Scrap the F1 Drivers Championship Now.

[Pinetree]

F1 is not a drivers sport, actually  its clearly not a sport at all, its an engineering design challenge. Bare with me here. 

From 1913 to 1931  the Schneider Trophy  was a competition to design the fastest Seaplane. The fastest design won, aided in some part, but not that importantly, by the pilots.   F1 is now in that same place, an engineering design competition and the drivers are becoming more incidental as each year goes on.   Just scrap the drivers championship and let's stop pretending that F1 is on any way a sporting event. The Mercs issue this year prove the point.  Lewis is arguably the greatest F1 driver ever, but he cannot overcome the engineering problems that beset that car.  That clinches it for me. 

[Fanta]

Agreed. Sadly too much money in it and too many global eyeballs on F1 for it to be scrapped any decade soon.

I’d like to see the Formula E (electric cars) get more coverage (ie: money) as improvements in that technology can flow down to street vehicles and battery powered stuff. 8th season already and rarely even hear of it. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_E

[SnapDragon]

Gone right off it in recent years.

In two races last year only three cars did not get lapped.

Been to Lewis Hamilton's house in Tewin. Near a smashing Lama farm. Very friendly animals.

[Smithydog]

It is an engineering exercise to a point, then the driver's skill comes to the fore to add that extra bit. The car can hold the track, assist with cornering and speed along the straights. But the car goes nowhere without the driver and vice versa. However, it is their skill and fitness that deliver the extra bit from what has been designed.

Just like a Golfer. You can have the best clubs and balls in the world, designed to offer the best distance and control. You can play on the best courses in the world with the best grass. But if you can't swing the club consistently at the optimum, then the tools are useless as you will struggle to win! 

Is it a sport? Of course it is. One definition, according to the Cambridge Dictionary is "a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job" 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sport

It ticks the boxes to qualify as such. Could the money invested be used in better ways? We all probably could imagine ways to spend the salaries of the highest paid sportspeople and invest the money as a whole in other areas.

 

[Noble_Design]

F1 has mostly been a venue for car makers to generate more sales. When Ferrari or Mercedes wins at F1, people wants some of that prestige and that translates to better sales.

Unfortunately with more and more countries banning the sales of internal combustion engine in the future, this pretty much spells the demise of F1. I foresee that F1 would most probably not survive beyond 2030 or 2035 the latest. By then hopefully Formula E would have reached or maybe even exceed the performance of F1, they are getting close but not yet.

To me F1 has starting to go downhill from the year 2000s onwards due to the need to appear politically correct and environmentally friendly. Gone are the tobacco advertisements which means a good chunk of money and glamor went with that, and then no more grid girls to avoid being labelled as exploiting women so there goes the sexiness of F1. 

And then there's the small turbocharged engine + hybrid all in the name of improving fuel consumption which took away one of the biggest draws of F1 which is the sound of those roaring V8s, V10s & V12s. It's just a bit ridiculous considering the amount of fuel saved for the environment is insignificant compared to say the fuel used to transport the entire teams from countries to countries.  

[Rookiescot]

Stopped watching F1 after last seasons manufactured win for Verstappen and Red Bull.

You can have a competitive car and a fantastic driver but the powers that be can still cheat you out of a win.

[Pinetree]

12 hours ago, Smithydog said:

It is an engineering exercise to a point, then the driver's skill comes to the fore to add that extra bit. The car can hold the track, assist with cornering and speed along the straights. But the car goes nowhere without the driver and vice versa.

Just the point I made in comparing it to the Schneider Trophy.  It doesn't wash I'm afraid, as the best designed car will always win, almost , but not quite, in spite of the driver. I still contend that it is no more than an engineering challenge and not a sport. Now , after last season, we can add manipulation of the rules of that challenge by officials. 

[Rookiescot]

Good drivers will always extract that extra bit of performance out of a car that us mere mortals cannot.

Top drivers will give you half a second. Does anyone have any idea what a F1 engineer or designer would do for a half second advantage?

Its why Mercedes pays Hamilton top dollar to retain his services because they know how good he is.

Of course there are some who believe its all about the car in which case why are the top teams not employing the cheapest drivers? It would give them more money to develop other stuff.

Always find it amazing how many armchair experts seem to know more about F1 than people like Toto Wolfe or that black hole of class Salty Spice Horner.

Surely, if the driver makes no difference Horner would get his wife to drive the car. He seems to shoehorn her into every episode of Drive to survive where she simply tells him just how super they both are. Utterly nauseating. 

[Noble_Design]

27 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Good drivers will always extract that extra bit of performance out of a car that us mere mortals cannot.

Top drivers will give you half a second. Does anyone have any idea what a F1 engineer or designer would do for a half second advantage?

Its why Mercedes pays Hamilton top dollar to retain his services because they know how good he is.

Of course there are some who believe its all about the car in which case why are the top teams not employing the cheapest drivers? It would give them more money to develop other stuff.

Always find it amazing how many armchair experts seem to know more about F1 than people like Toto Wolfe or that black hole of class Salty Spice Horner.

Surely, if the driver makes no difference Horner would get his wife to drive the car. He seems to shoehorn her into every episode of Drive to survive where she simply tells him just how super they both are. Utterly nauseating. 

That is true and really good drivers would be able to give feedbacks to the engineers and mechanics on what's wrong, what to improve etc. Just like how Nikki Lauda commented when he first joined Ferrari - you have all the money and resources but this is the crap car you came up with? So what if it's a Ferrari? 

[Pinetree]

10 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Good drivers will always extract that extra bit of performance out of a car that us mere mortals cannot.

Top drivers will give you half a second. Does anyone have any idea what a F1 engineer or designer would do for a half second advantage?

Its why Mercedes pays Hamilton top dollar to retain his services because they know how good he is.

Of course there are some who believe its all about the car in which case why are the top teams not employing the cheapest drivers? It would give them more money to develop other stuff.

Always find it amazing how many armchair experts seem to know more about F1 than people like Toto Wolfe or that black hole of class Salty Spice Horner.

Surely, if the driver makes no difference Horner would get his wife to drive the car. He seems to shoehorn her into every episode of Drive to survive where she simply tells him just how super they both are. Utterly nauseating. 

Surely to be a spectator sport you would need to see displayed clearly how the driver gets that half second.  I defy anyone to see in a race how the drivers are doing that.  Its a precession and apart from obvious  mistakes and crashes,  you are unable to see that differentiation in skill applied. In addition, apart from lots of retirements, the best car wins.  Any examples anyone can give for when a bad.mid field runner has won when all the best cars are still on the track?  I can't.

[Smithydog]

Engineering plays it part. Just look at the lap times Russell was able to achieve in the Mercedes vs his Williams when he filled in at one time.

All sports involve "engineering" of some sort. Whether it is shoes for cushioning the feet of a marathon runner, to the bigger sweet spot on current tennis racquets or the newest heavy bats in cricket. Engineering and design as played its part.

But equally, those extra seconds deliver are delivered by the driver, otherwise why would he hear statements such as how a driver rove the car beyond the maximum it was expected. That is simply skill.

[Pinetree]

5 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Engineering plays it part. Just look at the lap times Russell was able to achieve in the Mercedes vs his Williams when he filled in at one time.

Yes, but my argument is that in winning a championship,  engineering and design are the overriding deciding factor.  Your example of Russel is a good one, in a Willman's no points, put him in the best car and he nearly wins, as would many other drivers on the grid. Engineering decides the winner of the championship.  

[Smithydog]

5 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Surely to be a spectator sport you would need to see displayed clearly how the driver gets that half second.  I defy anyone to see in a race how the drivers are doing that.  Its a precession and apart from obvious  mistakes and crashes,  you are unable to see that differentiation in skill applied. In addition, apart from lots of retirements, the best car wins.  Any examples anyone can give for when a bad.mid field runner has won when all the best cars are still on the track?  I can't.

Do most spectators "see" the difference in how the batter in baseball cleared the fence or just dropped short. Do they see what the footballer changed so this time their kick landed precisely? Do they see what the 100 meter runner changed to run those few less micro-seconds? No they see the result not the actions that were taken. Does that now mean those sports are not spectator sports? Of course not.

It is the same in motor racing. Spectators don't see the differences individually in each corner, lap by lap. They see the lap times and hear the commentary. Experienced commentators, often ex-drivers themselves can spot the differences and tell the public what they see.

Anyone driving a car knows that your decisions made when driving have an impact on the car. In racing, minimising the kerb contact, braking late, timing you overtakes and accelerating smoothly all have impacts. The car doesn't make such decisions. It is the driver and their skill.

 

[Smithydog]

2 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Yes, but my argument is that in winning a championship,  engineering and design are the overriding deciding factor.  Your example of Russel is a good one, in a Willman's no points, put him in the best car and he nearly wins, as would many other drivers on the grid. Engineering decides the winner of the championship.  

Its a combination of everything. There are plenty examples of a change to the engineering delivering a few micro seconds, but a bad pit stop losing several seconds. Or the choice of a driver as to when to brake the car throwing them off the track or doing a 360 resulting in loss of places, time and likely an extra pit stop. 

Its a team sport and all components of the team need to perform for a win, not just one part.

[Pinetree]

5 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Do most spectators "see" the difference in how the batter in baseball cleared the fence or just dropped short. Do they see what the footballer changed so this time their kick landed precisely? Do they see what the 100 meter runner changed to run those few less micro-seconds? No they see the result not the actions that were taken

Oh I disagree.  When I watch an NFL game for example  I can see quite clearly the skill and athleticism displayed plus the chess game being played out by the coaches and players. Same with Soccer, Baseball and athletics. You see the skill displayed in front of you, without the barriers imposed by cars. Not the same at all in my view.

Just to add an example.  In modern F1 the drivers seem quite incapable of staying within the white lines that delineate the race track.  The stupid F1 rules don't even make this a compulsory part of the race, which they restrict to maybe one or two corners in any one race.  Track limits are a joke and that just about sums up the whole spectacle, 

[Pinetree]

3 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Its a combination of everything. There are plenty examples of a change to the engineering delivering a few micro seconds, but a bad pit stop losing several seconds. Or the choice of a driver as to when to brake the car throwing them off the track or doing a 360 resulting in loss of places, time and likely an extra pit stop. 

Its a team sport and all components of the team need to perform for a win, not just one part.

Well I guess we will see this year.  Lewis is the best driver in history, a master at his craft,  but he, and Russel, will not overcome a poorly designed  Mercedes , clearly a third string car.  That clinches the argument for me. We can perhaps re visit this interesting debate after the season ends. 

[Smithydog]

1 minute ago, Pinetree said:

Oh I disagree.  When I watch an NFL game for example  I can see quite clearly the skill and athleticism displayed plus the chess game being played out by the coaches and players. Same with Soccer, Baseball and athletics. You see the skill displayed in front of you, without the barriers imposed by cars. Not the same at all in my view.

Just to add an example.  In modern F1 the drivers seem quite incapable of staying within the white lines that delineate the race track.  The stupid F1 rules don't even make this a compulsory part of the race, which they restrict to maybe one or two corners in any one race.  Track limits are a joke and that just about sums up the whole spectacle, 

I too see the strategy in he NFL. But I too see the strategy in F1.  It is played out before and during the race. From when to call drivers in for pit stops, what tyres to use for the right conditions, where best to set up and complete an overtake. Do we do an undercut or overcut choice for pit stops. Just as some examples of strategy.

Perhaps this article will widen your view as to their athletic capabilities.

https://flowracers.com/blog/is-f1-a-sport-are-drivers-athletes/#:~:text=F1 is a sport%2C and,2 hours of the race.

In simple terms, track limits are compulsory when the driver gains an unfair advantage by exceeding them. In many cases, the driver is already penalised by going wide so no further action is needed. This includes tyre damage, loss in time or even been bogged down in a sand trap. In worst situations, a crash.

But it seems NFL players, coaches and strategists have plenty of time on their hands to strategise during a NFL, considering research shows the ball was in play for an average of 11 minutes!

https://texashillcountry.com/minutes-play-average-nfl-game/