91 replies to this topic

[superden]

You may not like who is winning or who is fastest, but that's a different matter.

For many, this is the real problem.

[AustinF1]

Well, of course I'd be elated if one of my favorite drivers was winning everything. Err, actually ... come to think of it ... one of my favorite drivers is winning everything. 

 

It's still not good for the sport.

[Jamiednm]

It's still not good for the sport.

Well periods of domination is part and parcel of F1, its the nature of the sport. Whether it is 'good or bad' for the sport is highly subjective and ultimately academic.

[charly0418]

Mercedes can probably gap the entire field but they wont. When they get a good gap they'll just tone it down as they always have

[eff1fan]

Dont even compare NASCAR with F1 

 

Actually, there is no longer that much difference between them, with the exception that in NASCAR every race is competitive.

[wookles]

The qualifying gaps are unprecedented!

 

3rd place sits 1.3seconds off pole... In NASCAR 1.3 seconds off pole would be 30th place!!

 

Red Bull 3 seconds off pole...

 

Last place 6 seconds off pole...

 

There is some hope for a Ferrari/Williams battle and maybe a Red Bull/Lotus/Toro Rosso...  but over than that hard to see how the race will be little more than a fancy parade of strung out cars at huge intervals...   

 

Maybe you should watch NASCAR instead then?

[Nonesuch]

Well periods of domination is part and parcel of F1, its the nature of the sport. Whether it is 'good or bad' for the sport is highly subjective and ultimately academic.

 

F1 is as much a business as it is a sport, and utter domination like that of Mercedes today drives away the viewers. It has done so before and will no doubt do so again in the future. In that sense it is objectively bad for F1.

 

Bernie Ecclestone and his cohorts at the FIA where in full panic mode by 2002. They changed all sorts of things, from qualifying to tyres to even the points-system itself. They were once more panicking in 2013, leading to the ridiculous Abu Double fiasco.

 

I'm sure this fear of a dominating team was at least part of the reason people started openly discussing entirely new regulations in the very first year of the 2014 overhaul.

Edited by Nonesuch, 14 March 2015 - 21:34.

[STRFerrari4Ever]

I voted yes and no with my sensible hat on but what I'm hoping for is that Rosberg offers some resistance to Hamilton and that the racing behind is close and the teams behind Mercedes don't just spread out with large gaps. A Mercedes' collision would help matters though.

[03011969]

Yes, and most likely yes.

You have to hand it to Mercedes for doing such a good job, but my word are they making F1 boring, and so utterly predictable. Like I've often said before, such dominance by one team is not good for the sport.

It's Schumacher/Ferrari and the early 2000s all over again, except a much greater advantage.

Surely it's the other teams that are making it boring by not building competitive cars. You really cannot blame Mercedes or their drivers.

That said, if you genuinely enjoy your racing, a good tussle between drivers in 8th and 9th or 15th and 16th can still be exciting viewing. Of course, a contest at the front always carries more weight, but if you only concentrate on that you're missing out a lot.

[paulogman]

I don't get this.
Please remind the last time there was actually doubt about which was the best team?
and when was the last time there was truly close racing at the front of the field

[Ikebana]

Legit question, but wrong comparisons regarding Nascar. And you're welcome to leave and watch something else if you don't like it.

 

I'm a McLaren-Honda/Alonso fan, but I'm still excited about Sainz and to see what happens between Hamilton and Rosberg. I wouldn't call it "procesion" pre-emptively just because it's not the driver one likes the one that has the amazing car.

Edited by Ikebana, 14 March 2015 - 22:14.

[alframsey]

I hope for a wet race so we get some excitement...

[AustinF1]

Actually, there is no longer that much difference between them, with the exception that in NASCAR every race is competitive.

Spec racing series usually are competitive.

[jstrains]

I do not know whether I will get up tomorrow to watch it. I feel like during Schu days, when F1 became so boring...

[RoutariEnjinu]

If you want to enjoy Formula 1, do yourself a favour and avoid anyone that's unhealthily obsessed with it, or any particular team or driver. Avoid forums. Avoid articles with headlines that mention crisis in or 'saving' F1.

I enjoyed qualifying. Mercedes and McLaren shocked me. It's going to be an interesting year, and I'm looking forward to watching the race tomorrow with my family.

With that, see you all next year for winter testing.

[UPRC]

It will probably be a bit of a dull affair, but at least Ferrari and Williams should give us some good tangling.

[RealRacing]

This is typical actually, there's always one team that builds a car best suited for the rules they lobbied for (surprise, surprise) and dominates for a while. Sometimes the difference is big, sometimes not so big and others are able to take the fight to them (like Ferrari 2010 and 2012 most recently). F1 is not really auto-racing, it's corporate marketing, now probably more than ever. 

[JHSingo]

Surely it's the other teams that are making it boring by not building competitive cars. You really cannot blame Mercedes or their drivers.

That said, if you genuinely enjoy your racing, a good tussle between drivers in 8th and 9th or 15th and 16th can still be exciting viewing. Of course, a contest at the front always carries more weight, but if you only concentrate on that you're missing out a lot.

 

True, but ultimately it comes down to money. Mercedes have the biggest budget and have outspent everyone. So it's hard to simply say other teams should 'do a better job', when they may not have the same level of money available to them. Take Williams for instance. They're probably doing just about as well as possible for their level of money and resources that they have available.

 

Perhaps you can level criticism at Ferrari and Red Bull, who have similar budgets, but Mercedes basically spent the best part of a couple of seasons preparing for these new regulations, so essentially had a massive head start immediately while Red Bull/Ferrari were concentrating on winning 2012/2013 championships.

 

I guess, ultimately, it's no surprise the team with the biggest budget wins everything, and until there's some kind of level playing field in terms of that (which, knowing F1, will probably never happen) we're always going to face these periods where one team is dominant. It's sad, really.

Edited by JHSingo, 15 March 2015 - 00:02.

[Jamiednm]

F1 is as much a business as it is a sport, and utter domination like that of Mercedes today drives away the viewers. It has done so before and will no doubt do so again in the future. In that sense it is objectively bad for F1.

That's because F1 is poorly run. Domination is not exclusive to F1, it naturally exists and is accepted in all sports. The dominance of Manchester United in the 90s and 2000s coincided with the Premier League becoming exponentially more popular worldwide. The Champions League has the same teams in the knockout stages every year but it's more popular than ever. Federer, Djokovic, Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Floyd Mayweather, Barcelona in recent years destroying every team they play - this is all seen as an asset to their respective sports, sporting dynasty's are the stuff of legend, but in F1 it's such a big problem? I don't buy it. To me, it's an easy scapegoat for people who either don't like the dominant element, or have other gripes with the sport and use the dominant team as an example of the ills of F1. All major sports are businesses, just as much as F1 is. F1 isn't a special case, it just isn't run very well compared to other major sports.

[AustinF1]

True, but ultimately it comes down to money. Mercedes have the biggest budget and have outspent everyone. So it's hard to simply say other teams should 'do a better job', when they may not have the same level of money available to them. Take Williams for instance. They're probably doing just about as well as possible for their level of money and resources that they have available.

 

Perhaps you can level criticism at Ferrari and Red Bull, who have similar budgets, but Mercedes basically spent the best part of a couple of seasons preparing for these new regulations, so essentially had a massive head start immediately while Red Bull/Ferrari were concentrating on winning 2012/2013 championships.

 

I guess, ultimately, it's no surprise the team with the biggest budget wins everything, and until there's some kind of level playing field in terms of that (which, knowing F1, will probably never happen) we're always going to face these periods where one team is dominant. It's sad, really.

 

 I think that's right, but it's also about more than just team budgets. Merc has utilized its factory talent and infrastructure a great deal. I don't think the factories backing Ferrari & Renault compare well to Merc in terms of resources even if they had dedicated them to the F1 effort the way Merc did. The thing that sets Merc apart, imho, is its ability/decision to tap into its factory engineering resources, which are pretty huge and obviously very good.

This is one of the reasons I always say a spending cap in F1 won't work as it's pretty much unenforceable. Works teams will always be able to devote resources and talent without it technically coming from the team's budget. NTTAWWT imho, mind you.

Edited by AustinF1, 15 March 2015 - 00:07.

[Rhardrks]

That's because F1 is poorly run. Domination is not exclusive to F1, it naturally exists and is accepted in all sports. The dominance of Manchester United in the 90s and 2000s coincided with the Premier League becoming exponentially more popular worldwide. The Champions League has the same teams in the knockout stages every year but it's more popular than ever. Federer, Djokovic, Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Floyd Mayweather, Barcelona in recent years destroying every team they play - this is all seen as an asset to their respective sports, sporting dynasty's are the stuff of legend, but in F1 it's such a big problem? I don't buy it. To me, it's an easy scapegoat for people who either don't like the dominant element, or have other gripes with the sport and use the dominant team as an example of the ills of F1. All major sports are businesses, just as much as F1 is. F1 isn't a special case, it just isn't run very well compared to other major sports.

 

You can't compare F1 to those sports where the sport person's skill alone makes the main difference. F1 is 90% the car. Any driver on the grid would dominate with the massive car advantage Mercedes current has. That would not happen in the other sports.

[Nitropower]

If nothing out of the ordinary happens, yes, it will be a procession. Very sad for F1 but these rules lead to these races.

The sort of gaps between cars is unnatural for F1. I've never seen something like this. It's like having cars from 4 different series competing altogethers. Also I find no interest in it at all, the usual gossip, the intra-team battles, but the championship makes no sense as this will be Hamiltons' 3rd way before it's even started.

[charly0418]

Ok this is a disaster

[HoldenRT]

They want us to pay to watch?  Maybe they should pay us to watch?

[LuckyStrike1]

Well this turned out to be very exciting and entertaining so what do we know. 

[Kerch]

Let's get 20 cars on the starting grid before panicking about boring races. 

[hollowstar]

I voted yes and no

[masa90]

Well this turned out to be very exciting and entertaining so what do we know. 

 

Exciting?

It was more exciting trying to guess who actually managed to make it to the starting grid than watching the "race".

[ionutf1fan]

How many cars dou you need to call it a procession?

[Knot]

How many cars dou you need to call it a procession?

 

Two.

 

One, if James May is driving.

[Masteroftheuniverse]

Couple of things:

 

- The Schumacher dominance tested my patience

- The Vettel dominance really tested my patience

- The Hamilton dominance is gonna kill me.

 

And today's race sucked, how is it that with an extra year of development, the cars actually seem even less reliable than last year?

[jstrains]

Arnie was cool!

[masa90]

Arnie was cool!

Yay, the sport is saved.

 

Silly stuff put in place to take attention away from the sport on its sickbed.

[Nonesuch]

That's because F1 is poorly run. Domination is not exclusive to F1, it naturally exists and is accepted in all sports.

 
Right, but whatever the reasons, domination in F1 being bad for the business - and perhaps also the sporting side - is not 'ultimately academic'.
 

... sporting dynasty's are the stuff of legend, but in F1 it's such a big problem? I don't buy it. To me, it's an easy scapegoat for people who either don't like the dominant element, or have other gripes with the sport and use the dominant team as an example of the ills of F1.

 

I agree in some ways. I've written about this at some length before, but to summarize, I think the cars are not good enough. They're too heavy, they're too slow, and they need to be too reliable.

 

Alonso spoke about this last year. If the sport has people like him, the legends of their time if you will, saying the cars are 'quite boring to drive', there is a problem that goes beyond one team dominating.

 

Edited by Nonesuch, 15 March 2015 - 07:32.

[wingnuts]

That race was painfully dull. Why do they choose such a dinky track to start the season on?

 

Maybe they should make it a non-televised, non-championship practice round so that the teams get get their stuff together before the season opener in Malaysia.

[Jamiednm]

 
Right, but whatever the reasons, domination in F1 being bad for the business - and perhaps also the sporting side - is not 'ultimately academic'.
 

 

I agree in some ways. I've written about this at some length before, but to summarize, I think the cars are not good enough. They're too heavy, they're too slow, and they need to be too reliable.

 

Alonso spoke about this last year. If the sport has people like him, the legends of their time if you will, saying the cars are 'quite boring to drive', there is a problem that goes beyond one team dominating.

 

 

Very much the crux of the issue for me.

 

The bosses of F1 have the opportunity to create the most spectacular, fastest and exciting cars in the world on the very best circuits in the world, yet they let themselves be stymied by irrelevant green credentials, irrelevant desire to be road relevant and poorly-designed tracks. The current generation of cars are technically very impressive, but they are in no way exciting. If the cars and (all) circuits were exciting, a one-team domination wouldn't be such a big issue.

[Sardukar]

That race was painfully dull. Why do they choose such a dinky track to start the season on?

 

Maybe they should make it a non-televised, non-championship practice round so that the teams get get their stuff together before the season opener in Malaysia.

 

Maybe instead of blaming the track focus on the teams who didn't even get their cars to the grid and the FIA who won't let teams develop to even the competition.

[Jimisgod]

At least when Ferrari and Red Bull were dominant the racing in the midfield didn't absolutely suck like it did today.

[Lights]

It did, it's just easy to forget.

[Jimisgod]

2004 had interesting battles behind Ferrari.

[MinT]

So the arguement is - F1 was crap years ago - so its okay for it to be crap now as well....okayyyy

[wingnuts]

Processions in F1 have always been frustrating. Slow processions like today are about as exciting as watching traffic negotiate road works.