Grand Prix Rejects

Now that F1 is totally different from the playboy era of the 70's has it sucked the life out of drivers in interviews. Webber and Raikkonen of course are exceptions and Rosberg has a TV channel on Youtube and his video blog is in English and German. But what do you think?

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote:Has Corporate measures made drivers boring?

Oh, tough one. Short answer yes, with an 'if'. Long answer no, with a 'but'...

You instantly mention two guys that are perfect examples of what you label as lost in gloriuous days that are not today. Im 24 and i remember F1 since Villeneuve championship and i don't recall anyone like Kimi or Mark in those days. Corporate evil must have been quite strong in those days.

Gvozdenovic wrote:You instantly mention two guys that are perfect examples of what you label as lost in gloriuous days that are not today. Im 24 and i remember F1 since Villeneuve championship and i don't recall anyone like Kimi or Mark in those days. Corporate evil must have been quite strong in those days.

The idea of drivers being publicly tamer, as it were, is hardly new - F1Fanatic posted a link to an interview that James Hunt had taken part in back in 1990 where he said that he felt that no driver could live the same sort of lifestyle then that he had enjoyed in the 1970's.

"I was jolly happy with life in the 70's, really. We certainly had a lot of fun in those days. But I think my way of living when I was driving would be difficult today. I was entirely responsible about my driving, and never misbehaved there, but after that, when the job was done, I led a fairly laidback lifestyle. I think modern sponsors in this day and age would find that a bit of a strain, and it would not be to my advantage in my career. People would hesitate before hiring me. And I would probably have to curb my behaviour and certainly put on a different public face. I don't think that the way I lived then affected my driving, and I don't think it would if the whole thing was happening now. But you would just have to go a bit more under cover."

http://www.f1speedwriter.com/2013/09/th ... ybook.html

The idea of drivers toning down their public image, therefore, is hardly new - judging by those comments Hunt made, the process has been going on for a couple of decades at least.

Another aspect, perhaps, is that more of the drivers prefer to keep their off the track exploits out of the public eye - Kimi might be cited as an "old fashioned" driver for living the party lifestyle, but at the same time most journalists have pointed out that Kimi doesn't particularly like being in the limelight for that and would prefer it if the media and his fans didn't keep bringing it up.
Similarly, Ted Kravitz pointed out in his post race video show after the Canadian GP that Vettel is one driver who does actually enjoy going out on the town after a race - however, he doesn't like the attention that it generates and therefore tends to avoid going out after most races. The Canadian GP was one of the few races where he did hit the town afterwards - because nobody really recognises him over there, it was one of the few places where he could go out, pass himself off as a normal guy and enjoy himself without having to worry too much about the repercussions.

As has been mentioned, I certainly reading comments like this being made since I started following the sport in the early- to mid-1990s. Kimi is the perfect antithesis to the arguement, as Montoya was to a lesser degree. And Lotus have certainly been trying to work this to their corporate advantage so I am led to believe. Looking forward to when personality is a selling tool!

I've read and heard a multitude of diatribes and arguments of a similar nature since I started following Formula One back in the late-90s, with the overwhelming majority of them fatally incomplete or inconsistent, your's included, because epithets such as "boring" or "corporate zombie" are thoughtlessly thrown around with little regard to what those terms actually mean within the relevant context.

So before we proceed any further in this debate, please define "boring". Should a driver, in your opinion, shamelessly emulate the conduct and behavior of James Hunt in order to qualify as "interesting"? Must a driver respond to every typical media query with an extended soliloquy or comedy routine to qualify as "interesting?" Will a driver be obligated to extricate himself from his car in the middle of a Grand Prix to dance an Irish Jig in order to qualify as "interesting"? What set of behavioral metrics are you employing to categorically define a driver as "boring" or "interesting"? Please elucidate.

Personally speaking, I do feel that a substantial proportion of the drivers on the grid do display their personalities and their idiosyncrasies, albeit subtly, through the driver interviews. They generally speak with inflection (with the exception of Raikkonen), they often employ humor whilst addressing the inquests of the media, and they occasionally feel compelled to satisfy their whims and compulsions on track or off the track. Beyond that, I strongly feel that the primary attraction of Formula One should remain with the racing, not with puerile, melodramatic posturing among drivers and teams in the press and in the paddock. I have no wish to see this sport reduced to the manufactured theatrics of professional wrestling.

kevinbotz wrote:I've read and heard a multitude of diatribes and arguments of a similar nature since I started following Formula One back in the late-90s, with the overwhelming majority of them fatally incomplete or inconsistent, your's included, because epithets such as "boring" or "corporate zombie" are thoughtlessly thrown around with little regard to what those terms actually mean within the relevant context.

So before we proceed any further in this debate, please define "boring". Should a driver, in your opinion, shamelessly emulate the conduct and behavior of James Hunt in order to qualify as "interesting"? Must a driver respond to every typical media query with an extended soliloquy or comedy routine to qualify as "interesting?" Will a driver be obligated to extricate himself from his car in the middle of a Grand Prix to dance an Irish Jig in order to qualify as "interesting"? What set of behavioral metrics are you employing to categorically define a driver as "boring" or "interesting"? Please elucidate.

Personally speaking, I do feel that a substantial proportion of the drivers on the grid do display their personalities and their idiosyncrasies, albeit subtly, through the driver interviews. They generally speak with inflection (with the exception of Raikkonen), they often employ humor whilst addressing the inquests of the media, and they occasionally feel compelled to satisfy their whims and compulsions on track or off the track. Beyond that, I strongly feel that the primary attraction of Formula One should remain with the racing, not with puerile, melodramatic posturing among drivers and teams in the press and in the paddock. I have no wish to see this sport reduced to the manufactured theatrics of professional wrestling.

We don't want the sport made up of 22 James Hunt's because there would be no professionalism anymore but it just feels like the drivers have been given a script to read by the team rather than being allowed to have that extra freedom in what they want to say. Of course not on the levels of negativity but not too lifeless either

We highlight Raikkonen and Webber as being examples of non-boring drivers, but for every one of them there is a Juan Pablo Montoya or a Scott Speed who are also non-boring but definitely rub some people up the wrong way with their attitude. By inviting "characters" into the sport, you're going to get a few a***holes, which is particularly evident in US racing.

watka wrote:We highlight Raikkonen and Webber as being examples of non-boring drivers, but for every one of them there is a Juan Pablo Montoya or a Scott Speed who are also non-boring but definitely rub some people up the wrong way with their attitude. By inviting "characters" into the sport, you're going to get a few a***holes, which is particularly evident in US racing.

I would rather have a couple tossers instead of the terminally dull. So in other words I would take Di Resta over Vernge.

watka wrote:We highlight Raikkonen and Webber as being examples of non-boring drivers, but for every one of them there is a Juan Pablo Montoya or a Scott Speed who are also non-boring but definitely rub some people up the wrong way with their attitude. By inviting "characters" into the sport, you're going to get a few a***holes, which is particularly evident in US racing.

And then of course you have Jacques Villeneuve and Eddie Irvine who were never afraid to speak their minds whatever the consequences

eurobrun wrote:

watka wrote:We highlight Raikkonen and Webber as being examples of non-boring drivers, but for every one of them there is a Juan Pablo Montoya or a Scott Speed who are also non-boring but definitely rub some people up the wrong way with their attitude. By inviting "characters" into the sport, you're going to get a few a***holes, which is particularly evident in US racing.

I would rather have a couple tossers instead of the terminally dull. So in other words I would take Di Resta over Vernge.

I guess its good to have to odd villain every now and then - e.g. Alonso when he was at McLaren. These days everyone hates on Vettel without him having done much wrong aside from Malaysia.

eurobrun wrote:

watka wrote:We highlight Raikkonen and Webber as being examples of non-boring drivers, but for every one of them there is a Juan Pablo Montoya or a Scott Speed who are also non-boring but definitely rub some people up the wrong way with their attitude. By inviting "characters" into the sport, you're going to get a few a***holes, which is particularly evident in US racing.

I would rather have a couple tossers instead of the terminally dull. So in other words I would take Di Resta over Vernge.

Rather poor example, don't you think, given that Di Resta is both a tosspot and incurably boring? Especially when we have His Slightly Boringness himself to cite.

Ben Gilbert wrote:

eurobrun wrote:

watka wrote:We highlight Raikkonen and Webber as being examples of non-boring drivers, but for every one of them there is a Juan Pablo Montoya or a Scott Speed who are also non-boring but definitely rub some people up the wrong way with their attitude. By inviting "characters" into the sport, you're going to get a few a***holes, which is particularly evident in US racing.

I would rather have a couple tossers instead of the terminally dull. So in other words I would take Di Resta over Vernge.

Rather poor example, don't you think, given that Di Resta is both a tosspot and incurably boring? Especially when we have His Slightly Boringness himself to cite.

I personally don't find him to boring, his ego and whining is interesting

Well Lewis "The tyres are f***ed" Hamilton also doesn't fall into the corporate stuff either. I couldn't stop laughing when he said that.

Yes, they have.

Back in the late 90s, Ralf Schumacher's interview style was a role model for this. Even to his brother.

To be fair, if I was the CEO of a multinational company that sponsors a major F1 team, and by dint associated with the teams drivers, I wouldn't really want the two drivers being other than total saints.

in a hypothetical situation, say I was the man in charge of brand awareness expansion or whatever at Telefonica, who are looking to enter F1. I'm in talks with Marussia for a title sponsorship deal, which will safeguard the financial future of the team. If I saw Bianchi and/or Chilton womanising and drinking the excess, and generally not being politically correct, its not good publicity for the sponsors, who'd promptly pull out and leave the team very precarious.

So yes, the drivers have become more corporate, but its a reflection of the times in which we live- you can't live the playboy lifestyle any more.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:To be fair, if I was the CEO of a multinational company that sponsors a major F1 team, and by dint associated with the teams drivers, I wouldn't really want the two drivers being other than total saints.
If I saw Bianchi and/or Chilton womanising and drinking the excess, and generally not being politically correct, its not good publicity for the sponsors, who'd promptly pull out and leave the team very precarious.

So yes, the drivers have become more corporate, but its a reflection of the times in which we live- you can't live the playboy lifestyle any more.

I suppose the exception would be if the multinational company was Playboy or Durex...

dr-baker wrote:I suppose the exception would be if the multinational company was Playboy or Durex...

On that tack, why not bring the Trojan name back to F1, even if not as a constructor .