F1; Gimmicks; Overtaking: FIA v drivers?
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:33 am
I have never criticised a lack of overtaking in F1; far from it - I appreciate how difficult it is. This makes a genuine, competitive overtake something to behold, and I appreciate that it will be rare.
The 'overtaking problem' is not F1's as such; it is a largely unappreciative audience who - due to their short attention spans - shout their thirst for trivial action and demand it be slaked every couple of minutes. However, in the effort to satisfy this superficiality, F1 risks further alienation of its fair-weather fan by making the whole 'show' even more challenging for them to understand. What F1 needs to do is educate its audience through persuading them to see its subtlety. In my opinion, this is never going to be achieved with cheap (or expensive!) gimmicks, but with a simplicity which first aims at increasing the relevance of its drivers. By way of example, more pit-stops is precisely the wrong way to go since it increases the importance of pit-crews relative to the driver.
Instead, if we emphasise the relevance of the driver, perhaps people might begin to appreciate what they're doing!
For instance
… if we're going to have KERS - which is fundamentally a very good thing - don't limit its capacity to recover energy, and do not limit the driver's choice on its deployment. This way it would not be a gimmick but a very serious, fully justified piece of kit. And before those who argue for at least 97% equality between teams, let's remember F1's roots eh? It never was any more equal than it is today and this is part of the reason we see relatively few competitive overtakes. Yes, KERS is a good thing if it is allowed to be used fully; but it is the FIA's meddling - in an effort to keep everyone equal - which negates its fundamental purpose and renders it little more than trivial; something easy to call 'gimmick'.
Speaking of gimmicks
… we now have an even more obvious one don't we? Once again, this allegation is largely a result of A meddling dogmatism from the FIA, who insist on playing far too big a role. The purpose of the DRS (adjustable rear wing) is to increase overtaking. It is therefore logical to aim to provide advantage for the 'attacker' rather than the 'defender', and the one second rule - which makes good use of available technology - does indeed ensure that this occurs. However, artificially limiting a driver's capacity to use it (in FIA designated areas) can only impinge upon a driver's capacity to use it more creatively. Once again, it is a gimmick because the FIA play too much part, quite literally taking away 'driver power'.
If we're going to have a DRS system designed for overtaking, don't artificially limit it to one or two places; instead, allow the driver to use it WHERE HE SEES FIT!
POWER TO THE DRIVER !!! - It may also help the audience begin to appreciate them!
©
The 'overtaking problem' is not F1's as such; it is a largely unappreciative audience who - due to their short attention spans - shout their thirst for trivial action and demand it be slaked every couple of minutes. However, in the effort to satisfy this superficiality, F1 risks further alienation of its fair-weather fan by making the whole 'show' even more challenging for them to understand. What F1 needs to do is educate its audience through persuading them to see its subtlety. In my opinion, this is never going to be achieved with cheap (or expensive!) gimmicks, but with a simplicity which first aims at increasing the relevance of its drivers. By way of example, more pit-stops is precisely the wrong way to go since it increases the importance of pit-crews relative to the driver.
Instead, if we emphasise the relevance of the driver, perhaps people might begin to appreciate what they're doing!
For instance
… if we're going to have KERS - which is fundamentally a very good thing - don't limit its capacity to recover energy, and do not limit the driver's choice on its deployment. This way it would not be a gimmick but a very serious, fully justified piece of kit. And before those who argue for at least 97% equality between teams, let's remember F1's roots eh? It never was any more equal than it is today and this is part of the reason we see relatively few competitive overtakes. Yes, KERS is a good thing if it is allowed to be used fully; but it is the FIA's meddling - in an effort to keep everyone equal - which negates its fundamental purpose and renders it little more than trivial; something easy to call 'gimmick'.
Speaking of gimmicks
… we now have an even more obvious one don't we? Once again, this allegation is largely a result of A meddling dogmatism from the FIA, who insist on playing far too big a role. The purpose of the DRS (adjustable rear wing) is to increase overtaking. It is therefore logical to aim to provide advantage for the 'attacker' rather than the 'defender', and the one second rule - which makes good use of available technology - does indeed ensure that this occurs. However, artificially limiting a driver's capacity to use it (in FIA designated areas) can only impinge upon a driver's capacity to use it more creatively. Once again, it is a gimmick because the FIA play too much part, quite literally taking away 'driver power'.
If we're going to have a DRS system designed for overtaking, don't artificially limit it to one or two places; instead, allow the driver to use it WHERE HE SEES FIT!
POWER TO THE DRIVER !!! - It may also help the audience begin to appreciate them!
©
