Formula 1: I don't get it

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

Sunny, a bit of water on the drying track and the xxxxing safety car is still out after 5 laps from the start, what a bl00dy joke

This about sums up much of what I read in the last few pages.

I've read a lot on these forums about the intricacies and tactics of pro road racing, much of it written (I guess) by some people who have done a bit of club racing in their time. Having done a bit of it yourself, you get some idea of what the pro end of the sport is about. And, with bike racing, you can pretty much buy the kit the pros are using which takes you that bit closer.

I'm a life-long professional engineer and I've done 60-70 car races. I'm in total awe of the cars, drivers and teams in F1. I was at Silverstone today with my kids. I absolutely understand why they started the race under the safety car - it took nothing away from the race and almost certainly prevented a big smash on the first lap. I was watching at Becketts where there was practically a river across the track. Becketts is one of the most epic corners in F1 - watching an F1 through there is mind blowing.

The cars are incredible. The complexity of the systems that mean they are delivering such massive power at such incredible efficiency (and generally, reliability) is stunning. You might not like it (it seems many cyclists are anti technology anyway) but it is incredible.

As for the drivers, they are equally amazing. There's a lot of crap talked about the drivers and, in particular, how rally drivers like Loebe are more skilled. I recently watched Loebe doing some rally-cross and he was pretty ordinary in the field. I'm not saying F1 drivers are better - but they are as good. And the modern guys need to use their brains: managing tyres, battery power, diff and brake settings and fuel, all within a lap - whilst pulling over 5G - and occasionally doing some racing.

Today I watched Max Vestappen drive around the outside of Rosberg on the wet - utterly stunning talent.

So, like any sport: when 135,000 people turn up and pay considerable money to watch a sport you don't get - it's probably because you don't understand it and not because it's boring.

MotoGP is also incredible. BTCC to is just dodgems for the masses. Some skilled drivers but punting other drivers off might be a good spectacle but it isn't racing.

pinno

I wish they would go back to the 1 hour qualification, then it would be more interesting.

Moto GP round Laguna Seca was spectacular. F1 has become too processional and over regulated. Engine restrictions (number of), tyre restrictions, pitting restrictions.
Eurosport used to cover the Sugino cup (Japanese GT 500). That was neck and neck proper racing throughout. Facilitated by weight and power restriction and a homologation requirement but not a lot else.

ugo.santalucia

It's a funny thing F1... as a kid in the days of Villeneuve and Co. the GP was something unmissable on TV... these days I don't know a single person who is even remotely interested in F1, let alone watch the GP... yet Sky paid a lot of money to get the TV rights, so there must be plenty of folks who do... but who?

norvernrob

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Sunny, a bit of water on the drying track and the xxxxing safety car is still out after 5 laps from the start, what a bl00dy joke

This about sums up much of what I read in the last few pages.

I've read a lot on these forums about the intricacies and tactics of pro road racing, much of it written (I guess) by some people who have done a bit of club racing in their time. Having done a bit of it yourself, you get some idea of what the pro end of the sport is about. And, with bike racing, you can pretty much buy the kit the pros are using which takes you that bit closer.

I'm a life-long professional engineer and I've done 60-70 car races. I'm in total awe of the cars, drivers and teams in F1. I was at Silverstone today with my kids. I absolutely understand why they started the race under the safety car - it took nothing away from the race and almost certainly prevented a big smash on the first lap. I was watching at Becketts where there was practically a river across the track. Becketts is one of the most epic corners in F1 - watching an F1 through there is mind blowing.

The cars are incredible. The complexity of the systems that mean they are delivering such massive power at such incredible efficiency (and generally, reliability) is stunning. You might not like it (it seems many cyclists are anti technology anyway) but it is incredible.

As for the drivers, they are equally amazing. There's a lot of crap talked about the drivers and, in particular, how rally drivers like Loebe are more skilled. I recently watched Loebe doing some rally-cross and he was pretty ordinary in the field. I'm not saying F1 drivers are better - but they are as good. And the modern guys need to use their brains: managing tyres, battery power, diff and brake settings and fuel, all within a lap - whilst pulling over 5G - and occasionally doing some racing.

Today I watched Max Vestappen drive around the outside of Rosberg on the wet - utterly stunning talent.

So, like any sport: when 135,000 people turn up and pay considerable money to watch a sport you don't get - it's probably because you don't understand it and not because it's boring.

MotoGP is also incredible. BTCC to is just dodgems for the masses. Some skilled drivers but punting other drivers off might be a good spectacle but it isn't racing.

Neither is being unable to do anything purely because your tyres are older than the guy in front or behind.

I was a big F1 fan for many years, but the complete dominance of a single team over the last few years (RB then Mercedes) has just made it uninteresting for me.

I've 'get it' and I've got plenty of understanding of the capabilities of these cars - but following each other around a track with the odd bit of artificial overtaking down a long straight isn't entertainment I'm afraid.

The mass of rule and technical changes over the last few years (that are still continuing now) shows that Bernie knows it needs an overhaul too.

FocusZing

Boring to watch, drivers are in different media trained world. Complete contrast to the Isle of man TT.

kingstongraham

I haven't watched it for years. I think the point at which they decided that all vehicles needed a piece of wood strapped to the bottom to stop them getting too much grip was when I started to lose interest. Now they are forced to have "tyre strategy" aren't they? Made to use inefficient tyres at some point to make it interesting. They are neither the fastest possible cars, nor similar enough to each other to make it a test of driver ability.

meanredspider

NorvernRob wrote:

Neither is being unable to do anything purely because your tyres are older than the guy in front or behind.

I was a big F1 fan for many years, but the complete dominance of a single team over the last few years (RB then Mercedes) has just made it uninteresting for me.

I've 'get it' and I've got plenty of understanding of the capabilities of these cars - but following each other around a track with the odd bit of artificial overtaking down a long straight isn't entertainment I'm afraid.

The mass of rule and technical changes over the last few years (that are still continuing now) shows that Bernie knows it needs an overhaul too.

I don't think there's a form of motor racing where looking after your tyres in one form or another doesn't play a part in the race. Many years ago I watched a Beetle (Herbie style) race where, 2/3rds of the way through the race, the tyres started to give up - it was mayhem. I lost a race at Silverstone a couple of years back because my tyres were giving up and the car chasing me (same except for wider tyres) beat me. MotoGP and BTCC both have tyre management.

As for "the golden age" - it's great that so many old races get shown - there was sooooo much less overtaking in pretty much any previous era you'd like to mention than there is now.

As for artificial overtaking, there's plenty of the "real" stuff - Vestappen's on Rosberg being a prime example.

The key reason the rules need overhauling is economic. There's too much of a gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots - that said, there's only 1 team with no points this season which suggests things are getting better. F1 has to walk the tightrope of being the pinnacle of the sport without being cripplingly expensive to enter.

KingstonGraham wrote:

I haven't watched it for years. I think the point at which they decided that all vehicles needed a piece of wood strapped to the bottom to stop them getting too much grip was when I started to lose interest. Now they are forced to have "tyre strategy" aren't they? Made to use inefficient tyres at some point to make it interesting. They are neither the fastest possible cars, nor similar enough to each other to make it a test of driver ability.

Again, just about every form of Motorsport has artificial restrictions. The series I race in forces the use of 60-profile tyres - my car is significantly faster on the 50-profile version. So long as the rules are the same for everyone, it's a competition of driver and technical skill - it always has been even in the one-make series. Short of randomly assigning cars to drivers on the grid, it will always be that way.

mamba80

MRS i agree the racing in the end was great but the point is, the drivers themselves were getting frustrated and wanted to race, that in itself can lead to crashes, once drivers are released, look at LH when he almost hit the safety car? everything carries risk, inc sking - what you appear to be arguing for is to eliminate risk in F1, this attitude explains why it is losing popularity.
i ve raced on and off road m/c's doesnt make me an expert anymore than it does you, our experience in irrelevant classes of motorsport give us no more insight into F1 than me having done a few bike races makes me an expert on pro cycling.

your barbed comment about me being anti technology because i dont like DI2 ? dont be ridiculous, you dont know me at all.

i dont like DI2 on a road bike because imho (and i am allowed one) it offers nothing, on a TT bike a def advantage and IF SRAM proves to be reliable, i ll be getting V2

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

MRS i agree the racing in the end was great but the point is, the drivers themselves were getting frustrated and wanted to race, that in itself can lead to crashes, once drivers are released, look at LH when he almost hit the safety car? everything carries risk, inc sking - what you appear to be arguing for is to eliminate risk in F1, this attitude explains why it is losing popularity.
i ve raced on and off road m/c's doesnt make me an expert anymore than it does you, our experience in irrelevant classes of motorsport give us no more insight into F1 than me having done a few bike races makes me an expert on pro cycling.

your barbed comment about me being anti technology because i dont like DI2 ? dont be ridiculous, you dont know me at all.

i dont like DI2 on a road bike because imho (and i am allowed one) it offers nothing, on a TT bike a def advantage and IF SRAM proves to be reliable, i ll be getting V2

First of all - PMSL at the Di2 comment. You're right, I have no idea about you at all or your position on Di2 - which is why it never crossed my mind at all. I just quoted your post as an example and my response wasn't aimed at you at all - I could have quoted 20 posts.

F1 is and was ALL about technology. Which is why it's great that there are two cars in each team - to give you a reference and to ensure a degree of driver vs driver competition all the way through the field.

I'm also not saying we should eliminate the risk in F1 - nothing of the sort. I'm not an F1 driver but my 60-70 races are about the huge buzz it gives me and much of that is that there is risk (I once measured my HR in a race - it hit 183bpm). What I don't see the point in is unnecessary risk - especially where it will take cars out of the race: races without cars in it are pretty dull whether it's 2CVs or F1.

As for losing popularity, there were 135,000 people at Silverstone and one of the biggest crowds in a very long time. Part of the reason it's losing popularity in some circles is because you only get second-rate coverage on terrestrial TV - often just the highlights. WRC has disappeared because of the lack of coverage.

pinno

I just wonder that the over-regulation suits the teams with the biggest R&D budget. After all, they have the money to maximise any advantage however large or small.
Teams with lower budgets buy last years Ferrari or Williams engine. It's hardly a level playing field. How much of an obstacle of getting into F1 for a manufacturer is the sheer scale of the R&D budget with ever changing rules.
Why have massive tyre restrictions? Why have engine restrictions (number of)? Yes, fuel restrictions because we don't want American Champ car racing.

meanredspider

Pinno wrote:

I just wonder that the over-regulation suits the teams with the biggest R&D budget. After all, they have the money to maximise any advantage however large or small.
Teams with lower budgets buy last years Ferrari or Williams engine. It's hardly a level playing field. How much of an obstacle of getting into F1 for a manufacturer is the sheer scale of the R&D budget with ever changing rules.
Why have massive tyre restrictions? Why have engine restrictions (number of)? Yes, fuel restrictions because we don't want American Champ car racing.

Next year teams must supply the same engines as they themselves are using. As for small advantages, it was ever thus (one-make racing is all about budget). Haas (a brand new team) have actually done pretty well this year (albeit with a pretty large budget). I'm not sure that there are massive tyre restrictions. Teams get to choose a combination of 3 types of tyre over the weekend. The number of engine restriction is to keep costs down. In previous eras they threw engines away like tyres with a new engine used just for qualifying then binned. The restrictions are at least driving some trickle-down into road cars.

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I just wonder that the over-regulation suits the teams with the biggest R&D budget. After all, they have the money to maximise any advantage however large or small.
Teams with lower budgets buy last years Ferrari or Williams engine. It's hardly a level playing field. How much of an obstacle of getting into F1 for a manufacturer is the sheer scale of the R&D budget with ever changing rules.
Why have massive tyre restrictions? Why have engine restrictions (number of)? Yes, fuel restrictions because we don't want American Champ car racing.

Next year teams must supply the same engines as they themselves are using. As for small advantages, it was ever thus (one-make racing is all about budget). Haas (a brand new team) have actually done pretty well this year (albeit with a pretty large budget). I'm not sure that there are massive tyre restrictions. Teams get to choose a combination of 3 types of tyre over the weekend. The number of engine restriction is to keep costs down. In previous eras they threw engines away like tyres with a new engine used just for qualifying then binned. The restrictions are at least driving some trickle-down into road cars.

why do they need hybrid/energy recovery systems? isnt that just adding huge costs to the teams?

my original rant was at the frustration at the nannying of F1, there was nt that much rain on the track and everyone was on full wets
yep have a rolling start but let the drivers race, thats clearly what they want and its them who r taking the risks.
the rain is the one great leveller in F1 and in the past we ve seen smaller n slower teams do very well, but imho by effectively neutralising the wet conditions, we ended up with a Mclaren 1n2 again, ok there was a tech infringement which knocked Nico back but you get my point.

rick_chasey

I do think they ought to design the tyres and the cars so that they can handle standing water.

I mean, guys, it rains, sometimes hard.

If your road car can drive in the conditions and the F1 cars can't, it ruins the spectacle. These guys earn a lot and we keep getting told they're the best in the world. Let's see it. They ought to be able to drive in the wet.

We all remember races like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc787HaONwE - I don't think we get those races anymore because it's all behind the safety car.

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

why do they need hybrid/energy recovery systems? isnt that just adding huge costs to the teams?

my original rant was at the frustration at the nannying of F1, there was nt that much rain on the track and everyone was on full wets
yep have a rolling start but let the drivers race, thats clearly what they want and its them who r taking the risks.
the rain is the one great leveller in F1 and in the past we ve seen smaller n slower teams do very well, but imho by effectively neutralising the wet conditions, we ended up with a Mclaren 1n2 again, ok there was a tech infringement which knocked Nico back but you get my point.

It does add cost but it is also the way that road cars are going - with Porsche, McLaren, BMW and even Honda putting them together. Without that level of sophistication, they risk being nothing much more than GP2 cars.

I was sat at Becketts which sits with places like Eau Rouge for being a spectacularly fast corner. I took the pic



There was loads of standing water in the zone where they lift - a crash there would be more than spectacular. Even Lewis Hamilton said about that section when it was drying that he was faster than Rosberg through it because he had bigger balls. We lost a lap or two more than some would have liked but it didn't materially impact the outcome of the race. Besides that, few of the driver think the extreme wet tyre is any good - Vettel was particularly vocal about it. You'll never make a tyre that prevents aquaplaning at 230mph - I'd imagine water alone has too much inertia.

I watched the latest MotoGP race from Assen - stopped because of the rain. Even on the drier restart The Doctor went down. Lots of talk of tyres there too - with spare bikes set up for tyre changes.

Silverstone was wet enough. Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Raikonnen (all champions) went off. The cream still rose to the top. You have to remember that Jules Bianchi died pretty recently too. F1 doesn't need that. I certainly don't want that.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

If your road car can drive in the conditions and the F1 cars can't, it ruins the spectacle..

That was exactly the issue at the beginning: the Safety Car (a Merc GT road car) simply couldn't handle the conditions. I think it was the second lap that even Hamilton said it was too wet and he's one of the wet weather talents (pulling 3 seconds on the field on the first lap of real racing)

rick_chasey

Ja but come on. When I was a superfan in the '90s I remember Brazil one year starting behind the safety car and it was a big deal since they hadn't done it for years.

I remember that because it was the only time.

Nowadays it's every wet race.

Monaco this year was a joke. Barely had done 5 laps before you could use inters.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ja but come on. When I was a superfan in the '90s I remember Brazil one year starting behind the safety car and it was a big deal since they hadn't done it for years.

I remember that because it was the only time.

Nowadays it's every wet race.

Monaco this year was a joke. Barely had done 5 laps before you could use inters.

Wasn't it in similar conditions that Lauda was nearly killed?

I was at Spa in the 90s (97?) and there was a very similar downpour just before the start and that started under the safety car in pretty much exactly the same as last weekend - no fuss involved. With races at places like Singapore and Malaysia (where it never rains but pours), it's become more common.

Two things about the extreme wets:
1. If the race starts under the safety car, cars have to be fitted with extremes
2. As I wrote earlier, they aren't meant to be very good whereas the inters are good - the cars swap quickly.

I like to see wet racing but I'm a bit surprised by the fuss about exactly when the safety car came in - I don't think a couple of laps made any difference to the outcome of the race.

mamba80

the hybrid engines add massive cost to the teams, you cant compare this to commercially available cars, which presumably either make a profit or are loss leaders for tech.

I dont think anyone is saying F1 needs more deaths and the track and car safety features have saved many lives without detracting from the racing, though the new cockpit guard they seem intent on fitting is a step too far.

the drivers dont have to do 230mph through standing water do they? they are supposed to be the best and you d expect them to be able to handle rain and drive to the conditions, much like a WRC driver does in the snow/ice.

we dont know what would have happened if the race had started from the grid, a lesser car could have made a great start, we dont know because it didnt happen! and at the very least we could have had a more exciting earlier race, with smaller teams mixing it with the McClarens etc.

Despite being far slower, Aussie v8 super car racing is far more exciting and F1 needs to wake up.

izza

Pinno wrote:

I just wonder that the over-regulation suits the teams with the biggest R&D budget. After all, they have the money to maximise any advantage however large or small.
Teams with lower budgets buy last years Ferrari or Williams engine. It's hardly a level playing field. How much of an obstacle of getting into F1 for a manufacturer is the sheer scale of the R&D budget with ever changing rules.
Why have massive tyre restrictions? Why have engine restrictions (number of)? Yes, fuel restrictions because we don't want American Champ car racing.

You can't expect a level playing field in a sports entertainment circus. As confirmed by ex-F1 drivers, it is as fixed as WWE. Much prefer to watch 24 Le Mans.

meanredspider

The development of this tech does trickle down to road cars - it's expensive but that's why there's penalties for using too many. It also vastly improves the performance without the need for big thirsty engines. Additionally it makes the acceptability of the tech on road cars much more appealing.

I know you mean Mercedes but you keep referring to McLaren who have been really struggling relative to their comparative might. And, whilst a lap or more extra of wet racing might have shaken up the order, it would have settled back down again. It was definitely too wet to do a standing start: the combination of loads of standing water, poor visibility, hybrid engines and manual launch would have been really pretty dangerous. I don't want to see 5 or more cars out of the race before the first lap is done either.

meanredspider

izza wrote:

As confirmed by ex-F1 drivers, it is as fixed as WWE.

Have you got the references for that?

lostboysaint

I'm afraid all of MRS credibility went down the toilet when he made the comment about Loeb. I'd suggest you pop off to check out the times from when he did a session in the RB as a bit of a "thank you" for winning yet another WRC. First time in the car and beating regular F1 drivers, so much so that he ended up doing a tyre testing session in the afternoon.

The rest of the comments were an engineer speaking, not someone who wants to see the best driver win. It's become an exercise in risk management taken by the organisers and promoters and not the drivers.

Note that Lewis also told Charlie Whiting that "it's good to go Charlie" on the radio TWO LAPS before they were eventually allowed to go racing.

meanredspider

lostboysaint wrote:

I'm afraid all of MRS credibility went down the toilet when he made the comment about Loeb. I'd suggest you pop off to check out the times from when he did a session in the RB as a bit of a "thank you" for winning yet another WRC. First time in the car and beating regular F1 drivers, so much so that he ended up doing a tyre testing session in the afternoon.

The rest of the comments were an engineer speaking, not someone who wants to see the best driver win. It's become an exercise in risk management taken by the organisers and promoters and not the drivers.

Note that Lewis also told Charlie Whiting that "it's good to go Charlie" on the radio TWO LAPS before they were eventually allowed to go racing.

If he's such a stunning driver, why is he so average in rally X? Why isn't he in F1? Racing combines more than just outright speed. That's where Max excels - in wheel-to-wheel racing. But, anyway it's a bit of a moot point.

No - I'm a racer too and put my health on the line when I race. I watched a guy being recovered from a badly-smashed car behind suspended blankets during my last race weekend. He was thankfully ok but it brings home that these are real people and real lives. Contrast that with the fuss about disc brakes in pro cycling.

Yup - I heard Lewis saying it's good to go. He was, however, in the prime position. There were other comments (including, I think, one from Lewis earlier) saying it was too wet with lots of standing water. We're realistically debating about 3 minutes of racing being denied us....

awavey

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ja but come on. When I was a superfan in the '90s I remember Brazil one year starting behind the safety car and it was a big deal since they hadn't done it for years.

I remember that because it was the only time.

Nowadays it's every wet race.

Monaco this year was a joke. Barely had done 5 laps before you could use inters.

Wasn't it in similar conditions that Lauda was nearly killed?

I was at Spa in the 90s (97?) and there was a very similar downpour just before the start and that started under the safety car in pretty much exactly the same as last weekend - no fuss involved. With races at places like Singapore and Malaysia (where it never rains but pours), it's become more common.

Two things about the extreme wets:
1. If the race starts under the safety car, cars have to be fitted with extremes
2. As I wrote earlier, they aren't meant to be very good whereas the inters are good - the cars swap quickly.

I like to see wet racing but I'm a bit surprised by the fuss about exactly when the safety car came in - I don't think a couple of laps made any difference to the outcome of the race.

which says alot for the state of current f1.

you know the real reason why the extremes dont work as well and theres so much more risk of aquaplaning, theres a rule in F1that post qualifying cars are under parc ferme conditions till the race starts,so you cannot change the car setup except with permission of the race stewards to replace broken bits.

so they are all sitting on the grid with their best "dry" race setups, they cant soften the springs, change the downforce,rollbars,ride height of the car anything, all the things you used to do for a wet race that made wet weather standing starts possible and racing in the wet safe and aquaplaning unlikely.

they are all stuck on the gamble for dry setups and thats why you never hear anymore drivers complaining about setup in changeable weather races that start wet wearing out their dry tyres more quickly later on.

RallyBiker

meanredspider wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

I'm afraid all of MRS credibility went down the toilet when he made the comment about Loeb. I'd suggest you pop off to check out the times from when he did a session in the RB as a bit of a "thank you" for winning yet another WRC. First time in the car and beating regular F1 drivers, so much so that he ended up doing a tyre testing session in the afternoon.

The rest of the comments were an engineer speaking, not someone who wants to see the best driver win. It's become an exercise in risk management taken by the organisers and promoters and not the drivers.

Note that Lewis also told Charlie Whiting that "it's good to go Charlie" on the radio TWO LAPS before they were eventually allowed to go racing.

If he's such a stunning driver, why is he so average in rally X? Why isn't he in F1? Racing combines more than just outright speed. That's where Max excels - in wheel-to-wheel racing. But, anyway it's a bit of a moot point.

No - I'm a racer too and put my health on the line when I race. I watched a guy being recovered from a badly-smashed car behind suspended blankets during my last race weekend. He was thankfully ok but it brings home that these are real people and real lives. Contrast that with the fuss about disc brakes in pro cycling.

Yup - I heard Lewis saying it's good to go. He was, however, in the prime position. There were other comments (including, I think, one from Lewis earlier) saying it was too wet with lots of standing water. We're realistically debating about 3 minutes of racing being denied us....

Loab was the best driver out there. You obviously haven't a clue and are probably an armchair warrior. You get ANY of the current F1 drivers out on Rally of Finland and it would be carnage. Raikkonen is handy in F1, but he couldn't hack it in WRC, Kubita has had to pack it in also as he was getting nowhere and going through cars at an astronomical rate because of crashes.

Anonymous

But then why aren't they in f1 where there's more money? It's a different discipline which may explain the difference in ability between WRC and F1 but if you have the skill why would you not go for f1 (paid drives excluded)

rick_chasey

Need to sort out the wet weather tyres.

Shambles.

RallyBiker

coriordan wrote:

But then why aren't they in f1 where there's more money? It's a different discipline which may explain the difference in ability between WRC and F1 but if you have the skill why would you not go for f1 (paid drives excluded)

Why would you go to F1?? You tell me. There are vast amounts of motorsport disciplines out there. Why does Michael Dunlop choose to do the TT when he could be going round in circles like Rossi. Even more mind blowing, why does he go stage rallying as a hobby. Open top car racing is not the be all and end all. In fact it's a little tame compared to most forms of motorsport.

norvernrob

Turn the Grand Prix on now and tell me it's exciting - I've had it on for 10 minutes since I got in from a ride and I'm bored senseless already. And I used to love F1, used to get up in the middle of the night to watch the Australian GP.

It's absolute pants.

iPete

Turn on Sky and watch the 'classic races' and tell me they were exciting.

I've done this a few times (and watched myself since '95) and I can only conclude that a lot of people are wearing rose tinted glasses. The racing is much closer now.

Perhaps F1 hasn't kept pace with peoples expectations of entertainment?