What do you think?


a bit

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:48:01

ecclestone's greedy decision to take f1 to far off middle east has kind of killed it. these places have no soul or heritage and are simply about money. the circuits are also now very boring due to ecclestone's love of Herman Tilke. far too safe.



Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:51:06

times change. its had to change with time. in some ways its worse, but its better in many others, such as safety. you ask the families of the racers which era they'd rather have their husbands or fathers or sons race in. today, obviously



Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:15:09

the incessant rule changes are infuriatingly moronic, and reek of bored, suited imbusiles, with too much time and not enough sunlight, playing around for the sake of playing around. they'd be better going playing in the sandpit with those of a similar mental capacity and leaving F1 to those who've been there and done it- in other words, former drivers, who will know better than anyone the ins and outs of racing a formula 1 car. these days, teams barely have time to perfect one car and then they have to design another from scratch. evolution is made difficult, despite it being the foundation of any learning curve. Understanding comes over time, and what time is there if the sport is constantly being made to do somersaults by the imbusile ecclestone? while the cars have so much downforce, nothing's going to change, regardless of how much messing about the fia do with the rules. the wake behind the cars is undoubtedly the major problem preventing overtaking-apart from tilke's woeful circuits- and so surely it would make sense to severely limit the aerodynamic packages of the cars and return them to the downforce levels of 25 years ago, when we got arguably some of the best racing ever, and shift the focus to mechanical grip. that way, we would get 2 advantages-

1) less wake- cars follow more closely
2) cars are a lot more difficult to drive to the limit and so we would be able to see the true ability of the current crop of drivers, along with some potentially spectacular driving. F1 would once again return to a gladiatorial wrestle between man and machine. current cars, as Schumacher and several others say, are too easy to drive nowadays anyway.

(i know attempts at reducing wake have already been tried recently, but they were so half-hearted and limp-wristed there was barely any point.)
look at gp2 for example, where stringent aero caps are in place. it produces the most exciting single-seater racing in the world at present, often putting its big brother to shame.

f1 is beginning to worry me at the moment. it now seems a competition between manufacturers rather than drivers, and the conservative, cost-cutting new rules mean that attempting to race is too much of a risk for a driver in terms of affecting his race strategy, as attempting to break through the turbulent air will just destroy the car's tyres.
the cost-cutting measures have placed emphasis on conservation (of tyres, of engines, of gear boxes), and so the risk of harsh penalties is deterring teams from really hanging their necks out and going for it. the latest set of rules don't make any sense. the only reason we got some overtaking in recent years was due to the different fuel loads of cars- a light one chasing a heavy one down. with the wake behind modern cars, a dramatic weight advantage was the only way to break through. now that factor is removed, breaking through that air is near impossible. the fia have tried to recreate the challenge faced by drivers decades ago, thinking that what worked then will work now. the nature of the sport has changed however. cars are safer- fear is eliminated. cars are also easier to drive- therefore there are fewer mistakes and less reward for brave driving. the huge levels of downforce generated by cars is what kills racing (as well as rubbish tracks), not strategy. IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT AS DOWNFORCE LEVELS INCREASE, OVERTAKING DECREASES. at this rate, qualifying will soon be the main attraction, with the race a foregone conclusion.

Ecclestone has turned F1 into a motorised circus. it is now a show rather than a sport. his obsession with turning f1 into a brand, and with filling his own pockets, has left it teetering on the brink of a laughing stock.
oh and also, what convinces tilke that, despite all the drivers saying they love fast bends and hate slow, twisty complexes, the ideal track is a complicated scribble of tight turns with chicanes placed precisely where they ruin the rythm of the track the most. he says his circuits are designed to aid overtaking, but who can overtake in a narrow, twisty complex, where cars are constantly moving around? It is common knowledge that Monaco is notoriously difficult to overtake. Why? It is too tight and twisty to allow cars to get up along side each other. so why the hell has tilke tried to mimic Monaco in Valencia and Singapore, both of which are pathetic circuits where cars simply tootle round in a procession. there will only ever be one Monaco. it is a great race because it has history, heritage, and is unique, not because the racing is good. any attempt to copy it can only fail. Mortal street circuits don't work for racing. Ecclestone has a duty to make sure every track on the calendar is the best it can be, but it seems he is only concentrating on whether or not the offering price is the best it can be. There are enough great circuits in the world to fill a calendar. in my opinion


Leave a Reply