HM The King Greets F1 Star Webber Ahead Of Bangkok Event

[Bagwan]

I would be happy to see F1 put in an appearance in LOS. However I would suggest that stock car racing, particularly a demolition derby, would be more appropriate. Maybe the taxi motorbike lads could put on a show?

As for not requiring extreme levels of fitness, words fail me. As an ex Clubman racer in my misspent youth (Mini Coopers) I can assure anybody that doubts this that they are way off beam. Not only is a high degree of physical strength needed but the mental strain of total concentration and the high levels of adrenaline released leave one a tad fragile even after a 20 minute race. With all the totty that follows successful sportsmen around you'd have to be pretty fit to make the most of your chances. I'm pretty sure that the number of press-ups that I could achieve would be impressive. My expertise as a competitive driver ( and my physical appearance ) was such that my fanclub consisted of two Margaret Rutherfod and Irene Handel lookalikes. Definitely tatty totty.

As for sponsorship monies if you can get the Joe Public interested in rock climbing then TV coverage will follow with sponsorship ion close attendance. Best of luck with that!

Although I would rate F! far in front of the Scalectrix for adults that the US drools over, my preference is Motor GP. Watching Valentino Rossi in action is a rare treat.

[brahmburgers]

As for sponsorship monies if you can get the Joe Public interested in rock climbing then TV coverage will follow with sponsorship ion close attendance. Best of luck with that!

That's a good point. Consider who are the richest segment of the populace: old rich people. Generally, what outdoor game can they still play? golf. (ok, they call it a sport, but that's semantics). So if the richest segment of society is going to put money toward a sport, it will naturally put it toward the sport(s) which they can most directly relate to. The other games follow behind golf, in terms of investment are: F1 racing, football/soccer, NFL football, NBA basketball, baseball, tennis, cricket, rugby, ice hockey ...not necessarily in that order. The sports in the previous sentence are those that elder rich people either played when they were younger, or wish they did.

Bagwan mentioned rock climbing. That's an obscure sport and one that comparatively few rich elder people (and therefore corporate sponsors) can relate to, so it gets practically no funding from them - opposite to golf and F1. Similarly, other very challenging and stamina sports get little or no funding, because they're too far outside rich peoples' (and corporations') frame of reference. Some other exciting sports which garner little or no sponsorship are kayaking, triathlon, iron man, marathons, tepak sekraw, ultimate frisbee, field hockey, wind surfing, ice climbing.

[whybother]

As for sponsorship monies if you can get the Joe Public interested in rock climbing then TV coverage will follow with sponsorship ion close attendance. Best of luck with that!

That's a good point. Consider who are the richest segment of the populace: old rich people. Generally, what outdoor game can they still play? golf. (ok, they call it a sport, but that's semantics). So if the richest segment of society is going to put money toward a sport, it will naturally put it toward the sport(s) which they can most directly relate to. The other games follow behind golf, in terms of investment are: F1 racing, football/soccer, NFL football, NBA basketball, baseball, tennis, cricket, rugby, ice hockey ...not necessarily in that order. The sports in the previous sentence are those that elder rich people either played when they were younger, or wish they did.

Bagwan mentioned rock climbing. That's an obscure sport and one that comparatively few rich elder people (and therefore corporate sponsors) can relate to, so it gets practically no funding from them - opposite to golf and F1. Similarly, other very challenging and stamina sports get little or no funding, because they're too far outside rich peoples' (and corporations') frame of reference. Some other exciting sports which garner little or no sponsorship are kayaking, triathlon, iron man, marathons, tepak sekraw, ultimate frisbee, field hockey, wind surfing, ice climbing.

What are you going on about? It's got nothing to do with age.

Money gets spent on anything (sport, TV) when companies spend money on advertising on or around it. Companies spend money on advertising when they think more people are interested in it. Sometimes rich people (young and old) will throw money at something to make it bigger, which will attract more people.

Any event that attracts more people will have more money spent on it because more companies are paying more money for advertising because there are more people. Any event that can't attract people, can't attract the advertising dollars. It's a vicious circle.

[Deeral]

Thus far, the name callers who insist F1 racing entails as much or more stamina than other sports have talked about G-forces and neck muscles (don't they have helmets and special headrests to lessen the impact of such things?). Oh, and one spoke about a driver who placed respectably in a triathlon race - good for him. But some of the basic issues have been avoided by the die-hard fans of F1, and because they can't address them head on, they devolve to childish name-calling.

There's still the unavoidable facts that drivers sit down on the job and their multi million dollar machines and pit crews are mostly what separates winners and also-rans. All in all, if it rocks your boat, great (as long as it's not causing harm). Personally, I admire sportsmen and women who rely on their own personal skills and stamina, and don't have to rely so heavily on corporate sponsors and expensive machinery to win. To each his own, I reckon.

"the name callers who insist F1 racing entails as much or more stamina than other sports"

???? - please just give up and talk about something you understand...hows about plasticine?

[brahmburgers]

- please just give up and talk about something you understand...hows about plasticine?

I know nothing about plasticine, is that your specialty?

[transam]

- please just give up and talk about something you understand...hows about plasticine?

I know nothing about plasticine, is that your specialty?

Think it is, do we have a plasticine forum. hmmmm.

[siamiam]

so clue us in, ....what are your estimates?

Brahmburgers,

You really have us going round and round on this one!

I don't know much at all about auto racing even though I find it exciting to watch, but like everyone else I have opinions. And, I'm not afraid to share them, so here goes.....

I think technology-funding, and car driver should each be assigned an equal amount of importance; pit crew less, but still crucial. My guesstimate on percentages would be 40, 40, and 20. If any one element is not up to snuff the entire team will not do well, at least not consistently anyway. I am guessing that the better cars will attract the better drivers, but I am also thinking that there are more than a couple of teams in each type of racing that have 'money is not a problem' status.

I hear what you are saying about the athleticism of racing drivers, but at the same time I believe that the top racing drivers are in the position they are in because they are in fact the best in the world. Not just because of athleticism, or a lack of it, but because of many other factors as well. I'm thinking these drivers 'have the right stuff', to quote the title of a motion picture about aeronautical test pilots. Other posters on this thread can articulate this better than I, but hand-eye coordination, reflex time, the ability to drive at the very limit of ability without having the possibility of a deadly crash effect your thought processes, etc., all make up 'the right stuff'. I think that the people who put up the money for these cars and teams want to have the best drivers in the world in their cars. This is big business and I think that the big money behind it all looks long and hard for the best driver that can be found.

I suspect that whatever the athletic ability of these drivers is, it is what it needs to be. If they needed to be more athletic then they would be; they would do whatever needs doing to gain a competitive edge. Are the best drivers in the world equal in athletic ability to the best ball players, or boxers, or rock climbers? My opinion is that no, the drivers are not, but only because they don't need to be. What are the chances that the best ball player, or boxer, or rock climber in the world, would be able to match the driving skills of the worlds best auto racers? Probably slim and none, in my opinion.

Cheers, Siamiam

Edited December 23, 2010 by siamiam

[metisdead]

A comment meant to further incite useless arguments has been removed from view.

[HardenedSoul]

Didn't go today but I had the good fortune to have a front-of-the-crush view of a similar event in London a few years back. Devastatingly beautiful sound from a Coulthard-piloted driven full crank up and down Regent Street made all the more glorious by the resonance provided by those Victorian buildings.

On the point of stamina, a boxer acquaintance of mine had the opportunity to be hurled around Silverstone for a few laps in that special two-seater McLaren some time ago. Despite the years of neck-rolls he'd undoubtedly had to do during his career, his neck was sore for several days after because of the effort he had to exert to stop his helmeted head going the opposite direction through corners. I'd do it right now, given the chance; to hell with the consequences for my pencil-neck