5 ms·

I strongly disagree. Did Usain Bolt’s performance make his races less exciting to watch? Did Michael Schumacher make Formula 1 less exciting to watch? Michael P

I strongly disagree. Did Usain Bolt’s performance make his races less exciting to watch? Did Michael Schumacher make Formula 1 less exciting to watch? Michael Phelps? If anything, these superstars, along with the proper recognition, is what brings new people to get excited about their sport, both as spectators and competitors.

swader999 5y ago
With auto racing, sailing too, you can argue that money and tech should be evened out for a fair race. That's acceptable but this isn't.
avs733 5y ago
Point taken, and agreed with, but F1 is a traditionally pretty bad example for this. They regularly, including during the Schumacher days, changed rules to try and make things closer.
- Retric 5y ago
  F1 keeps things balanced in terms of hardware not drivers. It’s supposed to be a racing competition not an engineering one.
  - pureliquidhw 5y ago
    Constructor championships in F1 are a big deal and keep the midfield interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Constructors%27_Champions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Co... I would argue F1 is as much about engineering as the driver. Hamilton on a different team likely excells, but probably doesn't win nearly as much.
  - darick 5y ago
    That's just not true, F1 is one of the few examples of a competition that is almost equally about engineering and racing.
  - walterlb 5y ago
    F1 definitely does NOT keep things balanced. Though they do try, but they have to balanced engagement from fans, well-funded teams, and teams with less financial backing.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    > It’s supposed to be a racing competition not an engineering one. Then why is all the prize money distributed based on the Constructors' championship, which is effectively which team does the best engineering? Indycar is the racing competition; F1 is car design competition that is judged by the racing ability of the cars, drivers and teams combined.

swader999 5y ago

With auto racing, sailing too, you can argue that money and tech should be evened out for a fair race. That's acceptable but this isn't.

avs733 5y ago

Point taken, and agreed with, but F1 is a traditionally pretty bad example for this. They regularly, including during the Schumacher days, changed rules to try and make things closer.

Retric 5y ago
F1 keeps things balanced in terms of hardware not drivers. It’s supposed to be a racing competition not an engineering one.
- pureliquidhw 5y ago
  Constructor championships in F1 are a big deal and keep the midfield interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Constructors%27_Champions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Co... I would argue F1 is as much about engineering as the driver. Hamilton on a different team likely excells, but probably doesn't win nearly as much.
- darick 5y ago
  That's just not true, F1 is one of the few examples of a competition that is almost equally about engineering and racing.
- walterlb 5y ago
  F1 definitely does NOT keep things balanced. Though they do try, but they have to balanced engagement from fans, well-funded teams, and teams with less financial backing.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  > It’s supposed to be a racing competition not an engineering one. Then why is all the prize money distributed based on the Constructors' championship, which is effectively which team does the best engineering? Indycar is the racing competition; F1 is car design competition that is judged by the racing ability of the cars, drivers and teams combined.