important vehicle for focused R&D. F-E for example has specific rules in place, that change each year, to stimulate the advancement of specific bits of electric car technology.

Matthias247 6y ago
I'm not sure whether that's true or not. I worked in one of the automotive companies which had a F1 team. It was a totally separate business unit. I haven't heard about collaboration between engineers on that team with ones which were working on regular products and the other way around.

TYPE_FASTER 6y ago

I'll never forget watching the Prost vs. Senna battles with my dad. It was as much fun as watching the WRC. The Netflix series covering F1 is fun to watch.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> I don't understand how an audience for those exists when, for example, rally races exist. People find competitive races more exciting than individual time trials. I don't think that's really unfathomable is it?

mhh__ 6y ago

Rally cars don't have the sex appeal that a F1 car does, and put bluntly neither does the sport itself. I do enjoy watching rallying but Formula 1 is so much more interesting to me both as someone who can understand the vehicle dynamics and a fan of racing.

justin66 6y ago

> F-1 has always baffled me as a sport. Not that it's inherently bad or boring, just that there are so many motor sports that make it look that way. Same with NASCAR. I don't understand how an audience for those exists when, for example, rally races exist. I expect the answer to that involves how well (or how poorly) rallying is televised.

saberdancer 6y ago

Almost all other motorsport series are either spec series or use Balance of Performance. In effect, they are "gamed" to make the cars equal to ensure closer competition. F1 is more of an engineering competition than a driver competition, but both are extremely important. There are very few similar motorsport series. Le Mans used to be that way (and died a slow death due to rising costs), Dakar is like that, rally? I believe is like that, but really don't know any others. I am an F1 fan and I really like the engineering aspect of it.