> I never understood that kind of race either. I don't get the point of giving all the drivers cars capable of *exactly* the same thing - as you've illustrated, that leads to races in which all of the cars are wont to be in the same place the whole time. Races are much more exciting - and, to my thinking, much less a matter of luck - if the drivers have a bit of freedom over their cars.

There is an exception to this. In Formula Ford racing, all cars have identical 16000 (I think) cc engines. They also race on circuits that ARE NOT OVAL. Races are exciting as there is very little difference between front and back, there are many overtaking attempts (and therefore crashes, but Formula Ford's safety record is exceptional), and the winner is dictated by one of two methods:

1). Survival - the driver gets out in front and proceeds to use great pit stop tactics to stay there, while furiously fending off the two cars magnetically attatched to his backside. Or, the driver may just be one of the few who hasn't come unstuck during overtaking. However, this is fairly rare.

2). Extreme skill. As speed advantage is non-existent, often it is the most skilful driver who can overtake the most without crashing who wins.

3). Tactics - the driver may time a pit stop so well that it puts him out of risk of passing attempts from behind. This only happens if someone screws up a stop or stops on the track with a broken something.

Ford is never repetetive. Every driver has a chance of winning. That is what makes it fun and exciting to watch. If Formula 1 didn't exist, Ford and rallying would probably be the two top motorsports in Europe at least.

Zarn"thank god for Eurosport"iwoop