You enjoy watching a marathon?
Because without danger that is exactly what racing becomes.
Deny it all you want, but every motorsports fan likes the danger aspect of it, and every racecar driver would be bored if it weren´t dangerous.
Yes, and I would never deny that. They have their use.
Then again, asphalt runoff areas save lifes when it´s dry too... But gravel does a much better job in the rain.
Right.. Instead of simply disagreeing with my statement that motorracing without any danger to anybody involved whatsoever is like watching a marathon, why don't you come up with a reason why it is not so?
I can win any discussion by simply saying "You can either agree with me, or be wrong" and run away, or I can try to make the other person see things my way... It's like religion really, except I won't start killing you for not seeing things my way (no offense to any christians, muslims, hindus, judeans, scientologists, or any other religious people out there).
It's called discussing... Which is what we do here, because these are called discussion forums.
I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree about the danger part. For example, rallying, Isle of Man TT, etc would not be what they are without the danger. Every time I watch a balls out rally drive or a record breaking lap of the TT circuit, I nearly fill my pants, and that's half the fun of it. But I can still enjoy the competition of karting or saloon car racing where the level of risk is much much lower. If someone told me "these cars are so safe that there is 0.0001% risk of injury" but the racing was still good, that would not turn me off at all. In that case, the pleasure comes just from seeing good car control/racing.
I autocross, and after probably my best run ever (not trying to toot my own horn too loudly, I'm just trying to make my point), I had a dozen people come up and shake my hand and over the course of the day people were congratulating me and saying how impressed they were with my car control (including a couple of national champs...). I was not in any danger, and I loved the drive, and was very satisfied with it, and a lot of people really enjoyed seeing my display of car control too. And when someone else does a great run, I am just as excited about it too...all without any danger
Motor racing needs risk. It's kind of the point - people drove cars fast to begin with (and continue to do so in 99% of motorsport or on the road) because of the thrill and the adrenaline rush of being fast and on the edge on control (either the limit of their ability or the car's). If it was perfectly safe, and this applies to motorsport or public roads (which I cannot condone, but I cannot stop it either), then there would be no rush, because nothing would be at risk other than perhaps repair bills.
F1 is the same in many ways, and more so in others. They get a thrill out of driving - I think most would do it for nothing if they HAD to, because they enjoy it. They don't do it purely for money... But from a spectators point of view we like to see driving 'gods' on the limit, pushing as far as sense and safety prevail, without going over the edge and driving recklessly or endangering others. Of course it can be safe, but it should never be totally safe.
I am of the opinion that all contemporary open wheel motorsport is safe enough now. Maybe one or two corners could be a bit safer, but then one or two corners have lost their spectacle being made safe - Eau Rouge and 130R spring to mind here...
Keep motorsport dangerous. Just not TOO dangerous.
Surely if that was the case Tristan, none of us would play LFS. There is no risk, so why do we play it? I think because of the pleasure of driving a car on the limit and competing with others, which is also an important part of real life motorsport.
Think hard about what you're saying, because I sure as hell get a rush playing LFS/GPL when I'm having a good battle, without any risk...
Eh.....in my first post I gave you a hint (wasn't even very subtle) that I myself am no motorsports fan because of the 'possible danger of someone being killed', which was in itself enough to prove your point of 'nobody would watch motorsport if it wasn't dangerous' wrong.....
Instead of asking WHY I would still watch motorsports without danger being involved you then told me 'Deny it all you want, but every motorsports fan likes the danger aspect of it, and every racecar driver would be bored if it weren´t dangerous.'
Thats a bit like the following conversation:
You: 'All swans are white!'
Me: 'Sorry, but I am a black swan...'
You: 'You can deny it all you want, but you are white!'
illepall
Sorry.....didn't look to me as if you were interested in my point of view, as you simply denied it being possible.....
Danger is not necessarily needed to make any sport exciting.....Football, Tennis......even Snooker can be pretty thrilling to watch.....its the competition.....not any danger.....
To me there is also a huge difference between taking risks and accepting that something is dangerous.....a risk might very well be if Schumacher tries to make the decisive pass against Alonso in his final F1 race ever.....even if it happened in a really slow corner without ANY danger.....it would be an absolute thrill.....at least to me.....
.....or to give you an even more 'non-dangerous' example.....Steve Davis trying a risky long red which would open the chance to win his first final in years.....I would probably pee my pants.....
Of course there are people that like watching motorsports because it is dangerous.....just like there are people that slow down on the highway when they see that there was an accident.....but I am simply none of that kind.....and you tried to deny that this is possible.....
No, they don't. Have you even ever tried anything with engine and couple of wheels in real life? It feels as good with decent safety equipment as without them. It is like driving in real life with your daily car with ot without safety belt. It feels the same, so there is really no reason not to use them. Same thing with racing. Putting safety gear and using safety equipment does not have effect on will the race be exciting or plain boring, imho, of course. The F1 races would be as boring as they are today, if the cars wouldn't need to pass crash tests or the drivers didn't have to wear special racing suits and helmets. We would just have more new drivers every year
Average motorsport viewer doesn't have a clue about how dangerous real life racing is and which is more dangerous - rally or karting. Or does he know the safety differences between F1 race held at Spa, old Hockenheim or at old Nürburgring. If the commentator says there are safety issues then the majority of viewers agree, because they don't know or care.
As to the dilemma that which racing from is the most dangerous, I'm still in favour of oval racing for the reasons I mentioned before.
The line between decent safety and ultra safety is a fine line, as tristan put it earlier in this thread. I think it could be said it is a line between dead driver and driver walking away unharmed from a crash.
If F1 is still too safe, what kind of stuff should the FIA do to make it less safe? And if the driver must get hurt (=penalized from making a stupid move) in accident, what is the good outcome? A broken ankle? Few broken ribs and a black eye? Losing of a limb? Severe burning of the skin on most areas of the body? Lose of sight or brain damage?
These are the outcomes you are looking for if you are looking for not-too-safety racing
I agree with you, but generalizations are part of discussions...
It´s not everyone, just the vast vast majority.
Don´t get me wrong... Motorsports would be fun to watch if there is no danger... But not half as exciting as it is now to most ´fans´.
Soccer and Football have the aspect of danger (not lethal, but serious bodily damage)... Snooker, darts and other ´bar sports´ have their charm. But the ´bar sports´ variety never has, and never will attract the amount of viewers that the more dangerous sports do.
I love playing pool, and used to be pretty good at snooker...
Now you are overstretching my point to prove yours
There´s no difference in experiencing a fast ride on public roads with or without safety-belts? Which one would scare you most? Remember that a healthy dose of adrenaline will make you feel euforic and like enjoying yourself... Race drivers are adrenaline junkies (well, most of them), otherwise they would never get in the car.
Spectators know it is dangerous. Even if they don´t realise just how dangerous it is, they still know someone could get hurt. And give the viewers some credit... They can spot the difference in safety between Eau Rouge and the various newly implemented chicanes on tracks.
At least we agree to disagree on the oval/road course debate
I never said F1 was too safe... I keep saying they´re moving towards the point where it becomes too safe... I´m all for safety issues implemented on cars as long as it doesn´t take away from the needed expertise of the driver (so they should ban all driver aids). I am firmly against banning allegedly unsafe tracks, and replacing them with MM type Tilke Tracks, or changing the layouts because there ´might´ be a heavy crash.
For a driver to walk away from a crash he must first crash... F1 is moving towards a safety zone where crashing a car becomes next to impossible due to low speed turns. That´s when they will lose most viewers.
What I´m talking about is: Katherine crashed heavily and walked away...
For F1 to go there the track will need to be changed so that there´s a chicane at the kink (already there), and there will need to be 150 yards of run-off area. In other words... Take all the excitement out of the thrilling turn.
The driver SHOULDN´T be hurt... That´s a bit different from your statement that ´the driver MUSTN´T be hurt´. I loved Kat´s crash, mainly because she walked away from it unharmed. I hated the actual moment that she was crashing, and the minutes after it when everybody had to have thought she was dead. I would hate it even more if these crashes were impossibilities. Kat´s crash is a perfect example of "the driver shouldn´t be hurt", rather than "mustn´t".
Am I? I wasn't talking about fast rides on public roads. I was talking about using or not using safety belts when driving normally on public roads. While the difference in safety is huge, the difference in driving experience is zero.
Spectators expect it to be dangerous. An anverage F1 viewer has no idea how safe or unsafe some corner is. Most corners in F1 are taken in speeds higher than 150kph, which is more than the average driver will ever succeed to achieve in his daily road warrior. And thus the speeds are so high the average viewer knows that crashing at those speeds is dangerous.
I am kinda expecting you to come up with better stats
So far the Tilke tracks have provided good racing events.
So it would have been less esciting if there had been a runoff where Legge crashed out?
Take a look at the MotoGP championship - extra safety equipment and several track-side changes - same level of excitement and less chance of quadriplegia...
Not to mention that making it safer potentially removes alot of the inhibition from the driver's/rider's mind so they are "free" to push the limits harder giving us more show on the track.
Perhaps a better way to go with this is that there are different types of people. Those who can only really appreciate something when it is dangerous and those who can appreciate things just as much simply for the skill involved. Some will be towards one end, some towards the other, some in between. If you get a thrill out of watching some old rally footage AND you really enjoy snooker regardless of the lack of danger, consider yourself lucky and don't worry about what anyone else thinks...
...it's okay for people to have different opinions, we don't need to convince them ours is right and theirs is wrong TagForce's side of this is true, definitely, danger does attract more viewers in a lot of cases. And the other side is also true, that people can still appreciate motorsports regardless of the risk factor.
A famous TV-star crashes - he gets 250 posts of symphaty.
A female single seater -racer crashes and first reply turns out into a flaming towards female racers.
--
I just wanna say that I'm happy to see her alive, and that's another reason for me to prefer non-aero racing over single seater racing. (safety)
It must be horrible to drive past the scene, see all the carnage and when the race is red-flagged, try to think who it was and wonder if is he/she ok...
A very good point, Frokki. I didn't want to say anything about this as I didn't want to seem like a jerk towards an injured man and his family. But what is with the Hammond love-fest?
And don't even get me started on Steve Irwin.
Clearly, these people and their families deserve our sympathy, sure. But so do millions of others who don't get it. I find it all a bit Princess-Diana-ish, actually.
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my point, jtr.
I didn't mean that the symphaty arisen by Hammond's crash was wrong or anything, I'm just surprised that a bad crash needs an injury (or death!) to be noticed and discussed.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. You make an excellent point about Legge's crash -- it would surely have got a lot more coverage if she had been badly injured or killed.
I need to be very clear here also, so I don't get flamed to death by legions of Top Gear fans. I have every sympathy for Mr Hammond, I wish him all the best, etc. I am just puzzled about the way so many people seem to feel the kind of really direct emotional connection to the guy that (it seems to me) would be more appropriate for someone they actually knew.
Many more awful things have happened in the world over the last week than one man's jet-car crash, but they don't get the same exposure. And of course, if you personally got upset about every human tragedy that happens in such a big world, you'd never get out of bed in the morning. But I don't think we solve that moral conundrum by reserving our sympathy and emotional response for only those people we "know" from the media.
Most of us love the hampster, so an emotional connection is there. Personally, "I'd do it". The same can't be said for Jeremy Clarkson or "the other guy" as he brands himself.
As for Catherine Legge, "I wouldn't", even "with a bargepole". I admire her for doing what she loves and for finding the money and sponsors to back her, something I never did. As for talent, I dont see enough of her to have an opinion so I couldn't care less if she crashed and burned.
Harsh? Maybe. Racing is meant to be dangerous. I never forgave the health and safety officer for taming my favorite corner at a local kart track because once it had 8 miles of run off everyone else started taking it full throttle too, whereas before it was just those of us with brass balls the size of Luxemburg who had the stomach for it. The thrill was gone, and 80mph 'hug the barrier' in the wet wasn't there anymore, and from the dry line you can't even see the barrier.
If every corner in motor racing was tamed like that i'd get bored and go do machine embroidery instead.
I was watching the race live when she crashed, it looked really really bad, the kind of crash you can expect the worse. I was so glad she ended the day up and walking.
illepall
