What you've done here is you listed the worst bits from ANY kind of motorsport. You could replace the word F1 with V8s, Nascar, Indy, DTM, BTCC, LeMans, GP2, MotoGP, etc.
I think you're trying way too hard to justify your dislike of Formula 1.
F1 is the soccer of motorsports. You have to be ok with less passing to enjoy F1 just like you have to be ok with less scoring to enjoy soccer. Monaco is lame from a racing perspective and anyone that follows F1 knows this. Watch a race like Suzuka or Spa if you want to see really interesting races. Alternatively, catch a rain race (like Malaysia almost every year).
What Would Jeremy Do?
I try to get into F1 every year. I always get excited, catch the first couple races, and then lose interest. Who's on pole again and what are the chances he makes a big enough mistake to let someone by?
Who would have thought the best drivers in the world with virtually unlimited budgets and a grand prix track in Monaco could be so boring compared to the b-teamers circling an oval in the midwest?
That is not just Monaco. That is F1. You win in F1 in qualifying and in the pits. You don't win on the race track. That is why I called it a motorized Conga line. It is.
I'm not a die-hard F1 fan like my brother (who sometimes stays up to watch it live even though he can record it on the DVR), but I think it's the most fascinating form of racing.
As someone who studied aerodynamics in grad school, the aero packages on these cars is really interesting to me, and I know how long it takes to tweak things in the wind tunnel to get that extra pound of down force. Not to say aerodynamics aren't important in other forms, but the level of fidelity in the F1 cars seems to be the highest.
I agree that no passing doesn't make it REALLY fun to watch, but I don't think it makes it boring either. I guess for me the amount of engineering, strategy, and technology that goes into it (e.g. 18000 RPMs) is what intrigues me and makes me watch from time to time.
The fact that pole winners typically become race winners just shows the importance of qualifying, so maybe just stick to watching the qualifying sessions.
Last edited by kiznarsh; 05-28-2012 at 02:18 PM.
Your criticism of F1 is very subjective and you are too much of a patriot.
The only reason Indy 500 had so many lead changes is because they ran on an oval. Did you see that many lead changes in the previous races when they ran on street circuits? The answer is NO.
Did the pole sitting drivers win the races? The answer is YES for the most part.
Does this sound similar to F1? The answer is YES.
Sounds like you are judging F1 based only on this one race in Monaco. The fact that the track is so tight is the culprit of low passing rates, not because F1 is boring.
It's also a logic that the higher you qualify, the higher you should come out in a race. The only way to get more passing is when you do reverse grid start, but that's another topic.
Meanwhile in the Sportscar race I caught yesterday, the Kia team running 1 and 2 on the last lap for GTS collided while be too competitive! They are on the same team! The second place Kia took out Galotti who was leading, and then took out the third place Acura, allowing for the fourth place Camaro to slip in for the win. Now THAT was a great race! I've never seen a F1 race come close to being that good. Never. The Kias recovered and took second and third place. I know Galotti was PISSED.
The GT class was great as well with Porsche, Cadillac, and Corvette really mixing it up.
Indy, for all of its lead changes, wasn't any more, or even as exciting as Monaco was.
Why? Because watching drivers flatfoot the throttle for 500 miles isn't all that thrilling. The Indy cars don't even brake while they're lapping.
Indy makes 225 mph look boring - that's a feat.