You're absolutely right on several counts, PF77:
1) Team budgets ARE out of whack in F1, no question. But, arguably, Schu's won at least 3 of his 6 (6 F1 titles...that's...just...mind boggling) titles in cars that were NOT as well funded/built as the other teams of the day. Heck, half the reason Ferrari's recently been criticized for having "an unfair advantage" over the last 3-4 years is precisely BECAUSE of some of the rule changes in 98-99 that were implemented because ferrari had an "unfair DISadvantage" at the time. So, while I agree it's heavily weighted, at least it's not ALWAYS Chevys.
2) I would disagree with the statement about races for the lead. It's always struck me that what LOOKS like "not racing for the lead" is actually an illusion in many F1 events. A guy can be 3-4 turns behind the leader, and he looks like he's "out of it", when, in fact, he's shaving .1 or .2 seconds a lap off, and at that rate will catch the leader in 5-10 laps. As a result, next couple laps around, the leader sets best lap times of the day, and extends the lead. IMO, despite the fact the cars don't appear to be physically "close" to each other, they're within 3-4 laps either way of the lead changing hands. EVERY SUNDAY I hear the MRN guys talk about how so_and_so will catch Jeff Gordon in another 3-4 laps, and this is "exciting racing" to them. My personal opinion is that 10 car lengths on a straightaway looks a LOT "closer" than the same 10 lengths with 3 curves between the cars.
3) You're 100% right that NASCAR has become what it is, in large part due to the wrecks. One of the reasons I DESPISE NASCAR. If I wanna see guys whose definition of 'racing" is "run my car into the other guy until he gets knocked out of my way...if he wrecks, it'll probably be ok..besides, MY car won't spin out", I'll go rent a comfy chair on the edge of Briley Parkway.
/bc
