At no point is this more obvious than in qualifying sessions at Monza. Looking at you, tyre wear.Ĭomputer-oriented decision-making also brings out some truly farcical behaviour from F1 teams. Of course, that’s if you take those predictions seriously – we all know how daft some of the AWS graphics can be. It spoils some of the all-important suspense and fun for me. Similarly, as a fan sitting at home watching the telly, I’m not sure I want to know that there’s a 58.383% chance of an overtake. I don’t want F1 to lose that rockstar element of someone feeling it in their gut that, despite those clouds above, now’s the time to slap on some slicks. My issue is that I’m uncomfortable with the idea that strategists’ decisions get made for them. However, with F1 team decision-making, and even the modern-day graphics we see on TV, there’s a risk that too much number crunching makes everything a little too predictable. Once upon a time, that would have been impossible, but thanks to various innovations, we can now get that bit closer to seeing through the driver’s eyes. Of course, there are examples of technology helping out. I know I’m going to come across like an old fuddy-duddy who thinks technology is a bad thing, and who doesn’t get why we can’t still have V10s, but as far as I can see, tech doesn’t always make F1 more exciting. That, right there, is bad news for us fans. ‘Computer says no.’ The phrase spat out by the wall of blinking lights and hard drives in the Mercedes garage when Chief Strategist, James Vowels, asked it about trying a two-stop in Mexico last weekend.
0 kommentar(er)
