Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Changing Lanes
Motogp. The Grand Prix of motorbike racing. The fastest riders in the world on the fastest machines. Overtaking is guaranteed at every race all the way through the field: the leader never finishing more than a few seconds in front of second place, normally having to fight for that first place until the last corner. The crashes are spectacular, the risks high (last week, above, three riders crashed out with broken bones). The rules are more relaxed (spectators shake hands with the riders on the slow-down lap), and the characters more flamboyant (Rossi getting off his bike on the slow-down lap to hug fans). Why did Rossi decide to stay there? Why aren't we watching it instead?
Comments:
<< Home
Why F1 is better: it's faster. The best bike lap around Barcelona was 1.41.855; the best car was 1.16.648. It is unbearably slow to watch the bikes go around the same tracks as the cars.
Why F1 is better: it's bigger. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport in every sense. It draws the largest year round audiences, and has the biggest stars. When Schumacher visited a motogp race you could see the excitement in Suzi Perry's eyes: they were so thrilled to have him there. And at almost every race I've watched they mention F1, almost defensively, because they know it is bigger, the circus surrounding it more entertaining.
Why F1 is better: it's like nothing else we can conceive of. The bikes look fairly similar to what we can buy. The cars are nothing like what we can own.
All that said, the motogp website is far better than our f1.com. You can watch all the races live there, plus interviews etc. And they go to much better racetracks than us.
Why F1 is better: it's bigger. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport in every sense. It draws the largest year round audiences, and has the biggest stars. When Schumacher visited a motogp race you could see the excitement in Suzi Perry's eyes: they were so thrilled to have him there. And at almost every race I've watched they mention F1, almost defensively, because they know it is bigger, the circus surrounding it more entertaining.
Why F1 is better: it's like nothing else we can conceive of. The bikes look fairly similar to what we can buy. The cars are nothing like what we can own.
All that said, the motogp website is far better than our f1.com. You can watch all the races live there, plus interviews etc. And they go to much better racetracks than us.
I don't mind about F1 being the biggest stars and so on (not drivers mind but stars).
The thing that makes F1 better for me is the thing that you mention about F1 being nothing like we can conceive of. The cars are so different than something you can drive. That's a big part of it. Especially as it causes my second point.
I think (and I may be wrong because I don't watch bikes very much) that there are more comprable bike events. Superbikes, MotoGP etc. That the differnce between the two is closer than say F1 and GP2 or more importantly F1 and Rally Cars.
F1 is the best four weel racing from a drivers point of view (overtaking clouds some viewers points of view) whereas I'm not sure that's true in Bikes - and as I say I may be wrong it's just my outsiders impression.
Although I dislike quoting James he was right when he said that even though there is more overtaking in GP2 it's not as interesting to watch because it's not as important. And it's that same undefinable importance that makes F1 better for me than MotoGp.
However Murray Walker has watched both since the fifties and still loves motorbikes more, so what do I know?
Post a Comment
The thing that makes F1 better for me is the thing that you mention about F1 being nothing like we can conceive of. The cars are so different than something you can drive. That's a big part of it. Especially as it causes my second point.
I think (and I may be wrong because I don't watch bikes very much) that there are more comprable bike events. Superbikes, MotoGP etc. That the differnce between the two is closer than say F1 and GP2 or more importantly F1 and Rally Cars.
F1 is the best four weel racing from a drivers point of view (overtaking clouds some viewers points of view) whereas I'm not sure that's true in Bikes - and as I say I may be wrong it's just my outsiders impression.
Although I dislike quoting James he was right when he said that even though there is more overtaking in GP2 it's not as interesting to watch because it's not as important. And it's that same undefinable importance that makes F1 better for me than MotoGp.
However Murray Walker has watched both since the fifties and still loves motorbikes more, so what do I know?
<< Home
