Did F1 pass the acid test at Sepang last weekend? Plenty of people (Max Mosley included) will claim vehemently that it did but we don't believe that for the simple reason that F1 still does not represent pure motor racing. But how could F1, the pinnacle of motor sport not be motor racing?, you ask. In practice it comes down to definition.
If you chose to define motor racing as: artificially manipulated grids that force the fastest cars to fight their way through the pack via a combination of pit strategy and good fortune, and where direct competition between the fastest cars on the grid is distorted by wildly different fuel loads, then F1 is indeed motor racing. However if, as we do, you choose to define motor racing as a competitive race where a number of cars fight for victory by passing each other on track through acts of bravery (or lunacy), then the F1 of 2003 is most definitely not motor racing.
Definitions are the key to this entire issue in actual fact. One is the question of defining what F1 fans are looking for: do we want 'entertainment' or pure 'racing'? Secondly, were the 'wacky races' changes for 2003 designed to spice up the racing or spice up the show?
So to our first question, what do F1 fans want? If F1 fans wish to be in the dark and kept guessing throughout the race then there can be no denying that the rule changes have worked. But ask any F1 follower, devout or lapsed, to chose between two hypothetical regulation changes and you will get the same answer every time. Do they want one set of changes that leave the outcome of the race undecided until lap 55 or another set of changes that mean 3 or 4 drivers have to battle on track for the lead of the race? The answer will always be the latter.
F1's changes have made the first two races of the season far more entertaining than they should have been. Sepang was interesting and full of suspense but Melbourne was different, for the opening 10 or so laps at least, because there was real motor racing going on. Cars were passing each other, sliding, drivers making mistakes and trying to gather them up again - everything a motor racing fan looks for in a race. But of course the new rules played very small part in those frenetic opening laps at Melbourne - the weather and the resulting tyre choices were the real reasons.
MOTORSPORTFORUM believes that F1's changes have simply spiced up the entertainment but have done little for the racing. They were a stopgap measure designed to halt the drain of TV viewers away from the sport and it has and will continue to work to some extent. Yet once again, those in charge of the sport have taken a far easier option out of a tight spot as opposed to tackling key issues head on.
Spectators will not complain as much as they did in 2002 if McLaren dominate this season because Coulthard and Raikkonen will be allowed to race each other. But will they actually race each other? Will they actually run side-by-side, lap after lap into the first turn at Barcelona like Senna and Mansell did in 1991 or harass each through Casino Square? Probably not because it remains that nothing has been done to help the drivers actually race each other. Lower fuel will help in the battle to pass the car in front, but as the closing laps at Melbourne amply illustrated, the problems of aerodynamics, down force and dirty air still plague F1. Even with rain and funny tyre choices, it is still damn near impossible to pass a reliable, undamaged F1 car.
So to conclude we come back to definitions. MOTORSPORTFORUM put it to you that if the acid test at Sepang was to offer an entertaining and suspenseful weekend then F1 passed. If it was to offer a thrilling race filled with daring passing manoeuvres, and cars running two and three abreast corner after corner, then no, F1 failed. Spectacularly.
Back to F1 News & Discussion Page
Back to Main Page
Visit
Linksheaven! The Motor Racing Directory
© 2000 motorsportforum@yahoo.co.uk