F1 Fanatic

@brazil2007 In my opinion, the pressure placed on the drivers over the course of the race weekend makes things exciting. On such a tight circuit, the smallest mistake can end a driver’s weekend, no matter how well it may have been going. Take Romain Grosjean, for example. Despite having a good qualifying session, a mistake at the start ended his race. On a wider circuit, Schumacher would have had more space to get out of Grosjean’s way, and the crash might have been avoided. Instead, Grosjean was sent home with yet another DNF to his name.

To me, proper wheel-to-wheel racing, combined with unpredictability, makes a good race. I also like races in which strategies are unique, such as this year’s Italian or Brazilian Grands Prix.

@prisoner-monkeys You can have a good wheel-to-wheel battle with the driver that started the battle ahead winding up ahead. No position changes are necessary.

I’l get busy sending out those messages: “Hey, Fernando Alonso! You know, you don’t have to win the race in order for the fans to be excited. Why go to all that trouble of passing Sebastian Vettelm when you can just pull alongside him for a little bit? Sure, if you finish second, you won’t be World Champion, but that’s okay because you will have been entertaining, and isn’t that what really counts?”

@prisoner-monkeys Drivers don’t get paid for entertaining ‘fans’, they get paid to perform well and finish as high as they can.

How so?

How so?

Because you claim that “proper wheel-to-wheel racing” is entertaining, but then you claim “consistency, smoothness, and the ability to remain focused for long periods of time” is the essence of racing. That’s a contradiction because when you’re racing wheel-to-wheel, the notions of consistency, smoothness and focus take a back seat. Nobody is going to pass a car by lapping consistently; they need to seize the opportunities that are offered. Nor are they going to pass the car in front by being smooth; you need to be aggressive in attacking, because if you hesitate, the other driver will close the door. Why do you think drivers were conserving their tyres a lot early this year? It was because they wanted to have as much life as possible left in them when they made their move. And when you say “focus”, I’m assuming you mean a focus on consistency and smoothness, which isn’t going to work, either; drivers need to be focused on finding the right moment to strike and take the position, not worrying about setting consistent laptimes.

Finally, you say that overtaking is not necessary to great racing. But to paraphrase Ayrton Senna slightly, if you don’t go after an overtake and pounce on it when it presents itself, you are not a racing driver.

@Prisoner-Monkeys

Just let him go. I’ve been reading his posts on the past 2 pages, you’ll note he’s VERY selective in what he replies to, he usually replies to snippets and sarcastic comments. I think @Joey-Zyla wouldn’t be a good F1 driver, since he lacks consistency, smoothness, and the ability to remain focused for long periods of time.

I’m sure his ways of ‘efforts matter more than results’ would do great in schools, the military and business as well. It’s a shame we lost half a million pounds last quarter, but at least we made an effort to sell exploding kneecaps.

I think it all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over the conditions which define an “interesting” race. Pardon me if I have misinterpreted your viewpoints, and feel free to correct my statements, but as I see it:

@joey-zyla seems to advocate what I will term Definition A, that an “interesting” race is derived not just by the swapping of positions, but by the effort that drivers expend in navigating “difficult” tracks like Monaco, and making attempts to overtake, regardless of whether these attempts are successful, thereby creating a sense of tension.

@prisoner-monkeys seems to advocate Definition B, whereby an “interesting” race comes from having multiple drivers of relatively equal pace and competitiveness, creating multiple opportunities for, and instances of, overtaking, resulting in a visual spectacle, and race results that could very well have ramifications for the championship.

It is difficult to make a definitive blanket statement like “more overtaking does not produce more interesting racing”, when there are so many variables to consider – were the overtakes considered “difficult to accomplish”, did the track layout contribute to the ease of overtaking, were those overtakes mostly DRS “highway pass”, or were they “instant classics”, and so on.

Personally, I lean toward Definition B. As a general rule of thumb, I tend to regard a race where drivers succeed on trading positions and altering the results, as being more interesting than a race where finishing positions are set in stone by the end of the first corner/lap. Like all subjective judgements, it seems to be a matter of personal taste/preference. (Once again, if I have misconstrued your views, feel free to correct me.)