I will say a 5, the Ferrari battle was interesting, a few good moves down the field but not much else.

Also on the bright side the championship is now tighter.

If ever there was a race that showed why the cars MUST be changed. The last 2 races here have been excellent, this one was anything but. A generous 2.

A 3. The director was very poor, he rarely bothered to show the midfield battles for the first half of the race and then cut away from Button/Coulthard in the middle.

It only gets a 3 because we did actually see an overtaking manourve, and Hamilton's tyre provided some desperately needed drama.

No option for 0!!!

SAFC - the cars themselves are not the problem. there has been some very good races lately with actual real overtaking, Nurburgring for a start. So I think the car design is finally getting somewhere.

What spoilt the racing today was the track. It is too disjointed. the best circuits have long flowing sections, and istanbul just hasn't got any. plus their atifical hills dont' really help anything.

now Spa. oh boy. I can't wait for spa. Real hills, and lovely fast flowing corners like Eau Rouge - Radillion... that's where we'll see the cars and their drivers REALLY tested to their limits.

Can't agree with you there.

The vast majority of overtaking done at the Nurburgring was done in wet or damp conditions. Alonso was nowhere near Massa, then as soon as bit of rain came down he went through. You only need to watch GP2 races at the same tracks to see that F1 cars are the problem. Even last year in F1 we saw closer action at Turkey.

Well okay, but I'll point out that F1 has had some very good races this year, none of them on a tilke designed track. co-incidence?

I'd only consider 2 of the races this year to be particularly good, one was Canada and the other Nurby. And Nurby was entirely due to the weather.

After that the only race that also offered overtaking was Bahrain, which is a Tilkedrome. Some of Tilke's tracks like Sepang and China are poor but the slightly more modern ones are a better. Blaming Tilke isn't really fair considering we get very little overtaking at "classic" tracks such as Silverstone.

Stig, I couldn't agree less on just about everything you have mentioned. It is 100% the cars. If the cars were changed, then we would hopefully see decent races like we saw in the late 90s. In those days, if you started at the back you could overtake and get through to the points. Hakkinen and Schumacher did at the A1-Ring, which was hardly a great circuit. Schumacher did at Suzuka. These days, on most tracks, that isn't possible. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 the Silverstone GP was brilliant, but in the last few years the races have been very poor. The track hasn't changed.

How is car design 'getting there'? The rules haven't been changed aero-wise, which is the problem, since 2005.

It's nothing to do with Tilke, you just seem to have a vendetta against him. An ill-advised vendetta I would say. Istanbul is a great track. You just don't like it because of who made it, which tbh I find a bit childish.

Plus, Eau Rouge is nothing now, it's only something when you crash.

I will always watc F1 whatever but once again i was left bored by the race.

I really thought it would be exciting as it has been in the past at Turkey but it was poor.

I hope next year with the banning of traction control this will improve.

Can not see Monza or Spa improving this unless we have a wet race <thumbsup>

Good result, but it was a boring race. 3

I was hoping Turkey would provide some excitement to bridge the gap between the two dullest races of the season, but it has failed miserably. 3 - but only because of Hamilton's blowout providing a bit of drama near the end.

I reckon you guys missed the close fighting and battles at Mangy cours and Indianapolis then. and even before that there was fighting over the the top spots - albiet never an actual overtake but still, it proves that the cars CAN run close together, and CAN overtake.

Circuits should not be designed to suit the cars, the cars should be designed to suit the circuits, that is true, but in F1 it appears that everyone blames the cars for their driver's poor performance or the cack handed efforts of a crazy man with a pencil. A machine cannot be blamed for a boring race, and I'll tell you why:

I maintain that a really good driver can take any car from any formula to a top 3 position within 10 races (on any circuits) of first driving that car. How many of the current F1 drivers would be able to do that?

Answer: not many. I'd say about 4 at most, and one of them is annoyingly called Lewis. (think about it, stepped straight into a McLaren and took it to a top 3 finish at his first race attempt???). There are many other drivers throughout motorsport who have achieved similar feats. I suspect that Valentino Rossi may well be able to perform the same sort of results should he ever add an extra 2 wheels to his portfolio (in fact, he already has won a rally). It would be most interesting to see Mr Hamilton at the wheel of a DTM car, Alonso armed with a GT1 endurance racer, Raikkonen in a rally (given he's a Finn, he'll probably win that), or Massa in... well anything.

By that logic, if F1 drivers really are the best in the world, 22 of them should be battling for the win. yet only 4 have any chance at all, and it is also painfully obvious that nearly all the winners have started from pole. Admittedly as I've already mentioned, they were challenged along the way, with the possible exception of at the Hungoraring. A truely awefull circuit which once again, produced a very boring race and Hamilton was never really threatened. He didn't even loose position in the pit stops!

Ah, that's another thing. Prehaps they need to look at pit stops again... Ban Refueling prehaps? reduce the number of mechanics to, say 5 and introduce individual rather than shared pit bays to prevent "queueing". This would also force the manufacturers to make the cars more fuel efficient, which will please the enviromonkeys.

Back to original point. and having read what I've said about the cars and the drivers, I'll now go and contradict myself a bit by bringing up my major gripe about F1 cars.

The cars are clearly too easy to drive! They are loaded up with driver aids which takes a lot of the skill away from car control. They even have power steering; a device I still maintain is for wimps. The semi automatic boxes also seem to negate the need for a great deal of co-ordination, and in any case the rev limiters and other associated electrickery will prevent any real damage being caused.

So yes, a really good driver should be able to take any car to a win - but when the cars are as easy to drive as a pedal car, what does that say about the drivers who are permamently at the back?

A Monkey could drive an F1 car these days. Oook Oook Oook!
*The STIG eats a banana.

I don't think it matters how easy the cars are to drive, the best drivers will still get a good deal more out of the car. Look at some of Schumacher's low fuel laps from last year (Turkey and Japan spring to mind), they were mind-blowing.

One thing you blatantly overlook is that the cars are designed individually and there is a large difference between the Ferrari and the Spyker.

Again I fail to see why you hate all F1 drivers. Who cares if they are only good at one form of motorsport? Why should they try their hand at another sport? Even if they wanted to, they are banned from doing so.

If you dislike F1 so much, cut all ties you have with it. Don't watch, don't read about it, don't join in on discussions about it. Then you won't be able to complain about it!

Good point. yes a good driver will definatly get more out of a car than a bad one.

Have I over looked that? One could also argue that there is a large difference between the drivers of both the Spyker and the Ferrari! Remember that all the cars are also built to the same set of regulations, from (broadly speaking) the same materials, and using the same, or at least very similar techniques.

I reverse the question. Why should they not try something else? And I've never heard of any driver banned from racing in more than one formula (by a governing body).

Incidentally. Being in F1 did not stop drivers like Stirling Moss from also competing in Fomula 2 (As was) Formula 3, Karting, rallying, sportscars, and many other motorsports. it also didn't do his career or driving ability any harm.

I maintain that it would be very interesting to watch a F1 driver flail around hopelessly in a GT 1 car...

Again, the misguided conception that I hate F1.

I don't. I want it to be the best motorsport there is. But at the moment it isn't, and it's all down to the fact it's run as a business rather than a sport. surely even you can see that?

I've seen even the most hard nosed F1 fan have the same complaints as me.

lol stig, youre about the only person on here who thinks you like F1

You want to go back to the "golden days" don't you? When motorsport was dangerous and sex was safe.

Oh how I yearn to see the 50s, 60s 70s and 80s again. When the only driver aids were three pedals, a PROPER gear lever (not these silly things they have now) and a steering wheel.

NASCAR has three pedals, four manual gears, carbureators, no driver aids and it is technically a throwback to the good old days. And, pretty good racing.

I don't know which series has the best drivers. But, F1 is the most technologically advanced. If you don't like the technology, then choose a different series to follow and support.

To comment, drop me a letter in the post written on your old Olivetti pica typewriter (no white out, correction tape, etc), put a few stamps on it and I'll read it in three weeks when it gets here by steamer. <flirt>

Stig, you are showing your lack of awareness of what actually goes on in F1.

Ferrari and Mclaren (and Toyota) have HUGE budgets. They can bring stacks of updates to each round, and test as much as the rules allow them to. As the money starts to fall (BMW, Williams, Red Bull, Renault, Honda), fewer updates. This means reduced performance. Then you get Super Aguri, STR and Spyker, who have maybe 1/3 to 1/4 of the budget of the top teams. This means they do not have 24-hour wind tunnels, do not have the finances to improve their cars at such a fast rate, and rarely go testing. Lack of finance, coupled with being a new team, means the staff are less capable and the drivers are there because they either have big sponsors or they have impressed sufficiently in a test to get a race seat. See how Klien, not a great driver but experienced in F1, was overlooked by Yamamoto, a distinctly average Japanese driver who hardly impressed last season but brings cash to the team.

If you think that all the cars are just about even, you have a screw loose, I'm afraid.

Onto drivers racing in other formulas. Their contracts do not allow it, in the case of teams like Mclaren. Plus Button broke ribs when racing a kart, forcing him to miss several test sessions. The most important test sessions. You also don't take into account the life of an F1 driver now. They have testing duties throughout the season and in the winter, sponsorship duties, team meetings, etc etc. You use the example of Moss, but when he drove, there weren't even 10 races on the calendar. There are now 17, soon to be 18, probably 20 plus in several years. Worldwide, not just european. Weekends clash. And it's sad that you have this (shall we say deluded?) thought that all F1 drivers have no talent? Why would they flap around hopelessly, if they raced in something else? And why do you always reverse the question so you don't have to answer something? Give me a reason why a F1 driver HAS to try his hand at something else during the season. Do WTCC drivers take part in Moto GP races? IRL drivers in Formula Ford? Doubt it, correct me if I am wrong.

As for you saying you don't hate F1, pull the other one. It's not misguided but having heard your views on it for the last 2 years or so. It seems you're stuck in the past, if you don't like modern F1, stay away from it! I wouldn't want to see F1 return to how it was in the 1980s because things evolve. I don't want to see manual gearing (go to IRL), lack of power steering (go to another form of motorsport) or deliberately restricted engines to slow the cars down (go to A1GP or GP2). Things move on. Only thing I want to see change in F1 is the reintroduction of overtaking, and at least there are signs that something positive is going to be done about it.

Well, the problem is that you *are* seeing restricted engines, in a manner of speaking, as the teams aren't allowed to develop them, *and* let's not forget that these engines last year were pulling 1000+ rpm more than they do now thanks to the 19K limiter as mandated by the FIA. So they've lopped a few hundred horses off by going down from 3.0 to 2.4 litres, and then a few more by slapping on a rev limit. I would have expected the engines to be back to the same sort of power levels as they were at the end of the 3.0 litre regs by the end of next season should they be unrestricted in revs and development, as the teams are always pushing out new bits.

There was something on autosport.com earlier this season saying that some components of the engine will be allowed to be changed next season...ie. relaxing the engine freeze rule.

Something like.... to reduce performance, teams may opt to use six cylinders instead of eight.....

<roflmao>

It's not that I yearn for the good old days, in fact I still enjoy F1 races, though it is noticable that F1 has become a tad processional these days. I don't mind there being technology, the early 90's were quite exciting despite the presence of very advanced (for the time) driver aids. All I want it for the cars to be able to overtake each other. Recent steps by the FIA have had a negative effect on overtaking, like the afore-mentioned engine limitations and the introduction of narrow cars and grooved tyres. Clearly the FIA aren't that bothered about overtaking (remember mad max saying that F1 didn't need overtaking to be entertaining?). Many of these rule and other restrictions have force the designers to use complex aerodynamics to replace any lost grip. The way to get overtaking back in F1 is not to go back into the past, it is to remove these silly negative rules and allow innovation again.

This group 'led' by Pat Symonds should know what they are doing. Of course we are relying on what ever they come up with being allowed by the FIA. it's clear that when things are left down to the FIA only, they screw up.

We duh! If everything was left down to Mad max, F1 would have a similar fate to group C.

It would be great if Max left his president role, there have been a couple of chances to get rid of him but nobody else decided to go for the role <no>

I hope that doesn't happen again at the next election. Be interesting to see what changes a new president would bring.

I think Max's plan is to step down at the end of the current presidential term, which is (I think) in 2009. Unfortunately Jean Toad is currently favourite to succeed him, which may well mean more of the same regarding acting as a yes-man for the whims of the manufacturers. In my "opinion piece" on the Motorsports Business board I mentioned that the FIA needed a new direction regarding manufacturers, and I think a sufficiently strong-willed president could provide that direction.

JMB please come back, all is forgiven! <roflmao>

Indeed. The major gripe towards Balestre, as I understand it, was the blatant favouritism towards French drivers (i.e. Prost). I doubt he would have tried to destroy motorsport entirely, as Max has done with Group C, and is fast doing with WRC and F1.

Sort of...

I'm not adverse to technology by the way, provided it doesn't take away any of the driver's skill. which most of it does, unfortunatly.

Also, whilst I adore the cars from those eras, the modern cars are so much safer than their "Ancestors". That's got to be a good thing

SAFC Fan, it has taken you around 4 postings to come up with a decent argument! The solution to your first point is clear - Cap the budget of the teams, and freeze car development at the start of the year. it should be the driver who makes the difference between winning and loosing, and no blaming it on the car either! When I was racing, albeit in RC cars, I never used to blame the car for my crap efforts as it's driver - even if it did let me down occasionally (once whilst leading a race at Donington, but that was because I made a mistake)

also, some formulas have an equivulency system, the WTCC, FIA GTs and several others. Call it handicapping if you like, but it ensures that all the cars are of broadly similar performance even if one's been built in a garden shed and the other in a huge factory. Probably in Banbury. It doesn't stop the innovation of the teams, and the racing is all the better for it. If they can do it, then why can't F1?

Drivers driving in other formulas... well...

James Thompson - Works driver for Vauxhall racing, also competed in the British Rally championship for Mitsubishi. Became known as the ditchmeister due to constant crashes (this turned up on his touring car)
Dale Earndhart Jnr - DEI racing driver in the NASCAR Nextel Cup. Also competed in ALMS in a GT1 Corvette. and got burnt.
Rob Huff - Works driver for Chevrolet WTCC team - also races a MG Midget in the MGOC racing series on his days off. and competed in the Silverstone 24 hours last year. And started it too.
Colin Turkington - Driver for West Surrey Racing, BTCC - Also competes in Ford Fiesta racing.
Michel Allamuller - Driver for Carlin Motorsport FRWS, previously ART GP2 team, Also test and demonstration driver for Red Bull Racing F1 team.
Sebastien Vettel - Formerly Driver for Carlin Motorsport FRWS team, Also test and reserve driver for BMW Sauber F1 team.
Tim Harvey - Porsche Supercup driver, at one point was also driving for VLR in BTCC on the same weekends!
Kassy Watson - Ginetta Junior driver also competing in Saxmax.
Adrian Newey (okay, not a driver), Red Bull racing designer - drives a GT40 in historic events, and competed in this year's Le Mans 24 hours with a Ferrari.
And so the list goes on...

Now if that lot can do it... why can't messers Hamilton, Massa, Raikkonen et all do it? either because they're scared of being shown up, or cowardly hide behind convinently restrictive contracts. Cynical, moi?

In fact. look at the race of Champions results. recently, only one circuit racer has won it. and he was Mattias Elkstrom. Michael Schumacher was beaten by (then) Renault world series champion Heikki Kovalinen!
(And Coulthard keeps getting knocked out in the first round)

Belive it or not though, I do still follow modern day F1 despite all that in the crazy hope that one day, it may actually produce a decent race. at the moment it appears that the current crop of F1 drivers could not produce this even if they were all given shopping trolleys. There are a few talents in F1 which are wasted on such an easy sport.

F1 drivers joining other series just isn't possible these days, like SAFC fan says earlier they have too many committements, from testing to attending sponsorship events. These things take alot of their time up

Like as an F1 driver isn't that easy as people are made to believe.

And F1 races will often fall on the same day as other major events, for instance you can't compete in F1 and champcar at the same time, it just isn't possiblem surely people can see that.

Alot of the examples you give are in low profile areas of motorsport and in alot of those cases not world championships so huge air miles aren't neccessary to be able to compete in more than one championship and things like sponsorship and testing don't play a huge part.

Also there is a commercial aspect to this, for instance Vodafone give alot of money to mclaren as part of their deal and they use Lewis Hamilton in their adverts, say Lewis decides to race in DTM too and gets injured and can't race in F1 for a while then Vodafone lose out because they have Hamilton in their adverts but with him not racing the adverts won't have the affect and Vodafone will want to spot paying Mclaren money and it all becomes mess.

I haven't explained that very well but I hope you see what point I am making.


However alot of F1 drivers jump at the chance to do other things once they retire from F1, like Hakkinen in DTM, Villeneuve has now joined NASCAR.

IF drivers had the time during their F1 careers and their sponsors allowed my opinion is that some would join other championships at the same time. They are all racers, they are in racing because they enjoy it.

Stig

lets not forget Brundle, Warwick, Winkelhock (Manfred) and Bellof. Great in sports cars, OK(ish) in F1. Though Belloffs and Winkelhocks deaths put paid to F1 drivers racing other series.

Stig, if you cap development completely and stop development beyond the first race, then goodbye to F1. It's very well saying the cars should be equal, but if everything was equal, I am 100% sure I would lose the passion I have for F1. The fact that everyone designs their own car, everyone spends crazy amounts of money just to improve by 0.1 seconds, the fact that if a team wants to be successful they have to work extremely hard...that's what separates it from any other single seater series. I'd hate to see F1 become a one-car series.

Plus, point about driving in other series'. Can you explain why F1 drivers should? Maybe they just don't want to. Nothing about being scared of not doing well. They have won series, in some cases hammered the other drivers (Hamilton for example) in order to get to F1. They have nothing to prove. I still don't think you understand the demands of modern F1. It's totally different to F1 from the 1960s. Taking part in a touring car series has nothing like the demands of taking part in F1. Drivers are also allowed a break.

And please, please, give a good reason for your hate of F1 drivers. Why do you think they are all rubbish drivers? I detect major jealousy.

With all due respect, I think that is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read on this forum. Do you think the drivers enjoy driving cars which are almost impossible to overtake in? In 2 consecutive press conferences, Raikkonen has commented on how modern F1 racing is dull. Not his fault. The cars' faults. If you can't see that, and decide to instead bash the drivers, then I feel sorry for you.

Easy sport? You go and get yourself a seat then. No practice, get yourself a seat and win the title. If you think it is easy you will win every race. Good luck.

Couldn't have said that better myself <clap>

And the other thing if you cap car development at the beginning of the season what happens if one team is one second ahead at the first race?

They will be 1 second ahead all season making this rule proposal an even bigger load of rubbish.

Development throughout the season is what makes the sport unique, F1 shouldn't just be a jazzed up GP2 series.

Again, I couldn't have that better myself.

F1 drivers take part in loads of motorsports to get to F1, they don't just go straight in there and are fast out of the box.

Also people really need to understand how fit you have to be to take part in a F1 race, its the equivalent of running a marathon, in places, like Malaysia with all the humid conditions the demands are even higher.

Some drivers take part in loads of series to get to F1. others get their opportunites on a plate.

There is no excuse for going straight from F3 to F1! yet several drivers have done just that.

I maintain my view that F1 drivers are too reliant upon their car's technology. Maybe drivers like Coulthard and Barrichello are less reliant upon it. Put an F1 car in a machine which fights back like a Le Mans Prototype, and they'll flail around like a goldfish in a frying pan.

Traction control takes away the fine control of the throttle and the clutch. Semi automatic gearboxes removes the need for co-ordination (I've nothing against paddles, but at least have a proper clutch!), power steering means that the cars steer easier than my little Peugeot. The cars even prevent the drivers from speeding in the pit lane, so the drivers can't even tell how fast they're going without electronics!

Is that right? Surely F1 should be more of a challenge than driving to the shops.

the only factor which determines wether you get a F1 seat or not is money. Come to that that's the only factor which determines wether you get a race licence in the first place!

Right. F1 is easy. Also, F1 cars can be driven by monkies. Both your comments. Therefore, you can be F1 champion next year, because as best I can tell, you think you're better than a monkey.

Or maybe not......

<dunce>

I believe that Mr Stig has forgotten the F1 drivers have driven things other than F1 cars before they got hired, most of which don't have TC, PAS etc. But because F1 drivers don't take part in races at farmyards like most of the tracks he goes rag-waving at, it makes them inferior and untalented.

Let's put him and Michael Schumacher/Fernando Alonso/Nigel Mansell in a go-kart and see who looks like they're flailing about like said goldfish. Not the ones who can add WDC to their reportoire.....

What a good idea!

Be sure to include Lewis in the kart race...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l55ENjwBX-Y

As to "Tracks like farmyards" I strongly suggest you visit one such track to see how wrong you are. With the exception maybe of Silverstone - which actually does have a farmyard as part of the circuit complex (hence the corner called Farm).

And I have not said anything about drivers driving anything before F1 - but during their time in F1. Certainly they have. and also certainly some of the F1 drivers of now have missed out a few vital steps in their path.

Yes, I have said that. Lend me a few thousand pounds and I'll have a go and see what happens.

Not going to happen is it?

Actually, it wasn't me who came up with the "Monkies" quote

Blame Niki Lauda, and Nigel Mansell - both Drivers who could actually drive - for that

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...08/ai_n12850958