Well, the Turkish Grand Prix has passed for another year, or at least I think it did. Because to tell the truth I paid so very little attention.
I followed the basic story of what was going on but the slightest distraction, a fly buzzing on the window, for example, would hold my attention for longer. And this got me thinking.
I should make clear at this point that I AM a massive fan of the sport, and have been since i was old enough to understand why these men were driving around in a circle and not getting anywhere.
But as a spectator sport it seems to have lost a certain appeal to the TV viewer.
I've previously attributed some of my nausea to the commentators we have here in the UK, but I think that was unfair. At the end of the day they can only do the best with what's happening on the track and their lack of enthusiasm shows that like us, the viewers, they are finding it hard to keep interested in the race.
I mean there is only a certain amount of time you can spend talking about how a three-stop strategy is superior on the condition that the car is working with soft tires whereas a two-stop may be a good gamble if....
Yawn! I'm boring myself already.
And i think that's the problem. Looking back at Sunday's race it had all the ingredients of an interesting, eventful couple of hours. Hamilton was chasing Massa, Kovalainen was coming through the field, the three leaders were on different strategies and therefore were frequently changing positions and mid-field runners (such as Mark Webber and both BMWs) were keeping things interesting for the points positions.
But I don't think I am alone in feeling that the result is almost decided before they even start out. All the computing power the teams have, all the strategians, and all the data collected from testing means they can practically foresee how the race will play out before it even begins, the only exceptions being accidents or driver error.
So were McLaren and Lewis Hamilton actually pushing for first place?
Probably not.
Their computers would be telling them that their threat later in the race would come from Raikkonen. And this sort of over-organized technological interference does not good sport make.
Imagine if before hitting the ball a baseball player got out a laptop to monitor wind resistance and therefore adapted his swing to compensate, and meanwhile all the guys in the fielding positions were being fed information from a central control unit telling them a "predicted" path for the ball, a predicted speed too, maybe even a predicted time to reach its destination, and where that destination would be.
How incredibly anal would that make baseball?!
So there lies the problem—F1 is no longer a sport the viewer, nor the hardcore fan, nor the person who ultimately buys the products the sport advertises, can actually follow or understand. The results are not decided by drivers and engineers we can identify with, but by bespectacled dudes with calculators and fancy qualifications.
And this bugs me.
How am I supposed to care about the result when it's not influenced by the action of the driver I am cheering on, but by the actions of backroom men?
7 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Dan Keshler about 1 year ago
Nice article, sums up alot of the general fan attitude towards the current F1 state.
Edit Comment Cancel
Marc Boland about 1 year ago
"Team Politics do not own you?"
You're kidding yourself if you believe that's a recent development in the F1 paddock, it's been part of the sport for a couple decades at least.
And I sure would love to see any references you may have to anyone (besides those that whine about everything) that "generally condemned" the three-way championship battle in 2007. In point of fact the season was was regarded as the best in several years by those in the paddock and the press.
As to your point about the category being run by engineers rather than drivers and a team's mechanical preparation, again, when has that not been the case in the last thirty years?
In a sport generally regarded as the "pinnacle of motorsport" it will always be a battle of the most money spent, where and how it's spent, and the advancement of technology to lead and win a race.
But take heart Dan if the gruesome twosome of Bernie and Max "The Littlest Perv" Mosley get their way you will see a generic ecco-friendly crapwagon devoid of any innovations to further speed on an F1 starting grid very soon.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Keshler about 1 year ago
I'm a big opponent of what Mad Max is trying to do to the sport. I think the technical advancement and constructor variances are what make the sport unique, and would hate to see the grid unified.
I think close racing for the sake of viewship will ruin the sport.
However, I do believe that F1 is getting too political, and perhaps we should turn the spotlight back, ever so slightly, onto the drivers.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jay about 1 year ago
With the exception of last year, F1 has become more boring year by year, and this is largely because of the technology - I couldn't agree with Matty Brewster more. The only truly interesting races are wet races when drivers are sliding off the track, making guesses on which tyre to run on, when to pit, etc. This is when drivers' real skills are on show, technological differences are reduced, and spur of the moment decision can change the racing order in a second. The solution is simple, install sprinkler systems around the track and set them off randomly.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matthew Brewster about 1 year ago
Excellent. Glad you got the slight sarcasm of my article and extended it! You're right about the driver's skills not being on show enough. Technology bugs me so i am probably slightly biased against it. But it's nice to know people feel similar
Edit Comment Cancel
Ploots 1001 about 1 year ago
Boring? No. A little irritating perhaps - especially Monaco where there is no on track overtaking, but by and large the race is exciting and usually quite eventful (yes I do watch the same races).
However, qualifying is a diffent matter. Q1 and Q2 are fine, I do not have a problem. Q3 is so, so, frustrating to watch because the teams have different strategies, tyres, fuel loads etc. and what we see is not a true head-to-head battle.
Q3 should be a minimum fuel, no holds barred, multi-lap shoot out. Then we will all appreciate the pole sitter being the fastest on the day.
As an aside, -- Are we all pleased the BBC is covering the event from next year? ITV have done a great job, but the advert breaks are really annoying, so whoopee for the Beeb.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matthew Brewster about 1 year ago
Indeed woop for the beeb! On the subject of qualifying i agree with what you say about Q3. a low fuel multi-lap shoot out would be cool. The reason this idea was done away with earlier this decade was becuase the first half of the hour was kinda boring. But i always thought why not just make it half an hour then. I don't really bother with watching Q1 and Q2 becuase it is of no relevance to anything. If they wanted to have more "on-track" time to fill the qualifying hour then why not have two half hour sessions, multi-lap minimum fuel etc...and average out the times.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.