I ask this question, based on the start to the season we've had. With last years introductions being refined over the winter, and being taken advantage of in some areas (D-DRS by Mercedes) it has to be considered that F1 is too artificial now to be taken seriously. With the tyres this season being made softer and less durable, races have become an endurance esque form, where tyre management is king, and those who manage best shall reap what they've sown. For casual fans, this unpredictability is great, you never know who's going to be fastest, and you get bizzare winners. For hardcore fans, such as myself, it ruins the spectacle. I enjoy seeing a driver working in perfect harmony with his machinery, and the best man winning, not the best tyre manager winning. The gimmicks have allowed certain inferior drivers to appear better than they are too. For instance, Sergio Perez claimed a podium in malaysia, due to a car that could protect it's tyres well. Lewis Hamilton is now able to overtake without crashing, thanks to DRS. Sebastian Vettel is now able to overtake in general, due to these gimmicks. My point is that the measures introduced are damaging it's reputation amongst serious F1 buffs, and levelling the playing field a little too much (there is no way Alonso should be getting his Ferrari on the podium, but because of his tyre management, he is). Where do you stand, is F1 better off with these measures, or am i alone in my cries for simplicity?
Wow... a lot of points aimed at various drivers there that I'm not sure I agree with, but personally I do feel it's a tad too contrived. Now I really want the mixed up results that we have, I like to see multiple winners, and so many people in the hunt for a title is great. I'm just not convinced that how we got here is the right way. I know I'm in the minority in this, and you could say that you can't have your cake and eat it... but it just feels very manufactured to me. Not sure what the answer is though... and maybe it's just a small minority of us that have problems with it. The majority seem to be happy with it though, so the chances of it changing are slim. Guess we'd better get used to it.
Although I may disagree with some of what you have said, Kyle; this is an interesting, provocative and important article. Before continuing, I will make it clear that I sympathise with the notion that F1 may appear to be 'gimmicky'. And whilst I would not use such a label to describe KERS (especially if it was used fully and without restriction), I will apply it (temporarily, in the short term) to describe DRS; which is an innovation specifically aimed at improving the spectacle by increasing the opportunity for overtaking where it might otherwise be more difficult and hence reduce the appeal of F1; but once again is not entirely at the disposal of the driver to use as he/she wishes. However, every gimmick fulfils a purpose, for better or worse – or is quickly discarded when it is found to give little or no benefit (e.g. adjustable front wing). A 'gimmick' emerges to satisfy a perceived majority; and in this sense, a purist (one who ultimately prefers to stick with the status quo) will necessarily be restricted to a minority. It should be remembered that F1 is sold, in part, as entertainment. Unfortunately for the purist, this means reaching out to a sizeable audience, rather than appealing to a minority. When a formula is shaken up, it takes a while for its best exponents to shine through as having got to grips with it more effectively than their peers. For this reason, it is wrong to assign qualities to a driver based on previous success under different circumstance. This is always the case, since new ideas are always being adopted. Grand Prix racing had become a dull spectacle – to the majority, whose biggest criticism was a lack of overtaking – which also played down the contribution of the driver by dint of the car being an even greater factor because it was more likely then, that one or two teams would be able to develop better than the others! It should also be borne in mind that motor racing always has been about managing the vehicle – regardless of whatever gimmicks it may have had fitted. This is still the case – even if some previously successful drivers (or for that matter, previously interested viewers), do not like it. Working – as you put it – "in perfect harmony", with one's vehicle is still what is happening with those drivers who perform best, just as was always the case. And "the best man winning" is more likely to occur when there is less to choose between the cars. It should be remembered that after a while, any gimmick may come not to be regarded as such! Here is a random (very much shortened) list of "gimmicks" for one's carriage – which, as people began to see the gimmick as standard equipment, eventually lost that somewhat trivialising, almost insulting label. Please bear in mind that all of these things were regarded as 'gimmicks' by some, in their day. And that they all were seen as important to the innovator, who gambled on widening appeal: Internal combustion engine (ultimately to become better than a horse and more widely used than a steam engine) Steel wheels (previously wooden) Rubber tyres (previously none) Pneumatic tyres (previously solid) Electric start (previously starter handle) Shaft drive (rather than chain) 2 speed gearbox (previously none) Automatic transmission Widespread use of hydraulics (previously utilising wire) 3 speed gearbox (also available in automatic transmission) Synchromesh (previously 'crash' boxes which required careful matching of engine revs and double-declutching, to avoid wrecking the gearbox) 4 speed gearbox (3 seemed adequate: why bother?) Aluminium alloy wheels Disc brakes (previously drums containing expanding 'shoes') Magnesium wheels Aerodynamic bodywork Variomatic transmission Use of inverted wings (idea borrowed from aircraft industry) 5 speed gearbox (do we really need 5, or 6, or 7?) I will not continue. This list is clearly huge. The point is that these things were all once considered gimmicks! Indeed, it is interesting to note that the word 'gimmick' can often be replaced with 'innovation'.- - -o0o- - - So, is F1 too gimmicky? Ultimately it will be its viewers who decide; and right now, F1's worldwide audience suggests that it's doing something right – regardless of how 'unpure' a minority may view it. Like you, Kyle, I wish some things were different; but that's because I'm a perfectionist who knows nothing is ever perfect.
the interests vary: Ecclestone wants to maximise fees for each GP held, and to add as many as the participants can accommodate. The Manufacturers want to gain marketing influence and use any practical spinoffs for their road cars, engnes etc. The engineers want to develop the best handling, performing cars within a set of rules (or interpret them to their own advantage). The drivers want to collect points to win a championship, and make a lot of money. The race administrators want to run the event according to a format - 'on with the show!' The commercial sponsors want their chosen spend to produce favourable outcome. The TV production companies want to generate maximum viewing figures to justify the outlay, or to invite financial contribution. the viewers want wheel-to-wheel racing and tolerate 'gimmicks' if their entertainment is enhanced. Not easy to provide satisfaction to all interested parties.
Refuelling was considered a gimmick when it was reintroduced in 1994. Now everyone complains that there is no refuelling and it was an integral part of F1!! Having said that, I can see the death of DRS within a few years and replaced with something less obvious. I think KERS should replace DRS so you can only use it when in 'the zone'.
Compared to last season, the only thing that has really changed is the tyres getting softer, but everything else is largely unchanged. By keeping the regulations relatively stable, all the teams have been able to learn from each other, and produce much more similar cars. Take the gaps in qualifying, in Q2 at Monaco, 8 tenths separated 1st to 16th, it was a full 2 seconds last year. If the regulations were stable for longer, with the RRA still in force, then I'd imagine that over 3, or 4 seasons of consistent regulations, we'd end up with a much, much tighter field. This has the advantage of really allowing the driver to make the difference in qualifying, but in the race, if the pace of the cars is so similar, overtaking becomes very difficult when you get into dirty air behind someone - hence the need for DRS and KERS. To me, it seems that having close racing, with plenty of 'natural' overtaking is an impossible dream. To get close racing you need the cars to be similarly quick, but to get overtaking you need the chasing car to be faster than the car in front, to compensate for aerodynamic losses. But equally, if you bring in all the overtaking aids, or keep rewriting the rule book to shake up the field, then the racing and overtaking feels contrived, which the purists don't like. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is really, but I suppose the two extremes need to meet in the middle somewhere. Personally, I don't like DRS in it's current guise as I feel it really is too contrived, a push-to-pass if you fulfil conditions x,y,z. I like KERS though, I think it's a clever piece of technology, which hopefully will be exploited further when the regulations change in the next few years. It's not really that different to the turbo boosts of the past. Maybe the tracks are to blame? Even when F1 was at a low in the early 2000's in terms of overtaking, the likes of Spa rarely failed to produce a good race. If the current reliance on overtaking-free Tilke dromes on the calendar was lowered, then would we see more 'natural' overtaking, and therefore the need for the more contrived overtaking from DRS would decrease, so it could be got rid of? I don't know if this has exactly answered the question, but it's my thoughts.
no overtaking? - too much grip !! Reduce tyre width, and size to scale down performance and cornering. Ban supersoft.
Four of the 6 races this season have been won from pole, in other words the fastest driver/car combinations are still the most successful. If you look at the contrasting fortunes of the McLaren driver, poles apart in terms of style, it's the faster, more aggressive driver who's beating his more conservative team mate. I consider myself "a hardcore fan" and I love this season. You're pretty much alone in you appraisal of Sergio Perez, he's had Ferrari's support from a young age because of the talent he's shown in other in other categories. Alonso is a class act, he's been able to 'outperform' his car for years, in qualifying and race trim, on Bridgestones, Michelins and Pirellis, it's not just down to tyre management that he's able to do this, and so what if it is? It's an art in it's own right and drivers who are more skilled at it should reap the rewards. Humans love to whinge. This forum is only a year and a bit old so we can't check old threads from 2010, but I bet the people complaining that the racing is "too unpredictable" are the same people who ****ed themselves into malnourishment over the high-deg, multi-pitstop race in Canada two years back. People love to complain, they complain that they want something and then complain when they get it. Pirelli's tyres combined with no refuelling have restored Formula 1 to a state where a driver needs a complete skillset to prosper. In years gone by the cars have been so easy to drive at times that the drivers line up in car order, and despite Schumacher implying that he used to tear round driving every lap like a qualifier, they used to jog round in a procession, taking no risks because they knew the turbulence spilling off their car prevented the one behind from getting anywhere near them. The Pirelli tyres have placed an emphasis on the driver to make more of a difference, they have to manage their cars as they did in the first hundred years of grand prix racing, they have to make their strategies work by preserving their car whilst maintaining a quick pace and swiftly clearing any traffic during the pitstop phases. The tightness of the field means that drivers and teams are severely punished for a poor showing, and suitably rewarded for a strong one. Kers is far from a gimmick. Regenerative braking and hybrid powertrains were around long before they appeared in F1. Companies like Ferrari, Porsche and McLaren are using hybrid systems to improve the performance and efficiency of their supercars. Improving efficiency is not just a gimmick to satisfy the green movement, reducing waste has always yielded improvements in performance, increasing the thermal efficiency of an engine should improve its power output, and reducing fuel consumption allows you to carry less fuel, reducing the weight of the vehicle, something Ettore Bugatti was obsessed with. DRS is pretty awful, and will hopefully be dropped at some point in the near future, but in spite of that F1 is in the best shape it's been in for decades.
Technology does become gimicky once you've reached a plateau of development, especially when you consider the restrictions in place with regard to design of everything on an F1 car. There is no real scope for much development anywhere on an F1 car, different types of power plant are banned, alternative gearboxes are banned, the length, height and width of the wings, chassis, and body work are highly restricted. DRS is just a stop-gap (as Bando pointed out), but it was a needed IMO, as aerodynamics have improved so much that being in the slip-stream of the car in front isn't such an advantage any more, and KERS is restricted, let them use as much KERS as they can fit, as long as it starts the race with 0 charge. The biggest 'problem' this year is the tyres, I don't like the way they 'degrade' as it causes problems for anyone who tries to make an overtake later in the race (alonso at China for example), and their very narrow temperature performance band
I must admit, Perez has been pretty disappointing since his podium, in fact he hasn't scored a single point. I thought he had a terrible race in Monaco, some of the attempts he made to pass Kovalainen were very poor indeed and I think he still has a lot to learn. Anyway, whether F1's too gimmicky is a difficult question to answer. If DRS makes overtaking too easy across the board or if the tyres become any less durable then yes, it will be too gimmicky, but at the moment, I think the balance is just about right, although at some races I do still feel DRS does make the passing not enough of a challenge.
It might be worth remembering that the current 'gimmicks' were in reaction to an insatiable public, dissatisfied with a dry and dusty desert.
