I do watch and respect WRC, ELMS, and ALMS, FIA GT, Lamborghini Trophy series, and Speedvision "world" challenge.

I don't like ovals, because I don't know what they prove by racing on them, as others mentioned there are different types of ovals, but what do they prove of the driver? OVALS make for good exhibition type racing.

CART hasn't evolved as a racing series since the 1970's while F1 has evolved many times over. (and yes they are both safer now though).

CART is NOW what Formula 1 WAS back in the late 1970's, and through the 1980's, and part of the early 1990's.

WHAT is your definition of competitive? my definition is what team has the best, engine, the best chassis, the best driver, and the best crew. NOT necessarily what series has more passing.

(seems to me that many of you think of it like this F1: great car with so-so driver, will win races and the championship.
while CART: CARS are irrelevant because they are "equal" thus so-so drivers have an equal chance to win because they have opportunities to pass each other in the race.

How is F1 less competitive than CART? and for whom is it less competitive and in what way???

What most of you seem to be telling me is that F1 breeds good cars, while CART breeds good racing drivers (becase the cars are somewhat even and there is more passing)?(basically, in F1 the car wins, while in CART the driver wins, right?)

Are you basically implying that there is no way Ferrari, williams and, mercedez can make a bad race car and that pretty much it doesn't matter whom you put in any of the six cars, they all have a chance of winning, and thus sauber, BAR, Jordan, Jaguar, arrows, benetton, minardi, and prost do NOT have great cars NOR the money to build and maintain them, thus it does not matter who is in those other 16 cars , they will never, or do not have, a good chance of winning???

Since Raikonnen who is moving to Benz, this means winning races is "in the bag" for him next year right???

What about Takuma Sato the British F3 champion, he has no chance of winning next year or in 2003, RIGHT, because he is in 1 of the 4 "best of the rest" race cars (HONDA, Jordan) for 2002 and 2003? (Senna, Schumacher, and Hakkinen were all British F3 champions before winning F1 world titles).

what is there to like about oval racing?

IS not oval racing more about the car?

Oval racing to a point stresses straight line speed more than performance, does it not, albeit you do need a good setup/chassis in any series?

Can you agree that the fastest F1 car this season is the BMW williams, then ferrari, then benz? Since many agree F1 is all about the CAR then BMW should win this season, even with all the reliability problems, right?

If CART OVALS is not about the car/engine, then why is FORD so dominant on ovals and honda is not? seems to me that FORD has more power over everyone else, yet Honda has dominated the ROAD COURSE races. Thus the cars DO matter in CART just as much as they do in F1?

DOES a closer points race necessarily mean a more competitive series? TO me it just seems that the teams and drivers are inconsistent.
Inconsistency in CART is what contributes to the series being so COMPETITVE.

F1 teams and drivers consistency is something that cannot be denied that is why the series seems so UNCOMPETITVE even without mentioning the ability to pass in a race

I guess my main gripe is that many "dis" F1 to be an uncompetitive series due to the technology when the technology is what makes F1 competitive. If you look at the way F1 drivers drive, they are so precise and accurate, more so than any other series, that that is what makes it competitive: who is faster YET more precise and consistent, not who is more aggressive and who can pass more and who can stay at 230mph longer.

LAST explain WHY ferrari, the most winningest team in F1 took 20 years to win a title (2000), when it is well known that they have been spending millions and millions if not hundreds of millions on F1 for decades. If Ferrari had and has the most money in F1 as well as the newest technologies, then they should have been winning all of the time right, but they haven't. Sure Irvine did good with the team, but it was with Schumacher that they won a championship title.

 

So what is the main point here? Why is CART is being compared to F1 again? Is it because they are both open wheel series with 900 hp?

I don't understand the problem. I like both CART and F1. Why isn't it possible to like them both? That's why I love both WC and Grand-am Cup (former Motorola cup), even though the WC is at a higher level. You could call them "rival" series since they pretty much have similar cars, although one is more of an endurance race. My take is that F1 has always been the pinnacle of motorsports. With that comes the big money not seen anywhere else, except and I'll say this again, Nascar which comes very close and it's 95% oval racing so why not pick on them instead of CART? One thing to note is that if CART and the IRL would have never split, CART (or whatever they were called) would have been a much healthier series now.

 

Honestly, I tried reading the post, but lost interest about halfway through.
Strangely enough, this is typically what happens when I watch an F1 race.

Now, before you tag me as a typical American with a short attention span, those who know me can testify that I am no such animal. I am not a NASCAR fan, nor do I enjoy movies with trailers that start out "In a world where justice is... blah blah blah, One man takes the law into his own hands..."

But I digress.
F1 is boring. I don't really give a **** about drivers and technology. It's just plain boring. Period.
Ever notice those shots of the F1 pit crews watching the race on the telly between pit stops? They're always sprawled out in their chairs like a bunch of ADD school children who just want to get up and go outside to the monkeybars.
If you could read their minds you'd probably get a continual stream of "Dammit... isn't this thing over yet?"
Hell... if the damned pit crew is bored...

 

HAHHA!! Ferrari was just that last weekend HAHAHAHA!!

 

Being a big time CART fan for the last 15+ years or so allow me to offer my opinion.

First of all, CART has evolved a lot especially in last ten years. If you watched it back in the 80's as compared to now...you'll notice a huge difference in driver and car performance as well as technology. It has split from the IRL (Indy Racing League) to evolve into its own racing series. High tech turbo engines made bt Honda, Toyota, and Ford. The cars are very technologically advanced, yet they are pretty much identical to every other car in the series. This give no single team a technical adavantage over the other, which makes it a very a exciting and unpredictible championship race til the bitter-sweet end.

I have come to like F-1, since Montoya signed on board with Williams and gave F-1 some CART style racing which Schumi wasn't use to, but I still feel that the scoring system always favors only the winners (which on paper sounds fair), but always creates a dominant leader. But lets put it in this context: Hypothetically, lets imagine a driver from BAR and a driver from Minardi. Now the Minardi driver doesn't have the car to win a race, but he manages to consistantly place 7th in 10 races. Now, lets take the BAR driver who wins 2 second place finishes and then DNFs all season long. Point-wise BAR would be in the lead (by F-1's current scoring system) but who's really the better driver? If they adopted the CART scoring systemm, which rewards consistency, Minardi would rightfully be in the lead over BAR.

So, you can technically win the championship whithout winning a single race if you are consistent.

F-1 is predictible. either Ferrari, McLaren, or Williams is going to win. Everyone knows that before the race even start. Very ocassionally, you'll get a suprise.
CART is not predictible...for the last three years, it always came down to the last race to determine the winner. And it looks to be the same this year. Schumi had already clinched the championship in mid season...yet another predictible outcome.

Drivers are more down to earth in CART...I have been to several CART races and the drivers are very friendly to their fans. F-1, well I haven't been to any of the races but I would suspect that it'd be difficult to get close to the drivers. Can't comment too much here though.

CART is more of a spectator's sport...hence the oval's... personally...If I am going to go to a race, ovals are more exciting, whereas places like Laguna Seca, Elkhart Lake, and Long Beach are awesome to watch on TV. The speed is incredible and mind boggling on the ovals and the competion is more dramatic and unpredictible! F-1, when someine takes the lead, its almost guaranteed he'll be there 50 laps later. On CART ovals, literally ANYTHING could happen.

Not saying that one series is better than the other, but for my money, I like CART for its excitement.

 

IMHO, there is one fundamental aspect to F1, CART, NASCAR etc . . . These are not cars I can put a roll bar into. Hell, I probably can't change a tire on one without a $70,000 lug wrench. Nothing in these cars resemble parts I've seen anywhere.

For my money, IMSA was it through the 80's and I plopped my fat *** down every Sunday to watch the non-prototype cars battle it out at Road Atlanta. There is just something to say about thinking "hmm, Celica's are badassed" vs. "what is the engine, chassis builder for that contraption?" F1 can be fun to watch but in the end, its just not all that and a bag of potato chips (potatoe if you're a Quaile fan).

I will admit, that when Senna and Prost were teammates for McClarren Honda - totally different story. You never knew who would win and more importantly who would punt the other off the track. But that wasn't about racing per say, it was for the "holy fu**" factor.

Today, the sportscar racing is what I set the VCR for, not F1 or CART. There is something about Roger Foo taking down the field at Laguna Seca with a friggin' Civic - that is absolutely badassed!!!

And in lieu of Scott's comment, any movie with the line "You just don't get it do you?" is automatically worthless - check it out and let me know if you find one (movie) with that line that is worth the ticket price.

 

BTW, semi side note, did you hear the announcement last weekend that IMSA is back? Or, at least, the name... PSCR (ALMS' sanctioning body) is re-naming as IMSA for 2002. That was a very important name in the history of modern sportscar racing, so it's nice to see it (and its old logo) back in the picture!

RJ
roadracing fan & spectator since 1975
openwheel race watcher on TV since ~199?



[Modified by TAFKARJ, 1:50 AM 10/12/2001]

 

Yep. ALMS will be called IMSA next year. I second phat-s' comment. I tape almost every race of the WC, grand am-cup just so that I can watch it again. If I could pick to watch just 1 race on TV it would have to be a WC race.

 

And it's AMAZING how much actually driving a car on a race track can temper your perspective about what is entertaining to spectate.

Adam, don't forget about "don't you dare die on me you bastard!" and it's various forms.

 

First ALESI first in practice i wonder if he qualifies that way???
I predict barrichello, if not barrichello then hakkinen...

I "LIKE" CART I don't hate it out right, seems to me though that CART drivers are more inconsistent.

MiraiZ, You do have a point about the scoring system of F1, BUT does this not make F1 more competitive then? If Benz and Williams got their act together they would be several points away instead of 30 or 40 points away. If I viewed the F1 scoring system, id **** my pants and say, "damn i have to be this consistent and competitive to get 12 or 1 point!" Lets face it senna, prost, etc have the mind set to be consistent and it is not necessarily the car and it basically goes down the line to the next driver if senna and prost didn't win, it was the next guy.

MINARDI, look where they qualify and finish races, the don't deserve any points, though minardi was only your example.

But i pretty much get the vibe of what most of you are saying and I can be open to it, but to me F1 is the ****!!!

IF SENNA AND PROST raced now, F1 would be competitive, but too many drivers are coming in young and are thinking that the only way to win is to be in a ferrari, benz, or bmw, but i don't believe that, look at renault and ford they won, but once schumacher left, they were back where they started.

HONDA has a chance to win a championship, it is just that, besides their forthcoming TAKUMA SATO, no one in honda is competitive, villeneuve is giving up-- ridiculous practice in japan and for tonights quali's i predict bad performance again.
Panis---won monaco, doesn't seem to be that quick anymore.
Fisischella--old driver just like the other two.

Sauber and renault have a chance too, it's the drivers that take F1 for granted and if they are not competitive, then that is bad for the sport...

but it is good that many of you took this post "seriously" enough to answer, i thought no one would respond back... thanks again guys...but from now on no more venting...through my own experiences in non-pro racing, i find Grand Prix style racing more difficult than Oval racing...

all future posts will be "positive" posts, i wouldn't want many of you to actuall think im a "racing snob".

 

It's the car.

It's the car. When Panis was a test driver for McLaren last year, he routinely ran faster than Hakkinen and Coulthard during testing sessions.

It's the car.

 

I have only been to one oval race, which was the CART season finale at California Speedway last year. (The rain sucked though.)

I am not a huge oval fan, I prefer road courses because them seem to have more variety. However, I was amazed that the excitement and complete visibility that I had from my grandstand seat across from the pits.

You can basically sit there and see the entire course, something that is painfully missing when you attend a road course event. The speed of the cars is unbelievable, far beyond the speeds I witnessed when I was at the Long Beach CART race (I guess about 250mph on the straights, since the average speed including the turns is about 225 or more). Yes, the speed in and of itself is exciting if you are there to see it and hear it in person! There is a lot of jockeying and dicing going on all the time, because of the width of the track. And I can see it all sitting on my butt munching on a hot dog.

In contrast, in the road course events that I have attended (including the CART Long Beach GP), I was extremely bored. I was sitting near the end of the front straight so I could watch the braking zone, but then the cars disappear around a corner, reappear further away, and so on. My friend was falling asleep. However, when I watched the race again on TV, it was mesmerizing, since I could watch the entire course and not miss anything. Fortunately, this alleviated to some extent on courses like Indianapolis, which provides grandstand seating at a road course venue.

More insight on ovals has come when Keiichi Tsuchiya of Best Motoring fame ran in a Nascar race a few years ago. He came away with a new appreciation of the difficulty in balancing a race car at the limit on an oval. He is an experienced racer on road courses, but he was being blown away at California Speedway so it's not as easy as one might think.

So from a marketability point of view, I have come to view ovals as being extremely beneficial to attracting fans to the races by giving them a great show.

In the case of F1, for a long time, I didn't like it, for the reasons others have stated--mainly that the driver was a smaller part of the equation for winning compared to CART. However, after watching a bunch of F1 races, I can see that the fact that a large proportion of the competition in F1 is between the engineering staff of the constructors, and that has some appeal in its own way. It's just that it seems wrong or unfair from a driver's perspective, because you want to be able to drive around weaknesses in your car and still triumph in the end. However, in F1, the team gets additional credit because of this.

So now I enjoy both.

 

Many people seem to look at racing from a spectator point of view, not the driver point of view. they like seeing things zip by on a race track two wide. F1 takes more skill regardless of car and that is what makes F1 more interesting. Schumacher is that good to not muck up and qualify in the 1:32 zone. if that makes other scared to compete against him, it is the drivers fault. Barrichello has the same car, though times are very similar to schumi's, he still can't touch 1:32 or beat it and ends up 4th in japan. Montoya could not even touch 1:32 that is what is interesting to see.

As for the CAR: the top 13 qualifiers of the japanese gp, probably the most difficult course in all or motorsports, are all withing 2 seconds of each other, number 2-7 qualifiers are all in the 1:33 second zone that is amazing, but only because they count 1/10's of a second is there this big disparity. numbers 8-13 are a mix of sauber, jordan, benetton, and jaguar. is the disparity in cars that big if they score within the 1:34 second zone only 2 seconds slower than schumacher? MAYBE or maybe not, but eddie irvines jaguar is only 2 seconds slower, not 6 or 10 seconds. 2 seconds is enough to blame driver error and driver hesitation, they have to be that precise.

the disparity isn't as big as others think, it's just that schumi is really good and many are intimated by him, because he is soooo consistent, with no outright rival, like senna and prost, others tend to see the car as the winner not the driver. someone still needs to drive the car, it doesn't drive itself.

the top 13 cars are within 2 seconds behind schumacher in the japanese gp, that is 13 cars that are competitive. Cart probably has this same average competition-wise.

people would rather be entertained than to actually realize the amount of skill that F1 drivers need to navigate their cars just to qualify in a respectable position and win a race.

 

Horse dead.

 

i didn't read anything beyond the orginal post, but i'd like to say racing an oval is just as hard or harder (depending on conditions, car, and driver) than a road circuit.
i need not explain this to anyone that knows about racing.