Is Formula One the Pinnacle of Motorsport?

[KekeTheKing]

I'm sure there has been a thread like this in the past, but I don't think we've had a Poll since the site switched over.

To me, this is a very simple answer, but I want to know what Clip The Apex has to say about it.

Is F1 the absolute pinnacle of Motorsport/Auto Racing?

 

[RasputinLives]

Yes - and if not it should be - for 4 wheels anyways

 

[Brogan]

Hmmm, "it depends" I think is the answer.

As far as fans and drivers are concerned it is.

When it comes to innovation and engineering though, I would say not.
There are far too many restrictions placed on the sport these days to truly see what designers and engineers could do given a free hand.

 

[Grizzly]

It is by definition. That is unless you hold the Hydrogen Electric Racing Federation, or the International Federation of Model Auto Racing in higher regard??

 

[sportsman]

I voted no.Because in my opinion the pinnacle has not yet been reached.
Its undoubtedly top of the pile at present.But not yet the pinnacle.

 

[RevMaxPower]

Obviously not. There are so many different branches of Motorsport, each with their own merits, that it would be grossly unfair to single out one in particular. Especially one that is constantly shooting in the dark and monkeying about with regard to rules and regulations that haven't been thought through properly. Way too much knee-jerking...

 

[Jen]

The word 'pinnacle' suggests culmination or finish - since F1 is ever changing and evolving then that would infer not (yet).

I suspect that there will come a time when there is absolutely nothing more that can be tweaked or added - probably long after I'm gone - but in the meantime I have to vote 'no'

 

[Pyrope]

Wow, but this is a difficult question. It depends on what you mean by "motorsport". What are you counting? Technology? Speed? On-track action? Driving quality? Money?

The last one is easiest. As this week's published financial results show, F1 is still the most costly and yet most remunerative racing class in the World. Also unquestionable is the issue of speed. Last year's pole lap of Silverstone was 1:29.8. Pole for the LMS 1000km race was 1:43.5. That's a gap of nearly 14 seconds, meaning that the LMP1 cars were over 15% slower around that fairly high speed circuit. Just absorb that for a second. Even F1's closest analogue, GP2, had a pole time of only 1:39.2. Despite Max Mosely's carping, this would not have been fast enough for a spot on the F1 grid. Both the HRT cars were in the 1:36s, and the then-hypothetical 107% time was 1:36.1. F1 cars are in a class of their own, literally and metaphorically.

Arguably, the quality of the drivers is also unsurpassed, although their subsequent performances in other series when they leave F1 suggest that this isn't as clear-cut as Bernie (and those drivers' agents) would have us believe.

And so on to the other end of the scale. F1 definitely does not lead the World in terms of on-track action. The sheer spectacle and experience of having a pack of F1 cars screaming through the first lap of a GP is absolutely unique, but until the last couple of years it did require a certain fanatacism/masochism to keep 100% focused throughout the race. Personally, I also don't like the rough and tumble of touring cars, but the precision passing and rapidfire tactical assessments made in the lesser open-wheel formulae are something else. Personal opinion only, I guess, but what's this place for if not an opinion or two!

As for technology, well, that's moot too. The regulations are far too restrictive, of course, but what they do have is at the absolute peak. I'd like to see alternative fuels properly explored, and a return to body-generated downforce, but there are still technologies being introduced on F1 cars that are filtering down to road vehicles. Fiat's new two-cylinder engine for the 500 borrows an awful lot that Ferrari have learned about pushing the limits of engine design, for instance.

 

[Grizzly]

The word pinnacle has nothing to do with the cars, tracks, technology etc. It is the top of the FIA hierarchy! It is the pinnacle!

 

[DefinitelyMaybe94]

I will now climb onto the fence and say probably. I think in years gone by the answer was yes without doubt , the best drivers, and the most advanced cars in motorsport made sure of this. However in recent years and in the future with the changing regulations it seems that in some respects F1 is trying to go back to the 80's, with the reintroduction of turbos and ground effects etc would this count as a regression?

As far as drivers are concerned i think it is still the pinnacle without question, but with the cost cutting measures and with the rule makers seemingly trying to get rid of innovation at any cost, i think F1 might struggle to hold onto its tag as the pinnacle of motorsport in the future.

 

[RevMaxPower]

Now THAT is the first valid reason I've heard, Mr Bi-Polar Bear....

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

...As for technology, well, that's moot too. The regulations are far too restrictive, of course...

Restrictive regulations or not, we have still had in the last few seasons alone things like:
Double diffusers, knee-operated, airflow-induced wing stalling devices, off-throttle engine mapping systems, exhaust-blown diffusers, front-exiting exhausts, driver operated rear wings, front wings that are stiff yet at the same time flexible... and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

 

[Pyrope]

Restrictive regulations or not, we have still had in the last few seasons alone things like:
Double diffusers, knee-operated, airflow-induced wing stalling devices, off-throttle engine mapping systems, exhaust-blown diffusers, front-exiting exhausts, driver operated rear wings, front wings that are stiff yet at the same time flexible... and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

The depressing and negative point being that most of those have been, technically should be, or are imminently about to be, banned. The F-duct, particularly, was a very interesting, innovative, and highly-transferrable technology. They banned it on safety grounds as some late-adopters came up with the daft solution that their drivers had to take their hands off the steering wheel. To keep it safe all they had to do was demand that drivers kept at least one hand on the wheel at all times, to be policed through the existing on-board camera. The money to develop and implement it had already been spent, so any cost savings were minimal, and it demonstrably worked and led to some technical diversity, at least until everyone had converged on the most efficient solution. That act, for me, brings into question whether F1 (as distinct from the boffins designing the cars) is the technical pinnacle of the sport.

 

[Jen]

The word pinnacle has nothing to do with the cars, tracks, technology etc. It is the top of the FIA hierarchy! It is the pinnacle!

In which case there is no need for a poll, surely?

 

[Pyrope]

The word pinnacle has nothing to do with the cars, tracks, technology etc. It is the top of the FIA hierarchy! It is the pinnacle!

Well, not quite. It is the top tier of open-wheel racing. WRC is the top of the rally world and LMP1 is the top sportscar tier. Anyway, it isn't just the FIA that sanction motosport championships; MotoGP is the top of the motocycle tier, ICL is the top of the IndyCar tiers, and the Sprint Cup is the top of NASCAR. If you asked most of the folks I see in the street every day what the pinnacle was they'd probably mention NASCAR first, not F1. As I said earlier, it depends on what you think is important in the sport as to where you put the emphasis.

 

[sportsman]

I feel that the definition of motor sport is ambigious.Motor sport.Does that encompass Moto GP.
Moto GP bikes are very technically very advanced. Or are they not classed as motorsport.

 

[snowy]

This is an easy poll.
No.

 

[KekeTheKing]

To clarify a few issues raised throughout the thread.

Think of the "Pinnacle" in the current state of affairs. Not some theoretical Formula in the future, or an idealistic notion of what Formula One should/could be.

If one would like to make the case for Moto GP as the so-called "Pinnacle" of motorsport, then by all means, have a crack at it.

And if you're answering "NO", I'd be eager to hear your answer on what should be considered the "Pinnacle" of motorsport.

 

[Jen]

And if you're answering "NO", I'd be eager to hear your answer on what should be considered the "Pinnacle" of motorsport.

This is not going to be the most reasoned and knowledgeable post you've ever seen - the pinnacle of motorsport, for me, would be for a driver/pilot to travel as fast as he/she can, whilst still grounded, navigating the course and beating the opposition, irrespective of the number of wheels.

So the pinnacle relies on engineers and drivers or drivers and engineers, whichever you prefer.

 

[snowy]

Okeydoke...

The pinnacle of motorsport should not be determined by just a handful of factors. F1 has defined itself as the pinnacle of motorsport on the basis that it uses the most technically advanced processes and employs the brightest minds in race engineering. It has sold itself as the glitziest motor series and has invested huge amounts of money in sexing itself up.

But lets face facts, until very recently it was diabolically mundane most of the time and only the criminally insane or terminally masochistic - like myself - got any joy out of it.

Moto2, WSBK, MotoGP, the World Rally Championship and a number of other series all provide far more vigorous and challenging spectacle. Onboard footage in a rally car kicks F1 into the weeds and then some!

The technology used in MotoGP and WRC is far more relevant if just a fraction less refined than F1. And my brother reminded me the other day that the sound and spectacle of GT1 cars makes F1 look and sound pretty tame.

F1 is actually the butt of motorsport.

Sorry, I should just point out that F1 is a paradox.