F1 2007, Round 1 - Melbourne
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Originally Posted by AlexC' date='Mar 17 2007, 04:21 PM
1. The sport has changed a bit over the years Pete 
2. I started following in the Mansell / Prost / Senna / Piquet era, and you had a lot of big names competing against each other, and some famous overtaking manouevres, but I'm pretty sure a compilation could be put together from the last 5 years of some spectacular stuff as well.
3. These cars are designed to stick to the road at v high speed, which makes passing difficult, and brings in tactics in other areas, which believe it or not, some millions of us find interesting.
4. Maybe F1 now doesn't have the broadest appeal as a sport, but I think for many of it's "die-hard" fans, a lot of the fascination is with the constantly developing technology battle between the teams, and the fact that these are the ultimate racing cars man can produce.
5. People who love motorbike racing will always say how their sport is much better because there is more overtaking - I've tried watching a few races, but it just doesn't do it for me, each to their own.
6. And you are posting before we have even seen one race of the 2007 season that it is going to be processional with no overtaking.
7. From what I recall, there were a lot of exciting races last year, and a close competition for the title. This year we have a lot of driver changes, new drivers, and all new cars, so at this stage we have no clue who is going to run reliably in their new cars, and I hope it is going to be a very interesting season.
8. If you didn't enjoy last year, then I don't think modern F1 is for you, and perhaps you should look at other types of motorsport, or buy some vintage F1 DVD's.
2. I started following in the Mansell / Prost / Senna / Piquet era, and you had a lot of big names competing against each other, and some famous overtaking manouevres, but I'm pretty sure a compilation could be put together from the last 5 years of some spectacular stuff as well.
3. These cars are designed to stick to the road at v high speed, which makes passing difficult, and brings in tactics in other areas, which believe it or not, some millions of us find interesting.
4. Maybe F1 now doesn't have the broadest appeal as a sport, but I think for many of it's "die-hard" fans, a lot of the fascination is with the constantly developing technology battle between the teams, and the fact that these are the ultimate racing cars man can produce.
5. People who love motorbike racing will always say how their sport is much better because there is more overtaking - I've tried watching a few races, but it just doesn't do it for me, each to their own.
6. And you are posting before we have even seen one race of the 2007 season that it is going to be processional with no overtaking.
7. From what I recall, there were a lot of exciting races last year, and a close competition for the title. This year we have a lot of driver changes, new drivers, and all new cars, so at this stage we have no clue who is going to run reliably in their new cars, and I hope it is going to be a very interesting season.
8. If you didn't enjoy last year, then I don't think modern F1 is for you, and perhaps you should look at other types of motorsport, or buy some vintage F1 DVD's.
2. I think you would really struggle. Any chance you could come remotely close to matching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzeWUjAff4k...related&search=
Somehow I don't think so. Mansell tailgatinng Senna round and round Monaco with absolutely no prospect of passing, hardly comes close.
3. That would be how quickly you can change the wheels and how much petrol you put in the tank then, or are there many more tactical nuances I am missing?
4. No problem with that. Constantly developing technology is interesting. It's the difference the drivers make (or lack of) that I find more interesting.
5. I'm not into bikes either, but I wouldn't begin to argue with a bike racing fan about whether there was more overtaking and general unpredictability in their choice of racing. So I agree, each to their own.
6. I am confidently predicting that, yes. It will be much like the last few years, where pole is everything and races are decided by whether you have the best car, the best tyres and no mechanical bad luck.
7. My recollection is of events such as I describe above. The biggest dramas involved disqualifications or breakdowns, not jaw dropping drives. As for this year, Mclaren or Ferrari will win it. Or BMW if the other two get in each others' way often enough. Do you think anyone else has a chance?
8. That would be one option. Another would be to keep up the clamour (along with millions of other people who have grown frustrated with F1) who want to see the sport return to real racing.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 16,369
Likes: 4
From: Tyne Valley
I love the whole F1 circus, but over the past few years a few things have really bugged me.
1. Why the feck are they still using LC and TC, they keep saying they're going to ban it. There was even an FIA poll on what would make F1 better, everyone said no TC or LC but they just ignored it
2. Rules designed to artificially create racing - this year it's the tyres. I don't care if one team walks a season, I want to see the best drivers in the best cars, trying their hardest. I don't want to wonder who's running the soft and hard tyres at a particular part of the race.
3. As with 2. Running qualifying with fuel tokens/qualifying with race fuel loads. I want to see the fastest driver trying his hardest to do the fastest lap. I don't want to be guessing who's running what fuel for the race, and waiting 10 minutes watching themn drive round and round pointlessly for fuel tokens.
4. New engine rules to save money are bollocks. F1 is about pushing the boundaries. I don't care how much it costs, if Honda can afford to run without sponsers, then costs surely aren't a problem, and the private teams are now dead anyway.
Basically, they need to stop buggering around with stupid rules, give the teams a specification to build their car within, and let them get on with the business of racing.
1. Why the feck are they still using LC and TC, they keep saying they're going to ban it. There was even an FIA poll on what would make F1 better, everyone said no TC or LC but they just ignored it
2. Rules designed to artificially create racing - this year it's the tyres. I don't care if one team walks a season, I want to see the best drivers in the best cars, trying their hardest. I don't want to wonder who's running the soft and hard tyres at a particular part of the race.
3. As with 2. Running qualifying with fuel tokens/qualifying with race fuel loads. I want to see the fastest driver trying his hardest to do the fastest lap. I don't want to be guessing who's running what fuel for the race, and waiting 10 minutes watching themn drive round and round pointlessly for fuel tokens.
4. New engine rules to save money are bollocks. F1 is about pushing the boundaries. I don't care how much it costs, if Honda can afford to run without sponsers, then costs surely aren't a problem, and the private teams are now dead anyway.
Basically, they need to stop buggering around with stupid rules, give the teams a specification to build their car within, and let them get on with the business of racing.
Banned
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,824
Likes: 0
From: West Coast
Originally Posted by gaddafi' date='Mar 17 2007, 03:05 PM
I rather think it simply proves that the drivers don't make much difference in a top car
I have no way of proving it, but I believe that at least ten of the current crop would have performed equally well in Hamilton's seat
I have no way of proving it, but I believe that at least ten of the current crop would have performed equally well in Hamilton's seat
But when you compare a rookie in a good car, to an old hand in a bad one, technology is always going to win the battle in F1's current state.
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Originally Posted by AlexC' date='Mar 17 2007, 05:36 PM
1. You can't have seen all the changes, same as the rest of us, some changes will have happened before you were ever watching F1, as I know you're not quite that old. And I never watch old youtube clips, but funny that you criticise fans who watch youtube in your point no. 1, and then without blinking
2. swiftly move into a youtube link in your point no.2, with probably the most oft-repeated example of "the good 'ole days"
3. I presume Ross Brawn would disagree, but maybe you should go and help out someone like Honda, who seem to be lacking in this area.
6. Pretty sure pole didn't win every race, and tyres can't be blamed any more, but what do you seriously expect? These are supposedly the best drivers in the world, so of course they are all very good, having proven themselves elsewhere, so whilst some may be a bit faster than others, the cars tend to make a bigger difference, which is why manufacturers want to use F1 as their showcase.
7. 2 or 3 teams with a genuine chance is pretty good if you ask me - what's the position for Le Mans - Audi anyone? World Rally - 2 teams? Moto GP - haven't got a clue.
You can't have seen all the changes, same as the rest of us, some changes will have happened before you were ever watching F1, as I know you're not quite that old. And I never watch old youtube clips, but funny that you criticise fans who watch youtube in your point no. 1, and then without blinking2. swiftly move into a youtube link in your point no.2, with probably the most oft-repeated example of "the good 'ole days"
3. I presume Ross Brawn would disagree, but maybe you should go and help out someone like Honda, who seem to be lacking in this area.
6. Pretty sure pole didn't win every race, and tyres can't be blamed any more, but what do you seriously expect? These are supposedly the best drivers in the world, so of course they are all very good, having proven themselves elsewhere, so whilst some may be a bit faster than others, the cars tend to make a bigger difference, which is why manufacturers want to use F1 as their showcase.
7. 2 or 3 teams with a genuine chance is pretty good if you ask me - what's the position for Le Mans - Audi anyone? World Rally - 2 teams? Moto GP - haven't got a clue.
I'm 49 and have watched F1 since round 1966 (when I also saw England win the World Cup, when it was played by men). I suspect that experience is much greater than the majority of posters on this thread, but I might be wrong.2. You will surely appreciate (unless you are being deliberately obtuse) that criticising people for a limited experience based on clips and reading material, is completely different to using one clip to illustrate a point.
3. Just tell me what these 'tactics' are. I'm genuinely intrerested, and don't worry, I can wait if it takes a while for you to uncover them.
I'd be happy to help Honda, but I think that if they just get a better car, results will follow, without the need for the equivalent of Art of War. 
6. I'm sure pole didn't win every race. But I'm even more sure that people rarely come through the field to win, which is related to my concern about processions.
I'm glad you agree that the cars make 'a bigger difference' - that's what I've been saying. And that manufacturers want to use F1 as a technical showcase. They do, and it is. That's also what I have been saying - that it's about the machinery and the drivers are window dressing for the most part.
7. Yes Audi at Le Mans and yes boring. The more competition the better.
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Originally Posted by Bada Bing!' date='Mar 17 2007, 05:42 PM
I agree with you to an extent, what Hamilton has proven today is not that he is the next Alonso/Raikkonen/Schumacher. What he's proven is that in a good car talent counts for little. Alonso and Raikkonen would still wipe the floor with Massa and Hamilton till the cows come home, because they have additional talent.
But when you compare a rookie in a good car, to an old hand in a bad one, technology is always going to win the battle in F1's current state.
But when you compare a rookie in a good car, to an old hand in a bad one, technology is always going to win the battle in F1's current state.
When you have a technical showcase, as Alex puts it, you will get dominant and dominating maufacturers
Nowadays, to the extent that any half decent driver will do the job in the best car
Trouble is, I think most people are not satisfied by technical excellence - they want to see driving ability making the difference, or at least more of one
I don't believe it does, despite the best efforts of the marketeers
Then, as Neil says, it becomes doubly frustrating when moves that could make a difference (banning TC for example) are not implemented
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 16,369
Likes: 4
From: Tyne Valley
I was watching an A1GP race last year when Jos Verstappen stuffed his car into the barrier (as usual!), this was a fairly big smash. John Watson's comment was that he'd had the crash because he was used to driving F1 cars and had forgotten that he couldn't just floor it out of the corner and expect it to stick.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,112
Likes: 2
From: Banbury, Oxfordshire
You always hear from people that don't really understand motor racing that "it's not the driver, it's the car". Well if you look at either A1GP or GP2 which are about as close to F1 as you can get, there's a similar spread of performance to F1 yet they're all in identical cars. Which is all about the driver and the team setting up the car, a big part of the driver's skill that you don't really see on TV .Considering they're driving different cars F1 is amazingly close.
But obviously Hamilton wasn't going to be 4th in a Spyker. But then top drivers always gravitate to top teams, and always have. Are we saying Senna was rubbish because he had a McLaren when McLaren were strong? Is anyone suggesting that the tail enders are every bit as good as Kimi and Alonso at the front and it's just the car that's holding them back?
I was never claiming that F1 is all fantastic. I was just saying it gets a bit tedious listening to the same old "it aint what it used to be" nonsense from people who are basically a bit bored and want to start an argument. If you have anything to actually say about Melbourne 07 and the rest of the season, I'll be very interested, even if you completely disagree with me.
Just a thought.
But obviously Hamilton wasn't going to be 4th in a Spyker. But then top drivers always gravitate to top teams, and always have. Are we saying Senna was rubbish because he had a McLaren when McLaren were strong? Is anyone suggesting that the tail enders are every bit as good as Kimi and Alonso at the front and it's just the car that's holding them back?
I was never claiming that F1 is all fantastic. I was just saying it gets a bit tedious listening to the same old "it aint what it used to be" nonsense from people who are basically a bit bored and want to start an argument. If you have anything to actually say about Melbourne 07 and the rest of the season, I'll be very interested, even if you completely disagree with me.
Just a thought.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,112
Likes: 2
From: Banbury, Oxfordshire
Originally Posted by Bassoctopus' date='Mar 17 2007, 06:23 PM
I was watching an A1GP race last year when Jos Verstappen stuffed his car into the barrier (as usual!), this was a fairly big smash. John Watson's comment was that he'd had the crash because he was used to driving F1 cars and had forgotten that he couldn't just floor it out of the corner and expect it to stick.
If that was true, he'd had never made it round the first corner.
Jos went off in a bit of a sulk IIRC, which is a real shame as he was always really entertaining in A1GP.
But talking of rookie F1 drivers, why isn't Nico H
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 16,369
Likes: 4
From: Tyne Valley
I remember an article in F1 racing many years ago "Jos Verstappen's World of Gravel"
I could easily believe that Jos would forget about a lack of TC mid corner. Fast but completely unreliable.
I must disagree about John Watson. When Sky ran their F1 coverage for a year (2002?) John Watson and Ben Edwards commentated and it was 1000 x better than James Allen's pointless drivelling. How that guy is commentating to Xmillion people around the globe is beyond me.
I could easily believe that Jos would forget about a lack of TC mid corner. Fast but completely unreliable.
I must disagree about John Watson. When Sky ran their F1 coverage for a year (2002?)
John Watson and Ben Edwards commentated and it was 1000 x better than James Allen's pointless drivelling. How that guy is commentating to Xmillion people around the globe is beyond me.