Hello Nick, I'm not offended, i simply think that to have really interesting and usefull discussion we have to challenge our arguments deep.
I have evolved my mind on many subjects by accepting that i can be wrong but the only way to know it is to go down to the basics. This takes times but helps. That's why when someone refuses to go there (this is his right) while still claiming he's right (this is where it starts to go wrong) i'm disappointed.
However as your above post proves it, it is always a matter a mis communication, and i should have learned it since long but still i posting again and again while we're not employing the same terms for the same things.
I still need to improve.
With your last post i can see better what you mean. And there's three main points.
NickT wrote:One of the biggest problems here with the current regulations is that the rule makers and top teams have vested interests in keeping the status quo and the way the Concord agreement works makes making radical change very difficult as it requires all the teams agreement.
F1 is killing itself at the moment as it is a boring manufactures championship that rewards consistent points finishes. Ogami correctly points out "Being a constructor championship it is highly normal that the one with the longest experience and better means wins." This highlights the problem.
Why? If you're a good driver with a top team its almost signed sealed and delivered, provided you can beat your team mate. However, if you are the greatest driver in the world in a mid field team then your are shafted, the only way to score points is to hope the leaders fall over each other or the weather intervenes. As Ciro pointed out "the last 140 GPs have been won by Ferrari, Renault, McLaren or Williams." this single statistic really says it all.
I agree on the status quo..indeed the concord agreement has a motto: Stable rules.
Yes more radical shake ups of rules would be great.
This were i start to disagree in that i don't think we should have a constructor championship where a manufacturer entering for the first year would win.
On good thing for me in F1 is that you need to built up knowledge, deep knowledge in order to win, that prevent anyone with big budget but no "skills" (toyota or honda) to win by money.
IMHO massively reducing F1s stupid dependence on aero grip, aero performance and money will go a long way to helping. We must, absolutely must, increase the contribution the driver's ability has on the results if we truly want to have a meaningful drivers championship and to see these gladiators fighting for real.
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here, what do you mean by "stupid dependance on aero grip.."?
If you mean that sensitivity to aero has to be fixed, i can just agree with you, that's for sure.
But it seems you suggest that aero grip is a driver skill mitigation. I disagree strongly here (if this is want you mean, the purpose of communication
).
Mechanical grip is in several case easier to handle than aero grip, more predictable and less fine.
I think we should make F1 stay with the current aero grip dependance because that makes the driving more difficult.
There's maybe an interesting option both for you and me coming in 2011 with adaptive aeros.
the max downforce will be limited (tyre grip increased) so more mechanical grip, but, because aerodynamic surfaces will be adaptive downforce will grow at lower speeds.
So at lower speed the ratio of aero grip to mechanical will be higher yet at high speed the mechanical grip will be greater.
Successful sports depend on the public's perception and their ability to relate to the competitors. Why do you think F1 fails to attract an American audience? Look at how close the racing is in their home series, where drivers contribute as much as the manufactures to the success of the team and how closely the fans can relate to their drivers.
You touch a strong point here, the problem with F1, it is that it is quite complex and no 10% of the audience is aware of the specificities.
There's a world between nascar communication and F1 one.
where nascar explains a lot of the technical specificities of the series F1 just bring you with who is driving where.
you have to watch ITV's martin brundle's "F1 insight" to know that Schumacher, Button and Alonso cornering style are just the opposite of each other.
Who knows how alonso take corners? Who knows how raikkonnen adapted his driving style to ferrari? Schumarcher to Traction control? who knows the difference in cornering and braking technics between 98 F1's and 91's ones?
Who knows that Traction control used to have 3 different settings for corner entry, mid and exit?
who knows that the drivers change the brake bias during race etc etc..
When you are aware of those things, races get far less boring (even if yes, i'd like to see a faster guy not being struck behind another for the rest of the race).
So what nascar does, is putting spectacle on (but spectacle on the general meaning, not especially on races, nascar races are sometimes boring also) but also explains to people.
And, nascar is far from being as simple as it seems.
Ogami musashi I am sorry if I offended you, I am simply an ex-racer who loves to see real racing something that is sadly missing in F1, unless we see rain. I will be [-o< for rain at every GP this season
What is "real racing"? I do see where's racing is hampered in F1, but i don't think there's one way of racing.
I was watching formula ford race the other day, and thought there were too many overtakings, it was due to the level of drivers (not consistent) but that was boring, somehow it seemed there was no reason for overtakings but rather a random error coefficient.
what i mean is that i don't trust in the "root racing"; I love karting but if all motorsport races where like that that would be boring to death.
I reckon though that we have now a problem in F1 mostly the fact that you can "prevented" to overtake, which is contradictory to the "racing" theme yes.
Finally Ogami musashi I am sure with your karting experience you understand what it is like to battle your way forward and the thrill of taking the position away from the driver in front. Now imagine being a second a lap faster than the guy in front, but every time you get within 10 lengths of the guy you start to slide all over the place never getting closer then 7 lengths. Tell me how would you get past? Would you be happy or frustrated? Does the track position reflect your abilities? Please think about this last paragraph carefully because this is reality most F1 drivers face today.
I agree 100%, and from the start, we simply disagree on the way of doing that, and that's where i try to discuss.
