I must admit to not really seeing the objective, just how 'can' motor racing become an Olympic sport. I understand Olympic sports as being driven by human endeavour, understandably aided by water for swimming, pole's for pole vaulting, batons for relay's and so on, but devices with engines !!! really, call me old fashioned if you like.
How is it any different from sailing? That's just as reliant on technology for power as motorsport is. Motorsport is just as legitimate a sporting endeavour.
Hang on, don't they have Olympic equestrian events? Is that any different to motor racing in terms of it being all about the athlete's skill rather than another factor (horse/car)?
As far as I understand I don't think a sailor can control the power of a wind, as in turn it On and Off, or throttle and brake if you prefer, maybe some control over the utlisation to some degree, not quite the same thing. As for horse's well that's another matter and I don't believe that equestrians events are true to the Olympics origins either, ideally it's all down to human resourse, as in how fast can you run, how high can you jump, how far can you throw, ad-infinitum. Of course Motor Sport is a legitimate sporting endeavour, I've been following it for 60 odd years but its not an Olympic Sport, IMO And my wife has just concluded, the only time Motor Sport will become an Olympic event is when the vehicles are powered by human power as by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble !!!!!!
I also agree with this well-made comment from Westy. Equestrian events have no more place in the fundamental Olympic ideology than motor racing. In fact, it could be argued that events which rely upon the use of animals are far less 'Olympic' than reliance upon machinery, since any inequality between animals (and hence their relative contribution to results) is likely to be greater than with regulated machines - where such inequalities can be almost entirely eliminated.
There are many 'sports' that I enjoys in their own right and context, but any event that is outside that of a single human or human team power source ie rowing is NOT in the true spirit of an Olympic event, IMHO.
I fully understand and agree with the views about 'Olympic' sports being those which rely less upon technology (ideally no technology whatsoever). However, there is an argument which says that if technology can be eliminated from influencing results (by being made precisely equal to all competitors), then it is also eliminated from the equation, just as is the case with the 'standardised spear' we call a javelin, or a standardised stone/cannon-ball used in the shot-put. In this sense, if every competitor uses the same 'equipment', the differences between winners and losers can be isolated to the human factor. Oddly enough, some well-established Olympic disciplines - for example: cycling and skiing - allow for considerable differences of the use of technology. When one considers some of the examples recently mentioned in this thread, perhaps there is a place for machinery after all? - As already stated, it is far more 'equal' than being allowed to use, or focussing upon the use of animals…
All that you have stated is perfectly true, the word that applies here is "if", now, from an engineering viewpoint I would personally consider it impossible to manufacture electro-mechanical devices in the form of racing cars that comply to a differential in overall performance within a 0.25% span, top to bottom limit. Consider a standard engine with an output of say 300hp then the difference in power would be around 0.75hp, could this be fairly thought of as not being an advantage. If this 0.25% advantage were applied to the overall vehicle performance it could provide a 0.225 sec gain over a 90 sec lap. A similar analogy can be applied to cycles and ski's I'm sure, including aerodynamic suits and helmet designs, anyway does it really matter in the broad scheme of things, its all about bums on seats and entertainment, I suppose. As for horses I know they are big, don't pay road tax, defecate wherever they please, are very fast and devoid of effective brakes.
Well, if nothing better has come of this thread, it seems we all agree that horses should not be Olympians! But you can bet your life the aristocracy will not agree; and therefore, it will remain for as long as they do…
Ernie- seems to me we should abandon the Olympics - difficult to find any event that does not have advantages somewhere. Think of stadium running - present rules give fastest qualifiers the best, ie middle lanes.
I can't see it happening with any F1 drivers, I imagine after Kubica there'll be a bit more contractual limitations, then you have the sponsorship issue, big sporting organisations will not let any sponsors in competition advertise, anyone remember when FIFA or UEFA refused entry for hundreds of Holland fans during because they all had Heineken t-shirts on, how will they feel about a competitor with hundreds of badges which they contractually must wear, because, no matter what these organisations say, it's all about the money.
As I said earlier, there is absolutely no way F1 will be part of any Olympic event. As for drivers: if motor racing ever wears the five ringed Olympic badge, it will need to uphold the ideal of 'amatuerism' which precludes direct, advertised sponsorship; rather, any sponsor is confined to self-effacing 'charitable' contributions. However, this itself no longer prevents a professionally paid sportsman from taking part, as it once did.
Has someone worked out the Co2 emmisions for olympic sports? Do horses emit more greenhouse gases through their ass than a car would do? If yes, all horses to be shot and that solves the argument!
Perhaps they should just all wear papier mache cars and just run around the circuit. All the drivers are fit enough anyway!
