Technical Diversity vs Close Racing

[vat_man]

Okay, we've heard the complaints about F1 being a Schumacher dominated championship, and the whinging about Nascar being incredibly boring despite what is probably the closest racing in the world.

So, having followed various forms of motorsport for what is approaching twenty years, I have noticed that technical diversity might enjoy a brief period of close racing, which disappears as each year a manufacturer dominates (examples: group A with the GT-R, supertouring with the Alfa 156, and then the Audi Quattro) until the laws ban it or the formula falls over. I've also noticed that to acheive consistently close racing seems to require an artifically contrived formula (eg. Australian V8 supercars, NASCAR).

So -which is it? If you had to pick, which would you prefer? 30 odd silhoutte cars on some ancient Ford floorpan sitting 30cms from each others bumpers at 200mph, or a series with technical diversity where each year one manufacturer aces it and dominates?

 

[aljones]

I would have to go for close racing. I see nothing wrong in restricting the cars so that they are all very similar. Another good idea is used in the British Touring Car Chamionship - Win Balast. The cars are all pretty similar, OK, plenty of different makes and models but they are restricted in what they can do to them to some degree, but bigger budgets tend to equate to more race wins. So, if a drivers win one race, he must carry extra weight in his car for the next race, making his advantage much smaller, allowing other cars to be more competitive. That in my opinion is a pretty good way to allow for both technical diversity and close racing (and crashes as well in the case of the BTCC ).

I used to love Formula 1, and couldn't get enough of it. But, the technical diversity and to some extent the diversity in team budgets has made the racing a bit boring, no close racing. NASCAR has fairly large budgets, but cars are all restricted, little technical diversity but very close racing, which to me is much better.

I choose close racing (with the odd crash) any day.

 

[vat_man]

Yeah, but it's like reversed grids, don't you think - a bit contrived?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
Yeah, but it's like reversed grids, don't you think - a bit contrived?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? If you have a qualification session to determine grid position, it makes for a problem with the racing, since the fastest guys are at the front already.

Success ballast is one way of controlling performance, and it seems to be working well in the BTCC at the moment. There are lots of series which are technically close but dull in terms of on-track action. You only have to look at F3000 and some of the other one-make series to see that.

I think that the poll question encapsulates the situation entirely: if you're not going to artificially influence the racing, you're either going to have close (but processional) races, or you're going to engender a technical diversity which will lead to seasons like we had in the BTCC where there was serial domination. And remember that the early-to-mid 90s was probably the heyday of the BTCC (although it's coming on strong again now).

 

[vat_man]

Giles - would you agree with my belief that it was sophisticated aerodynamics that ultimately lead to the demise of the Super Tourer formula?

 

[misnblu]

To me, technical diversity.
I like the fact that even though it may be dominated by *fill in the blank*, its the racing that draws me to the sport.
I like it close too but man, I get dizzy from all those zero's (drivers and tracks) of close racing.
Give me a race in which I can see some good lines, very few wrecks and above all, driver skills to match the cars.
Im not an expert on all the forms of racing, but I sure get a thrill in the twisties in my own car than just going in circles of a parking garage. Point made.

[lrmarquee]Misnblu[/lrmarquee]

 

[Deathhawk]

The fact is, if you implimented spec engines/chassis/ect (because note that the BMW engine in formula one has more power than the 2002 Ferrari) then the races would be closer, but then it would become a privateer enterprise.

Ferrari would NOT be there if they couldn't design their own chassis and engine, and I don't think any of the manufacturers (MFG for futer refrence) would be there either. They are using the serise as a promotion for the company. If they can't use their own stuff, then it is not worth it.

As a point of conversation, can you point to a racing serise that contains factory teams that utilizes spec issue chassis engine ect?

Many people however would not consider this issue to be even an issue. Myslef, personally I like to watch manufacturers, and the thing that sperates formula one, and the lemans from other races is the manufacturers.

 

[1X83Z]

It seems vat_man's a bit biased in the direction of technical diversity, but it's all about the market it's in. Americans would rather watch the closeness (and, admittedly, boring left-turns) of NASCAR than listen to 'technical' stuff - most of which they don't understand.

Most Americans that is (namely in Josh's part of the country).

 

[vat_man]

I probably oversimplified it a bit in the way I presented it - and the topic seems to have turned into a bit of a debate of how different forms of motorsport present themselves.

The motive for asking the question comes from my concerns over the Australian V8 supercar championship. Currently, it's a two make series, so basically it's a case of which Holden or Ford wins. That's fine if that's what lights your rocket, but it's a bit insular.

I do miss the old Group A days, where at least we had Skylines, Commodores, Sierras, Toyotas, BMWs, Mercedes, Maseratis and numerous other makes running around. The R32 GT-R effectively killed the formula off because the local makes hadn't won much, and they then went to the current formula.

This shift in Australian motorsport, to my mind anyway, begs the question - is it about the cars, or is it about the show?

I personally think it's about the cars. As is the case in all forms of sport, sometimes the show's going to suck - but it seems alot of people just aren't prepared to accept that anymore.

 

[1X83Z]

The show - in sports, is it about the players or the entertainment?

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
The show - in sports, is it about the players or the entertainment?

Interesting question - but I think the issue is more about where fans draw their entertainment of a sport from - in motorsport, do you want to see nose-to-tail action all the way, even at the cost of the variety of cars competing, or do you draw appreciation of the cars themselves being driven to the limit.

Don't get me wrong, I love a thrilling dice for the lead, but as Nascar shows it can be possible to have too much of a good thing.

CART seemed to have a really good mix a few years ago, with a reasonable variety of chassis and engine manufactuers competing in a very competitive formula.

I suppose it's like seeing a dominant force in sport - people will watch just to see that force in action - Tiger Woods being a good example. Although he dominates the game (British Open being an exception), he has actually created more interest in golf through his domination. Does Valentino Rossi have the same effect in Moto GP?

 

[1X83Z]

Why can't we have both nose-to-tail action and a variety of cars?

I know we don't as of yet, but it'd be a real great motorsport if it ever happened. Perhaps World Rally Championship is the closest thing we've got to tha right now.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
Why can't we have both nose-to-tail action and a variety of cars?

I know we don't as of yet, but it'd be a real great motorsport if it ever happened. Perhaps World Rally Championship is the closest thing we've got to tha right now.

Well, we can - but it never lasts - look at Group A, 2 litre Super touring.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
Giles - would you agree with my belief that it was sophisticated aerodynamics that ultimately lead to the demise of the Super Tourer formula?

Not really, no, although it's easy to see where that belief may have come from.

No, I think it was because of the increasing span of the formula's adaptation. Because there were championships running in Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, South Africa and Italy, there was a significant opportunity for manufacturers to create a single car for the formula, and then race it in several different markets. All the highly successful companies did this, culminating in Audi's clean sweep in 1995.

What happened was that this opportunity was spotted by the manufacturers as a means to get value for the enormous investment they were putting into the sport. It also created a huge barrier to entry for other manufacturers or teams looking to dip their toes in the water.

Plus, at that time there were a number of manufacturers competing in a number of different formulae, who were looking for ways to exploit the existing rulebook. Look at it this way: Benetton's fuel rig issue, the Alfa 155 Super Tourer, and the Porsche 911GT1: all cars that frankly pushed the boundaries of the then existing rulebooks, all in 1994.

 

[vat_man]

That's right - Alfa ran that splitter that was put in the boot on the road car for customers to fit (not that they would).

The reason I thought that was the series went the way the Australian series is threatening, in that you see that ridiculous spectacle of touring cars reliant on downforce for grip, and consequently unable to get close because of the loss of downforce.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
That's right - Alfa ran that splitter that was put in the boot on the road car for customers to fit (not that they would).

The reason I thought that was the series went the way the Australian series is threatening, in that you see that ridiculous spectacle of touring cars reliant on downforce for grip, and consequently unable to get close because of the loss of downforce.

I think the front splitter genuinely was adjustable, but only on the homologation-special Silverstone model. Why you'd adjust it anyway, when all you'd to is invite the nearest kerbstone to come and have a go if it thought it was hard enough.

No, what was in the boot was a pair of spacers for the rear wing, together with bolts, tools and instructions for how to fit it.

The only other car to do that, AFAIK, was the 1994 Toyota Celica GT-Four.

Oh, hang on a minute, going back to my previous post in this thread, wasn't 1994 the year Toyota comitted their - ahem - indiscretion in the WRC? I'll check that when I get home tonight.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
The reason I thought that was the series went the way the Australian series is threatening, in that you see that ridiculous spectacle of touring cars reliant on downforce for grip, and consequently unable to get close because of the loss of downforce.

Well that's pretty much the case in any downforce-led formula, isn't it. Then you get really contrived, like CART did with the Handford wing on the Superspeedways, and that was, as we all know, just silly.

 

[Sertsa]

I'd have to go with technical diversity. While much of the time it becomes a one-team/company dominated sport, it also really demonstrates how skilled the drivers are.

As for various other sports, I caught an AMA Superbike race on Speed Channel during a stay at a relative's house (the local cable company doesn't carry the channel). Ever seen this? I only had a brief glimpse, but it was very technical and intense racing. Even if they did had two wheels too few.

 

[Duke]

I voted "technical diversity", but I'm of two minds on this issue, and I guess it depends upon how the series presents itself. NASCAR is a prime example of bad racing because it represents itself as a manufacturer's contest, but the reality is very different.

I really don't like legislated "close" racing because it is nearly impossible to do fairly and well. It's like a controlled economy - ultimately, it just quits working because too much tinkering screws too many things up. You need to make a good set of rules, and let the manufacturers battle it out for who gets it rightest.

Case in point - in 1994, when the Neon was introduced, Chrysler decided to make a splash in amateur road racing. They made a model called the Neon ACR, which was simply the lightest base model Neon, with slightly shorter gearing and tighter suspension. It was a $1500 option and was bought through the regular dealer network. 99% of the car was stock Neon stuff, including the engine. The car was intended for SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and it obeyed both the letter and the spirit of the rulebook. However, lots of development time spent by Chrysler engineers meant it dominated SSB and SSC from 1995-1997.

For political reasons, the SCCA then changed the rules to allow other cars to use a "trunk kit" - an aftermarket parts list to be bought and installed by racers. The manufacturers themselves didn't even supply the parts! So the name "Showroom Stock" became a big lie. The Neon was legislated off the podium. Everybody else got extra goodies to help them, but Chrysler was punished for doing legitimately well within the rules.

If you want that kind of racing, and you want to keep it honest, then I feel it should be along the lines of spec racing classes - Spec Miata, for instance, or Formula Atlantic, or IROC. This becomes a true driver's competition with the cars made very equal by a strict or fixed rule book.

So to me, racing is exciting at either end of the rules spectrum. But the compromise formulas in the middle do not work, and make the racing too political to be interesting.

 

[alex_gt]

mmm thats a hard one, cause in a Manufacturer Cup I'd say Technical Diversity. But in a Drivers Championship I'd Say Close Racing

 

[GilesGuthrie]

neon_duke makes a good point here. The thing is that if one manufacturer is overly successful, the knee-jerk reaction of the governing body is to change the rules in the interests of 'levelling the playing field', which in fact does no more than tilt the field against the currently dominant manufacturer.

The problem is that some of the really close formulae produce quite dull racing because they are so close. I've seen a Formula Atlantic race, and it was just like F3000: dull.

 

[Deathhawk]

You have to remember though that the f3000, FMazda and the like are designed as stepping stones. They are not for spectators, they are for the racers to give them a place to step before entering forumla2, formula1 or CART.

They are kept spec to allow people to actually race. Imagine a new team trying to start in Formula one with no chassis, no engine. It would take years to become remotely competitive, if they do not go bankrupt.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

But all these series should be able to exist in their own right. Are you really saying that all races below F1 do not matter?

If so, you're saying that only the absolute top whacke formulae have any value at all, in which case you're basically wiping out grass-roots motorsport.

 

[Deathhawk]

No you misunderstand. I am saying that they are not designed to be a specator sport. They are for the Drivers not for people watching on their screen.

 

[Deathhawk]

I am also saying that they keep them spec so that the best DRIVER wins, not the car.

And people that say that that is better, all it means is that Ferrari (or whoever has the most cash) can afford to sweep the best drivers instead of the technical aspects.