Re: Yep, comes with the territory
Hrant;1235172]Yesterday during practice, Peter Windsor made the following comment after noting that all the changes made for 2009 still didn't help the cars pass one another (the others commented that the better drives always found a way): "But F1 is much much more than that [referring to passing] ...."
Can someone decipher what that means? For the most part I find Windsor's insights and grapevine nuggets refreshing but I also hear no so subtle elitist perspective. Perhaps that comes with the F1 territory.
Well, while it comes with the territory, they are actually working on the "passing show". The reason why it didn't work this year, as Hobbs was saying, is that the Brawn double diffuser ruined the whole FIA aero plan designed to enable more passing. And as Posey said, the KERS is, unfortunately, used more defensively than offensively and it too spoils the passing "show".
But it occurs to me that F-1 does not totally belong to the casual American fans. Maybe other cultures don't care as much? But actually, Windsor's implied statement is probably indicative of many F-1 industry people who work 75 hrs/week doing their particular job. There are so many parts of an F-1 team and race production and each guy has their own job to do and they love the competition that relies on their piece. They want their piece to gain in importance compared to the drivers' hands. They don't care about what we couch-potatoes want as much as they want to play their own game day to day. So, it means that they don't want simple racing, NASCAR style passing and cowboy driving. That would diminish their job; whether it's being a tire changer, a team engineer/strategist, or say the Bridgestone tire engineers. They like that F-1 is complicated and winning comes down to far more than just "passing."
Hobbs and Matchett later said something to the effect that this has always been the complaint about F-1, but [shrugging] "passing in F-1 is hard and that's just the way it is."
I like close racing as much as anyone, but I wonder if this strong feeling (that racing always has to be a big obvious visual show compared to more of a chess match) maybe an American thing; one that explains NASCAR popularity???
I agree that was a cryptic comment that they could have easily followed up on and explained; too bad (or not) they didn't because you and I will be debating this for another, oh...................6-7 years? :biggrin:
just my 2 cents