• General Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Padraig Padraig Aug 15, 2006 03:53 Flag

    F1 vs NASCAR?

    Hi, Myothercarisamini, you're absolutely right when you say that over regulation has put people off F1. It has been done in the name of safety (really to control spending)but now that the tobacco dollar is being driven out of F1, there won't be so much money around anyway.
    F1 is the preeminent motorsport because of the technology and I say let them build what the hell they like. If they want to make it go 300mph, it's up to the drivers whether they get in or not.
    Only a fool would maintain that it is always the ones who spend the most win - it simply isn't true. It is true to say that the teams who spend the most will be the winners, but look at the wilderness years for Ferrari when they couldn't have bought a title. And what about the years when Williams had Hill and couldn't win everything? And in the last couple of years, the McLaren has appeared to be the best car, except it wouldn't get to the end of a race.
    The difference between all these cars is, ultimately, the driver. You can put a monkey in the current Ferrari or Renault (OK, with the mass damper system) and he might beat many, but how do you explain the Button win, or Coulthard's third at Monaco?
    It is because F1 tracks are varied that allows different teams and drivers to shine because each car has strengths and weaknesses and at different times of the race.
    I enjoy all motorsport, even NASCAR, but I do find it a little dull at times. And as for competition, give me a break. The reason fathers and sons win it is because it is a cartel and they take it in turns, just like wrestling to maximise sponsorship and TV revenues.