Your brother is Tony George AICMFP?highlandsflyer":3v3i6pmv said:
British engineering has less of stranglehold on motorsport engineering than it once had - admittedly still more dominant than many would probably realise, but recent years have seen some change, there.
As to the politics angle - well first rule, it's all about the money, but beyond that, and the sport has to fit in with something that aligns with the people. They can't distance themselves totally, because just in ivory towers, with no human interest, and there isn't money, really.
In the end, though, there's enough snobbery and (loosely) union with the teams to not be entirely dominated by FOM.
As to Indycars, it wasn't always like it is now. The split was bad, and the series I preferred was quite entertaining - a rough split between oval circuits, street circuits, and "road" circuits. There were several chassis makers and engine manufacturers, and although the level of innovation and sophistication somewhat behind F1, the series was most entertaining.
The cars, whilst looking reasonably similar to F1 cars, then, were although more powerful than F1 cars, heavier, not as well braked, but had some aero aspects (admittedly, often, some were dictated by type of circuit) that helped in terms of cars following and overtaking (ground effects and venturi tunnels were still allowed).
Yes the often prolonged and invasive safety car periods could often be seen as intrusive or contrived, but on the flip-side frequently added more action. Clearly that has parallels with modern F1, with single manufacturer and spec tyres, KERS and DRS.
It was often a very entertaining series, but the split was damaging, long term, and sometime over the last 10 / 15 years, I lost interest, when fuel economy started to become a major factor in race strategy. The concept of turning down boost / revs, running lean and slower, to try and avoid a pit-stop, at least to me robbed many races of interest and excitement.
When the IRL formed, I couldn't muster any interest in it. Don't think I've ever watched a post-split Indy 500. However, for those that criticise the role of a circuit like Monaco for F1, you have to say, there's at least some argument, that some tracks are of bigger significance to a series than some would credit them.
A lot of those spec decisions of the American series, though, could (and have at times) shown some similarities in F1.
I realise that in modern times they can't just open the floodgates and effectively loosen regulations to make it entirely money-no-object racing in F1. Whilst elitism is never that absent in F1, it makes new blood most difficult, and shows no empathy with society. But they do need to find a good balance between making it more relevant, and not being too contrived and artificial.
I'd like to think that the principles of the American single-seater / open-wheeled series won't become major factors for F1. But the spec ECU sounded alarming, even if I could see / get some of the thinking. Yet still custom throttle maps are to some degree making a mockery of it. Maybe the whole launch control, traction control, and before it "3D" throttle mapping were difficult to police, but I wonder if we're now that far from it, in reailty.
All the same, I'd like to think that F1 won't end up castrated to become like some of the US single-seater / open-wheel series, but there's certainly lessons to be learnt from them - splits and breakaway groups are bad and damaging long-term; too much interference - either for spec reasons, cost reasons, or racing reasons can often be (ultimately) self-defeating.
Entertainment and relevance to the audience are significant factors, even if many existing fans don't like the prospect. You've only got to see some of the races on the calendar, where local people just don't get an F1 race, and there's little local interest to realise that the reality of branching out into these places isn't exactly the expansion or changes that F1 needs.
There are times when I think that what FOM needs is new blood, and on the other hand, just as many times when I think that what it needs is the same control it's had for decades.
But as to the parallels in other posts, about other sports, there was some interesting debate on governance in sport on Radio 4 earlier this week. Some of it quite thought provoking, but even accepting (and I always have) about the role of money, I have to say the ever-increasing dumbing-down to chase ratings is becoming a heavy spectre, and is certainly reducing my interest in sports and TV that I used to enjoy.
