sobota 26. listopadu 2005

F1 vs. WRC I.

F1 is clean, ultra-fast, focusing on standard and repeated tasks to be done as efficiently as possible. It's about large investments into each component, it's about systematic development of particular and very narrow human capital. Before the race, you always know the few names who can win; the others are simply backbenchers. Equipment splits the racers into separate clusters. F1 is also a typical artificial sport; you can't use the car in normal traffic.
WRC is dusty, rough, focused mainly in dealing with hundreds of small problems, where a driver has to cope with any detail at any time. It is about good car too, but also about persistent driving, large intuition, and ability to forecast potential problems. The race is open; favorites change with weather, place, and season. WRC is a typical outdoor sport; the car is infinitely closer to showroom cars than F1.

Why I'm writing about this? I find this dichotomy everywhere. The best case is Athletics vs. Orienteering. On one hand, an average athlete is fast, much faster than an orienteer. Yet, the orienteer is far more universal. An orienteer can run in marsh, on mountain hills, on rocks, in any terrain. A good orienteer can navigate through anything anywhere at any time, day or night, any season of the year. The athlete needs the track, or at least good roads, while the orienteer needs only public land. Athletics is about large and long-time investments into a few elite runners; in Orienteering, time is certainly necessary to get experience, but it is not prohibitive. Athletics is an elitist sport; if you are below average, you sooner or later leave because the sport is a loss of time for you. Orienteering is democratic; anyone from 5-95 can participate and enjoy competition. The final difference, between artificial vs. outdoor sport, is pretty obvious.