After A "Processional" Race In Bahrain, Fry Calls For Action To Make F1 More Exciting
#21
03-17-2010, 12:00 AM
My point is not to make F1 the same as Nascar, but to take some of the better qualities (close racing, frequent passing, etc) and see how to bring those qualities to F1. I agree that they should be different, and as long as Nascar stays low-tech, while F1 remains the pinnacle of racing technology, they will never be confused with each other.
#22
03-17-2010, 12:15 AM
I think it is interesting that you are calling the procession that happened last Sunday "Nascarish". You and others may not like Nascar, which is perfectly fine, BUT... Nascar typically has very close finishes (often a car length or less will determine the winner), 10-20 passes for the lead in any given race, side-by-side racing on every lap all throughout the field, full contact between cars in that they bump other cars on all 4 sides without ending their day, and any driver can win any race regardless of where they qualify.
Yes, Nascar is decidedly low tech(carburetors and push-rods!?), and the races can be too long sometimes, but if F1 had the qualities that I just listed, wouldn't you consider that good racing?
I think that F1 needs to remain the technological tour de force that it is, but they should take some lessons from other "lesser" racing series that manage to put on better shows every single race: Keep the field together, don't make aero the effective determinant of the winner, and making the races a little longer so that multiple tire/fuel strategies are possible are just a few things that come to mind.
Yes, Nascar is decidedly low tech(carburetors and push-rods!?), and the races can be too long sometimes, but if F1 had the qualities that I just listed, wouldn't you consider that good racing?
I think that F1 needs to remain the technological tour de force that it is, but they should take some lessons from other "lesser" racing series that manage to put on better shows every single race: Keep the field together, don't make aero the effective determinant of the winner, and making the races a little longer so that multiple tire/fuel strategies are possible are just a few things that come to mind.
When I stopped watching NASCAR a few years ago, it seemed at the time that all cars were pretty much equal. Took the fun out of it for me. It came down to driver skill only; which is fine, but it seems to make for a boring race. This can be argued, I know...
I just don't care for the direction that Formula 1 has seemingly taken these past few years; its disappointing and very much over regulated. Its starting to feel a bit like the governing body that is F1 has become too protective, like a bad democrat (not that the opposite exists). "You can't pre-season test, we'll tax you". "You must use just one tank of fuel, not only for your safety, but for those around you, or your out". "We're going provide you with smaller front tires, its your only option". "We know what's best for you"... and on and on and on. Its sad really, I prefer the old days... like NASCAR used to be. "Get out there and win", that was it.
meh... too much rant
Great analogy! 
#25
03-17-2010, 04:51 AM
I honestly believe the reason the race was boring is that everybody was playing it safe.
It was very hot, the teams didn't have any race data on the cars and the big four mainly took a conservative approach. True one-pit-stop races are a risk but let them judge after the third round. I am against changing the rules once the season has already started. rule changes shouldn't be taken lightly
It was very hot, the teams didn't have any race data on the cars and the big four mainly took a conservative approach. True one-pit-stop races are a risk but let them judge after the third round. I am against changing the rules once the season has already started. rule changes shouldn't be taken lightly
#26
03-17-2010, 08:56 AM
I definitely think we'll see some great racing this season, even if this first race wasn't all that exciting.
I was thinking about what Dana had mentioned about a good driver working his way through the field from the back of the grid to take the win in NASCAR. What if the FIA set it up so that the starting grid was reversed from how the drivers finished in qualifying? You know, fastest drivers start last.
I know what you're thinking: "but Alex, the best drivers would just sandbag it and go slow in qualifying so they could start at the front of the grid." Not necessarily...
What if the driver who clinched pole position was given 1 or 2 points towards to WDC? This would give some incentive to perform your best in qualifying. I'd also scrap the rules about starting on your qualifying tires if you made it through to Q1.
I was thinking about what Dana had mentioned about a good driver working his way through the field from the back of the grid to take the win in NASCAR. What if the FIA set it up so that the starting grid was reversed from how the drivers finished in qualifying? You know, fastest drivers start last.
I know what you're thinking: "but Alex, the best drivers would just sandbag it and go slow in qualifying so they could start at the front of the grid." Not necessarily...
What if the driver who clinched pole position was given 1 or 2 points towards to WDC? This would give some incentive to perform your best in qualifying. I'd also scrap the rules about starting on your qualifying tires if you made it through to Q1.
