Comments on: Peter Windsor vs Darrell Waltrip on F1

By: ahmed

ahmed — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:40:08 +0000

i have a design of a formula 1 car which will be an unbelievable winning machine .. for all time

By: chunter

chunter — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:29:49 +0000

I feel bad for Peter in this video, because he seems set up. He elaborates on a statement I think he made in frustration very well (because I remember that statement.)

I think his quote of Enzo “60% car / 40% driver” has become “90% car / 10% driver” in the current age, and dare I say, in Nascar it is “10% car / 90% driver” now. Those familiar with both motorsports will understand, the problem with both is that they have become too polarized towards certain concepts.

I completely see Waltrip’s point in asking, who in F1 can push hard enough to cause the person in front of them to make mistakes (without breaking his own car in the process)? (The correct answer to this question: Kubica and Hamilton.)

There is a lot of work to be done, I suppose…

By: the limit

the limit — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:47:04 +0000

Alot of the so called blandness of modern F1 is down as much to track design as the enhancement of aerodynamics. The catch twenty two situation is that formally classic, fast circuits have been altered in order to slow the cars down. Why?
Safety is now just as relevant as ever, but this is the main problem F1 faces. Excitement in racing means risk, risk to the driver or drivers. The best, most memorable moments in modern F1 have occured during dangerous overtaking moves.
The sight of Mansell and Senna going wheel to wheel, Hakkinen’s pass at Spa, and Alonso’s 130R overtake are just some examples, and these must all be encouraged.
However, in modern F1 track design, it is more important that safety is held in more higher regard than entertainment. You can’t blame them on that I guess, but for motor racing to be entertaining, danger has to be part of the whole spectacle.
No one, no F1 fan, loves Eau Rouge because it is easy.
They love it, as do the drivers, because it is dangerous, because it is a challenge.
As for Peter Windsor, I agree that F1 would not be a better show for having numerous overtaking during the races, but certain aspects of foreign series you cannot
falter.
NASCAR for example, for all its failings in terms of its good ole’ boy image and basic technology, is still an open sport for its fans. The fans atleast get to see a more ‘human’ element to their heroes, as opposed to the five minute interview session and some champagne spraying on a podium. After all, its still showbusiness, still a spectacle.
Don’t get me wrong, I would hate to see Kimi Raikkonen gulping down a Diet Pepsi during an interview al la NASCAR, but a burnout for the fans would not go a miss.
Could you imagine how the fans would react, to see a winning F1 driver barbecue his tyres in a post race celebration? They would love it!
Less rules, less cloak and dagger, less politics, more entertainment! If for nothing else, to keep Kimi from falling asleep along with the rest of us.

By: GeorgeK

GeorgeK — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:17:29 +0000

Last point on passing: Over the years people tend to remember and glorify the great drivers, not necessarily the great cars. And the great drivers are the ones who created memorable duels that usually involved passing.

We have a current crop of drivers that are potentially great but rarely get to duel for the lead because of the evolution of the technology. Next year’s aero-tire changes may bring more of that passing possibility back.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:45:33 +0000

Like Windsors fishing analogy, I think of basketball vs. soccer. Every basket is not memorable. Sadly, too many races end nil-nil.

By: verasaki

verasaki — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:00:12 +0000

notting hill? anyone? i thought it was a place (or a bad movie) but an event? is it “racing parody”?

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:58:10 +0000

Because everyone goes to Notting Hill expecting a glorified parade, whereas F1 is supposed to be a race. Bu races are supposed to have the possibility of passing (which has reduced over the years), no biased/incompetent interference from the authorities and a feeling that races are more down to skill than luck (in getting the right team at season’s beginning, in having no traffic on Saturday, on being able to bend the rules without the FIA noticing…)

By: michael counsell

michael counsell — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:29:39 +0000

If no one wants a glorified parade why were there 600,000 people (including me) in Notting Hill on Monday….

By: GeorgeK

GeorgeK — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:47:06 +0000

If passing in the race is no longer important or relevant just call each race after the first two laps and send everybody home. With engine freezes reliability will become bullet proof and who cares about driver’s skills in the wet?

I readily admit to being stunned by the “boogity man’s” eloquence in defining the driver’s role and his part in passing. If there’s no passing it’s just a glorified parade and no one wants that. Do we??????

By: michael counsell

michael counsell — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:38:47 +0000

I agree with Antifia’s comment. In 2008 there has been an average of 14 overtaking manouveres per race in 2000 there were 18. Not a huge difference but it is noticeable. In the last 10 years only 2004 had less overtaking manouveres with 12. However there are typically a higher than average number of overtaking manouveres at the Chinese and Brazilian GPs which will liklely bring the average up, while rain is probably likely in Singapore and Fuji.

Lapped cars have less and less of an impact on races recently as so few are lapped. In Valencia only 6 cars were lapped. Indeed if it doesn’t rain in Spa with so few laps and such a long track it is entirely possible that no one will end up lapped.

Overtaking Stats:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.sport.f1/browse_thread/thread/9b7f8a61aca0d076#