Edited by jimjimjeroo, 14 June 2012 - 14:40.
Simple yes or no question... Is F1 too unpredictable this year
#1
Posted 14 June 2012 - 14:39
#3
Posted 14 June 2012 - 14:59
Just because the cars are so close in performance that we are getting different winners does that make it unpredictable? Other than Maldonado who else has won a race this season that you wouldn't have "expected" to win a race?
#4
Posted 14 June 2012 - 15:03
I'd say no.
#5
Posted 14 June 2012 - 15:11
Well, let's see - the three drivers who are frequently touted as the most talented in the sport are in positions 1 to 3 in a McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull respectively.
I'd say no.
Good point.
#6
Posted 14 June 2012 - 15:35
Neil
#7
Posted 14 June 2012 - 15:37
As it stands now, things can be a little hard to predict, but it hasn't reached a point where it is too much randomness or anything of the sort.
#8
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:07
#9
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:22
I want my sport entertaining.
I want my sport sporting.
#10
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:23
2 Fernando Alonso Spanish Ferrari 86
3 Sebastian Vettel German Red Bull Racing-Renault 85
4 Mark Webber Australian Red Bull Racing-Renault 79
1 Red Bull Racing-Renault 164
2 McLaren-Mercedes 133
3 Lotus-Renault 108
4 Ferrari 97
Impredictable? no way
#11
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:28
I want my sport sporting.
And yet some seem to want to know the result in advance.
#12
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:41
Please explain what is unsporting about unpredictability, I don't see the connection.I want my sport sporting.
#13
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:45
Edited by BullHead, 14 June 2012 - 16:46.
#14
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:47
Please explain what is unsporting about unpredictability, I don't see the connection.
Nothing unsporting about unpredictability per se. Some people (not necessarily you, you just used the phrase) seem to want to artificially introduce unpredictability in the name of entertainment.
#15
Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:49
2. Yes
#16
Posted 14 June 2012 - 17:18
There´s this strange relation that some people are trying to establish on some threads that the tyres, or this year's rules or whatever are bad because they make the races unpredictable?
Unpredictability per se is good if that means more and better competition. However, I am not sure yet if this increased competition is artificially created by tyres and I don't like that it's really not a result of better on-track racing but rather of different tracks and temperatures being suitable for different cars (mostly I think?).
#17
Posted 14 June 2012 - 17:18
Nothing unsporting about unpredictability per se. Some people (not necessarily you, you just used the phrase) seem to want to artificially introduce unpredictability in the name of entertainment.
It'd be unsporting if 1 team had a tyre company making special tyres just for their car. Everyone has access to the same tyres this year.
#18
Posted 14 June 2012 - 17:27
It'd be unsporting if 1 team had a tyre company making special tyres just for their car. Everyone has access to the same tyres this year.
No it wouldn't, it would only be unsporting if only one team were allowed to have special tyres.
#19
Posted 14 June 2012 - 18:13
Advertisement
#20
Posted 14 June 2012 - 18:21
1 Lewis Hamilton British McLaren-Mercedes 88
2 Fernando Alonso Spanish Ferrari 86
3 Sebastian Vettel German Red Bull Racing-Renault 85
4 Mark Webber Australian Red Bull Racing-Renault 79
1 Red Bull Racing-Renault 164
2 McLaren-Mercedes 133
3 Lotus-Renault 108
4 Ferrari 97
Impredictable? no way
Exactly, Lewis, Fernando, and Seb at the front with only a few points separating is exactly what you would expect. Would you prefer a repeat of last year when 1 car was so much quicker that the result was pretty much known?
The 3 best drivers are within a knats cock of each other. That is how it should be.
#21
Posted 14 June 2012 - 18:38
I've come full circle on this. Used to think that DRS and the tire issue were too artificial and that I would prefer to hear the commentators and drivers talk about their cars/engines and driving than their tires. But, the fact is that the cars are so close in performance that it is almost impossible for any of about 12 cars to pass each other without causing a wreck if they didn't have DRS and unpredictable tires. They have to have something new to challenge them otherwise they all evolve to the same level technologically and become essentially equal. There are differences in drivers but rarely enough to be able to make a pass on a typical course all else being equal.
Other things that would add to the challenge:
- longer distance, more focus on endurance/reliability.
- Allow some bodywork around the wheels so a little incidental contact doesn't knock someone out of the race
- Allow stranded cars to re- enter the race.
- Wider tracks
- Maybe everybody who is running at the finish gets points. Or a bonus based on laps completed. (I would like to see less DNF's.)
I know, some will say this sounds like NASCAR, but NASCAR doesn't do everything badly. They've got a pretty good product in some ways.
#22
Posted 14 June 2012 - 18:43
But, the fact is that the cars are so close in performance
Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, the cars are delivering similar lap times and the grid appears close, but is it because they actually have similar performance or is it because they are being limited by the tyres?
#23
Posted 14 June 2012 - 18:46
Sorry you make the same mistake people who play the lottery do....With all this 7 races 7 different winners and the championship so close is F1 too unpredictable?
they think just because a ball has not been drawn for a few weeks its more likely to be drawn next week.
here's a clue its not more likely as the ball has no intelligence or knowledge of history.
Just like claiming 7 different winners makes F1 unpredictable
only if you look at the headline 7 different winners
not if you look at the standings
its two different questions mixed up as one
Edited by itsademo, 14 June 2012 - 18:48.
#24
Posted 14 June 2012 - 18:51
#25
Posted 14 June 2012 - 19:07
#26
Posted 14 June 2012 - 19:44
No it wouldn't, it would only be unsporting if only one team were allowed to have special tyres.
Which Ferrari were during their boringly predictable MS dominance years. Was this kind of F1 better than this season? Maybe for Ferrari fans.
#28
Posted 14 June 2012 - 20:25
Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, the cars are delivering similar lap times and the grid appears close, but is it because they actually have similar performance or is it because they are being limited by the tyres?
T h i s
#29
Posted 14 June 2012 - 20:30
#30
Posted 14 June 2012 - 20:52
Which Ferrari were during their boringly predictable MS dominance years. Was this kind of F1 better than this season? Maybe for Ferrari fans.
That is complete rubbish. At no point did the rules allow only Ferrari to use different tyres to the rest of the field.
#31
Posted 14 June 2012 - 21:05
#32
Posted 14 June 2012 - 21:36
That is complete rubbish. At no point did the rules allow only Ferrari to use different tyres to the rest of the field.
Indeed, and whilst Ferrari had the advantage whilst Bridgestone had the advantage, when Bridgestone were ****, Ferrari were ****. Lets all blame the FIA for allowing Bridgestone to be crap in 2005, (apart from at Indi, where the FIA clearly were biased in allowing Bridgestone to race tyres that worked).
#33
Posted 14 June 2012 - 21:37
That's what happened though. Even though Sauber were using them the tyres were developed with Ferrari in mind who gained a massive advantage by effectively having Bridgestone work for them. Combined with unlimited testing at their own private test track it was quite the recipe for predictable racing. This why all the others eventually moved to Michelin because they knew Ferrari were getting tyres designed for their car. And when Michelin eventually started making better tyres in 2003 they were declared illegal mid season and had to be redesigned (slowed down) to let Ferrari win because they had preferential treatment from the FIA too. Mosley admitted this himself.That is complete rubbish. At no point did the rules allow only Ferrari to use different tyres to the rest of the field.
#34
Posted 14 June 2012 - 21:39
I think that it apears unpredictable. If McLaren made less mistakes, we wouldn't have these thread.
Too right The McLaren has been a rocket ship this season, so thank god McLaren ****ed it all up when they had the advantage. Otherwise, we would be looking at a Red Bull 2011 style championship.
Now Ferrari and Red Bull have caught up, so it is more interesting.
#35
Posted 14 June 2012 - 21:40
1 Lewis Hamilton British McLaren-Mercedes 88
2 Fernando Alonso Spanish Ferrari 86
3 Sebastian Vettel German Red Bull Racing-Renault 85
4 Mark Webber Australian Red Bull Racing-Renault 79
1 Red Bull Racing-Renault 164
2 McLaren-Mercedes 133
3 Lotus-Renault 108
4 Ferrari 97
Impredictable? no way
Too unpredictable?
#36
Posted 14 June 2012 - 21:42
That is complete rubbish. At no point did the rules allow only Ferrari to use different tyres to the rest of the field.
There is the written rules, and there are agreements in the background....at least there were in those days.
With Pirelli I am 100% sure that there will be no special arrangement for anyone - I strongly commend Pirelli
for their sporting style!
#37
Posted 14 June 2012 - 22:13
you are right but forget the rules did not stop them and bridgestone doing exactly thatThat is complete rubbish. At no point did the rules allow only Ferrari to use different tyres to the rest of the field.
which is exactly what they did
#38
Posted 14 June 2012 - 22:20
To the poll.. No unpredictability is not of itself a bad thing.. The reason for it is in this case however.
#39
Posted 14 June 2012 - 22:30
As a side note, F1 became too predictable when they started publishing fuel weights after Quali. Once that happened the fun of seeing who was really quick and who was just underfueled disappeared. All because people had to know everything rather than just enjoy it.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 14 June 2012 - 23:02
#41
Posted 14 June 2012 - 23:11
Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, the cars are delivering similar lap times and the grid appears close, but is it because they actually have similar performance or is it because they are being limited by the tyres?
True, correlation does not imply causation, but your example interrogative uses the same logical fallacy in an attempt to prove your point: ". . . is it because they actually have similar performance or is it because they are being limited by the tyres?"
Both assumptions are cum hoc ergo propter hoc, logical fallacies.
A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.
A = similar performance
B = similar lap times
Therefore, (A) similar performance causes (B) similar lap times. [False]
A = tires
B = similar lap times
Therefore, (A) tires cause (B) similar lap times. [False]
.
#42
Posted 14 June 2012 - 23:30
True, correlation does not imply causation, but your example interrogative uses the same logical fallacy in an attempt to prove your point:
Of course, but I was not proving any point merely presenting another plausible reason for cars to display similar laps times.
#43
Posted 14 June 2012 - 23:57
1 Lewis Hamilton British McLaren-Mercedes 88
2 Fernando Alonso Spanish Ferrari 86
3 Sebastian Vettel German Red Bull Racing-Renault 85
4 Mark Webber Australian Red Bull Racing-Renault 79
Impredictable? no way
Right on! All of those complaining about randomness should take a look at the WDC standings - other than Schumacher's bad luck, I see absolutely nothing unusual there.
#44
Posted 15 June 2012 - 00:02
Of course, but I was not proving any point merely presenting another plausible reason for cars to display similar laps times.
When I first read the sentence, I thought, are "tyres" or "performance" a false choice or are they examples in a set of variables?
#45
Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:34
My only concern is that with tyres playing so much of a role, engineers and designers might become frustrated that all the millions of dollars and effort the spent on perfecting the car is negated by something out of their control.
#46
Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:37
#47
Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:46
Nope.With all this 7 races 7 different winners and the championship so close is F1 too unpredictable?
In almost every race the big guns stuffed up, allowing space for midfield to upper midfield teams to score wins and podiums.
E.g.,
Vettel and Alonso's strategists #*$?ed up in Montreal.
Hamilton's team #*$?ed up qualifying in Barcelona.
Button's race engineer has lost the plot, his McLaren has no grip at all for 2 races in a row.
and so on and so on...
if they had done a proper job, results would be far more predictable.
Edited by V8 Fireworks, 15 June 2012 - 02:47.
#48
Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:51
It's a good thing all tracks are not identical medium downforce Tilke-dromes, held in air conditioned Truman domes....but rather of different tracks and temperatures being suitable for different cars (mostly I think?).
#49
Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:55
The 300km is now considered classic, but certainly early grand prixs were far longer. perhaps Bernie could consider a return to those more traditional formats... longer race = more ads = more tv revenue?Other things that would add to the challenge:
- longer distance, more focus on endurance/reliability.
#50
Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:53