Motorsports Thread

[Kempstonian]

There's far more to motor racing than F1

Indeed there is. I had pretty much given up on F1 and dumped my Sky Sports package but I didn't realise that it was on Channel 4. Touring cars, Indy cars and MotoGP are what I watch mostly now.

 

[Kempstonian]

But hasn't that nearly always been the case, though?

It's pretty rare in F1 that there isn't a car that's the class of the field to the exclusion of others.

Merc now, before it was the Red Bull, the Brawn, Mclaren, Ferrari in the Schumacher era, Williams were the class of the field from on and off through the '90s, McLaren in 1988 - they won 15 of the 16 races...

The last time I remember (and this was the first season I watched motor racing), the driver / car combo that won the WC that wasn't the class act on the grid was Keke Rosberg in the normally-aspirated Williams-Ford back in '82...

I take your point but the other cars did still stand a chance of winning, due to the reliability factor. I used to enjoy watching it so something has changed! 😄

 

[Reynard]

Indeed there is. I had pretty much given up on F1 and dumped my Sky Sports package but I didn't realise that it was on Channel 4. Touring cars, Indy cars and MotoGP are what I watch mostly now.

Only the highlights usually. The one exception is the British GP, as it's one of the live events "ringfenced" by the government as something that must be available on free-to-air.

Never bothered with Sky F1, as I refuse to pay into Bernie's retirement fund. I'm quite happy with C4 highlights and listening to the race live on the radio.

I've given up on MotoGP since a) it's no longer on FTA and b) Dani Pedrosa has retired.

 

[Reynard]

I take your point but the other cars did still stand a chance of winning, due to the reliability factor. I used to enjoy watching it so something has changed! 😄

The "cost-cutting" measures that mean engines must last so many races and gearboxes so many etc. If anything, the cars are *too* reliable.

Though one has to admit, the big bang turbos of the mid to late 80s made races a bit of a lottery, as you really didn't know how long the things would last before becoming so much expensive recycling...

 

[raleighnut]

The "cost-cutting" measures that mean engines must last so many races and gearboxes so many etc. If anything, the cars are *too* reliable.

Though one has to admit, the big bang turbos of the mid to late 80s made races a bit of a lottery, as you really didn't know how long the things would last before becoming so much expensive recycling...

Wasn't that the Colin Chapman philosophy, the car should just about last the race.

 

[Reynard]

Wasn't that the Colin Chapman philosophy, the car should just about last the race.

More or less. Basically, if it didn't break, it wasn't light enough.

 

[matticus]

Just had a flick through the 1970s British GP results - 10-11 finishers was typical. So if you enjoy watching cars break down, the '70s were more exciting than now!

 

[Reynard]

The 80s were pretty similar.

And there were 26 cars on the grid for every race, not the 20 we have now.

 

[matticus]

Indeed there is. I had pretty much given up on F1 and dumped my Sky Sports package but I didn't realise that it was on Channel 4.

Since 2016 my friend

 

[Kempstonian]

Since 2016 my friend

That long? Oh well it just shows how little interest I've had in F1 over the last few years then!

Mind you I have had Sky Sports for a few of those years so I did see some races on there and didn't need to find other channels to watch it on.

The unreliabilty did cause a lot of retirements back in the day. I suppose you could call it a lottery but that's been replaced by the silly penalties they have now, where people lose grid positions for the slightest infringements. In my opinion it would be better to impose financial penalties for rule breaking, or even points deductions for serious offences, and keep the racing side out of it.

 

[matticus]

I think the problem is that drivers wouldn't care - apart from the 1-2 champs contenders, they all just want to win a race (at almost any cost!)

 

[raleighnut]

That long? Oh well it just shows how little interest I've had in F1 over the last few years then!

Mind you I have had Sky Sports for a few of those years so I did see some races on there and didn't need to find other channels to watch it on.

The unreliabilty did cause a lot of retirements back in the day. I suppose you could call it a lottery but that's been replaced by the silly penalties they have now, where people lose grid positions for the slightest infringements. In my opinion it would be better to impose financial penalties for rule breaking, or even points deductions for serious offences, and keep the racing side out of it.

Financial penalties would just mean the richer teams got an unfair advantage.

 

[Kempstonian]

Financial penalties would just mean the richer teams got an unfair advantage.

They already have though, haven't they? I would rather see a race where everybody starts in their qualifying positions and find another way to impose penalties. Maybe that's just me though...

 

[Reynard]

They already have though, haven't they? I would rather see a race where everybody starts in their qualifying positions and find another way to impose penalties. Maybe that's just me though...

Something akin to success ballast like in touring cars, perhaps?

 

[Smokin Joe]

Something akin to success ballast like in touring cars, perhaps?

It isn't real racing if you penalise success by imposing restrictions on the best cars or drivers. It is up to the other teams to catch up, not the better ones to slow down.