Right - I can see an argument being made between Moto GP over F1 (less emphasis on starting position, far more passing) but not Rally over F1 as it's a different beast. I used to love F1 (partly since it was often well timed for hungover Sundays off work for me when I was at university) so I really get both the fun and the frustrations with Formula 1.

The other thing that makes MotoGP much more interesting are that the races, being a good bit shorter, are made without pitstops.

So the driver wins on the track, and not the pit crew in the pits.

There's also limited communication- the drivers can receive text messages from their pit crew and race direction, but there is no voice communication and no way for the driver to reply - and most teams still use traditional pit boards.

The problem is that at the top of the leaderboard there's rarely any passing in modern F1 that's based on skill.

What I mean is, passing usually requires some sort of screwup or random external force (race start mosh pit, engine failure, flat tires, etc.) and rarely does it happen because one driver out maneuvered another.

Races can be exciting, but if the end of the race has basically the same order as the qualifying time trials, then it really doesn't matter. Might as well say the qualifiers is the race.

I have to disagree with you here.

The cars can store and deploy energy. Often times the optimal strategy is to alternate storing and deploying energy on consecutive laps. So there is a ton of skill involved in staying as close to the driver in front while on a "harvest" lap so that they can pass the driver on the next "deploy" lap.

This is just one of the many, many ways that skill comes into play.

For more detail, I suggest watching the "track guide" videos by former Champion Nico Rosberg. He basically does sim laps while commentating the details that separate a pole position run from a 4th place run.