I recently asked a university acquaintance about Formula One. A quest for mutual sport interests is common practice among strangers, especially those with testosterone-filled veins.
“Oh, that thing with Michael Schumacher?” he replied.
If there was a single superficial definition for the sport of Formula One, the name would likely be it. His legacy goes beyond representing an astonishing seven world-title wins, but also constitutes a sport that has endeavoured to ensure such a feat would never again be repeated.
When one questions the plethora of rule changes the FIA governing body has introduced into the sport, their purpose is predominantly up for discussion. One of the most recent and controversial is the change from awe-inspiring V8 engines, to audibly whimsical V6 turbos.
The FIA has become an institution that has caved in to the demands of its shareholders, of which you and I are included.
People demand suspense, action and drama in sport. There is no feeling like your home football team narrowly winning a game to reach the finals.
Formula One has lacked this spirit in recent years, with the domination of Michael Schumacher between 2000-04, and Sebastian Vettel between 2010-13. Audiences become bored, viewership declines, and broadcast deals shrink.
The FIA has unwittingly become a slave to its shareholders, desperately attempting to re-kindle interest in the sport.
To do this, the sport consistently regards the golden years of Ayrton Senna-Alain Prost rivalry as an ‘ideal’. During the years of 1988-1993, Formula One benefitted greatly from the many historic and dramatic events between the two, both on and off the track.
Becoming intrigued when observing drama is a natural human state, after all.
However, the sport became deprived of rivalries soon after with the emergence of Michael Schumacher, essentially punishing his opponents throughout his time in the sport.
Formula One has desperately tested a re-shuffling of rules in hope of re-igniting the perfect ‘formula’ ever since, intending for competitiveness to sky-rocket.
And thus, pundits have often gazed nostalgically at the Senna-Prost years in hope of significant drama. The Nico Rosberg-Lewis Hamilton rivalry of 2014 has oft drawn comparisons, though it has never promised even a glimmer of 1989 heat.
Reporters feel an obligation to the latter, often asking either Nico Rosberg or Lewis Hamilton about rumours suggesting drama. Both have vehemently denied speculation.
One could say Formula One hopes for the wild, while drivers, backed by high-paying sponsors, have become tame.
If the Mercedes 2014 domination is any indication, a shake-up of rules will only ever create opportune moments for other teams to thrash the remainder of the paddock.
However, in the future, one can hope we will enjoy rivalries of the Hamilton-Rosberg ilk, which may be the only reason fans have remained fixated on their television sets.
AndyM
Guest
That's kind of crazy to suggest, but I understand where you are coming from. F1 used to be the elite, both cars and drivers. That is a lot harder, and more expensive, to achieve today. Sponsors want a return on their millions. They need to learn and develop technologies that they can transfer to their street cars. F1, in its earlier form, has become impractical. And so F1 finds itself in an identity crisis, caught between the elite speed-at-any-cost sport it used to be and the smaller engined, turbo charged, KERS dependant, tire regulated form of racing it is now. Since it isn't practical to go back to the screaming V8's and V10's of the past, and since making the sport less safe certainly isn't a rational option, what is left to do? How about this: 1) Stop playing with the tires. Make tires that last at least half race distance and let them go racing. 2) cut this both-tires-mandatory BS and let then choose which tire to use, and when to use it. 3) Ban ALL electronic communication with the driver once the race has started except for safety, position, gap, and lap time OR ban electronic communication and go back to pit boards..it worked just fine for 30+ years. 4) Firmly enforce more than two tires off the racing surface is a penalty - at ALL tracks. In fact, make it a drive through penalty. Put the racing results back in the hands of the driver and his crew chief, make the drivers drive the track and only the track, and put some racing back into F1 racing. BUT.....you have to admit, there has been more racing this year, although not necessarily for the lead, then there has been for quite a few years. Some very, very good and entertaining racing I might add. Maybe they are going in the right direction after all......
Daniel
Roar Rookie
It's a pretty controversial thing, asking for more danger in the sport... it kinda suggests that there's enjoyment to be had from watching people put their lives at risk. But I guess it always was that way in F1 until the turn of the 21st century
Johnno
Guest
F1 needs to go back to loud engines and increase, the dangers again it's become too safe. It's lost it's thrill, the tracks have got too safe, and the danger element gone. Many have been arguing for something different: more overtaking opportunities on circuits, which tends to mean long straights bookended by slow hairpins. I think F1 needs variety – slow, twisty tracks like Monaco and Hungary, high-speeds courses like Monza and Spain, and ‘overtaking optimised’ tracks like Bahrain. Just get the danger zone going again, and thrill and risks of F1 again.