72 replies to this topic

[Tsarwash]

Bernie mentioned this in the German interview, and I have to say I think he is correct.

Here's some figures, I put them; different race winners, different pole sitters, total different drivers, different winning teams.

2015; 3 winners, 3 poles, 3 total, 2 teams, 15 races.
2014; 3 winners, 3 poles, 4 total, 2 teams, 19 races.
2013; 4 winners, 5 poles, 6 total, 4 teams, 19 races.
2012; 8 winners, 8 poles, 8 total, 6 teams, 20 races.
2011; 4 winners, 3 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 19 races.
2010; 5 winners, 5 poles, 6 total, 3 teams, 19 races.
2009; 6 winners, 8 poles, 9 total, 3 teams, 17 races.
2008; 7 winners, 6 poles, 7 total, 5 teams, 18 races.
2007; 4 winners, 4 poles, 4 total, 2 teams, 17 races.
2006; 5 winners, 6 poles, 6 total, 3 teams, 18 races.
2005; 5 winners, 9 poles, 9 total, 3 teams, 19 races.
2004; 5 winners, 6 poles, 7 total, 4 teams, 18 races.
2003; 8 winners, 6 poles, 8 total, 5 teams, 16 races.
2002; 4 winners, 3 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 17 races.
2001; 5 winners, 4 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 17 races.
2000; 4 winners, 4 poles, 4 total, 2 teams, 17 races.
1999; 6 winners, 4 poles, 7 total, 4 teams, 16 races.
1998; 4 winners, 4 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 16 races.
1997; 6 winners, 6 poles, 7 total, 4 teams, 17 races.
1996; 4 winners, 3 poles, 4 total, 3 teams, 16 races.
This year looks set to match the most dominant constructors season ever.

1988; 3 winners, 3 poles, 3 total, 2 teams, 16 races.

[OO7]

That's what happens when you have a dominate team, the results become more predictable.

[Ross Stonefeld]

So most of the time it's predictable...

[AustinF1]

What does the "total different drivers" stat denote?

 

I assume this is a spinoff of the '3 different race winners' discussion in the other thread. Nobody over there could think of 2 consecutive seasons with only 3 race winners. Anyone here remember such a case?

Edited by AustinF1, 20 October 2015 - 15:33.

[Marklar]

1988 was a cracker, wasnt it? 2007 had just 4 winner, but was also a cracker. And if you look into the data you posted we have pretty regular just 4 winners (had the Bahrain GP tooked a few laps longer this season also would have had 4 winners)

I think its wrong to measure the predictibility based on the number of race winner. Its true that F1 is more predictable, but not because just 3-4 drivers are winning and one team is dominating, because thats pretty normal.

It is more predictable because, well, nothing unpredictable can happen anymore: cars are reliable and gravel traps are not existing. Mercedes pit call in Monaco was one of these moments recently were something unpredictabily happened and caused drama, but this will happen probably never again.

I think people want to have this feeling that a car can stil break down or a driver can trapped in the gravel on the finishing lap even if you are country miles ahead, and that cant happen anymore. And thats a pity: if a football game is 2 minutes before the end 4-0 than its done, but if someone is leading a F1 race 2 laps before the end with 40 seconds than it was not done, now it is done. A shame.

Thats for me how I define the lack of predictibility. Of course dominations making the whold thing even more predictable, but if you have these other variables than you have stil the excitement which saved F1 during the Ferrari era and thats what F1 is lacking now.

[goingthedistance]

One team being dominant can still be okay...if there is proper intra-team competition. 

 

But lets be honest we haven't had that. Rosberg just isn't up to Hamilton's standard, on race day at least. He's never been a great racer. 

[SophieB]

If all you had to go on to make sense of F1 was that list, you would be forgiven for thinking that 2004 and 2005 were pretty similar seasons.

[Marklar]

What does the "total different drivers" stat denote?
 
I assume this is a spinoff of the '3 different race winners' discussion in the other thread. Nobody over there could think of 2 consecutive seasons with only 3 race winners. Anyone here remember such a case?

3 winners per season happened so far 5 times

1950, 1952, 1963, 1988, 2014

But as already mentioned we could be easily this year on 4 winner which happened often in the past

[sopa]

Yeah, F1 has become too predictable. Everyone knew before the 2015 season Hamilton would be a WDC. And who would bet against him before 2016 either? Better go and get some easy money on betting sites.

 

Of course individual race wins can go either way, but over a full season there are clear trends.

[Ickx]

Has the field ever been as tightly matched as it is today? Even mannor are almost close to the top when it comes to lap time

[Dan333SP]

It is more predictable because, well, nothing unpredictable can happen anymore: cars are reliable and gravel traps are not existing. Mercedes pit call in Monaco was one of these moments recently were something unpredictabily happened and caused drama, but this will happen probably never again.

I think people want to have this feeling that a car can stil break down or a driver can trapped in the gravel on the finishing lap even if you are country miles ahead, and that cant happen anymore. And thats a pity: if a football game is 2 minutes before the end 4-0 than its done, but if someone is leading a F1 race 2 laps before the end with 40 seconds than it was not done, now it is done. A shame.
 

 

Good points, as usual. I just re-watched my review of the '99 season. I forgot how many times drivers in the top 6 positions would make a mistake, get stuck in the gravel, and retire on the spot. Hakkinen at Monza is the most notorious. Same for mechanical retirements. Nurburgring that year had Frentzen retire from the lead with a failure, then Coulthard and Fisi spun out of the lead and got stuck in gravel, retiring. Ralf also retired from the lead with a tire failure, and Badoer/Villeneuve retired with car failures from top 6 positions before the end as well, so the end result with Herbert winning was completely unpredictable.

 

If that same race was run with today's circuit design and reliability, the spinners would have probably been able to continue when they went off onto tarmac, the failures wouldn't have happened other than Ralf's tire failure potentially, and Stewart GP would never have had a double podium and their maiden win.

[Anderis]

2007 had just 4 winner, but was also a cracker.

 

2007 was awful IMO. Championship battle was interesting, but races were very boring on average. I would say every season between 2008 and 2013 was better than that. I don't rate 2014 and 2015 because I didn't watch some of the races.

[Atreiu]

Another reason for reversed grids.

[Anderis]

Has the field ever been as tightly matched as it is today? Even mannor are almost close to the top when it comes to lap time

2009 was probably the closest season ever. On many circuits all or almost all cars were within more or less 1 second in qualifying pace.

Edited by Anderis, 20 October 2015 - 15:44.

[Dan333SP]

Has the field ever been as tightly matched as it is today? Even mannor are almost close to the top when it comes to lap time

 

Wait, what? Manor aren't close to the top at all. You only have to go back a few years to see much, much closer grids. 2009 for instance regularly had the entire top 10 within 1 second of each other, and the entire field within 2 seconds of pole. Now, Manor is lucky to be within 4 seconds of pole, and it's not unusual for the top 10 to be separated by more than 2 seconds. 
 

[Anja]

I agree with pointing the blame to modern reliability and forgiving circuits. If you remove 90% of the random factor, predictability is bound to be high.

[Radion]

Would anyone of you want cheesy tyres back for the sake of unpredictability? I know a lot of people don't like this idea of drivers not pushing all the time but I think 2012 and half of 2013 were pretty interesting in that regard.

[Nonesuch]

These numbers are interesting of course, but comparing 2015 to 2004 at least suggests that they might not be the best way to measure predictability.

 

Rosberg and Hamilton could win all races between the two of them, but if the fights were exciting and the championship close I doubt many people would complain - except maybe Red Bull.

 

It's high time someone else has a go at Hamilton in the other Mercedes; Rosberg doesn't seem to show any signs of being able to do so in 2016.

Edited by Nonesuch, 20 October 2015 - 16:27.

[Myrvold]

I agree with pointing the blame to modern reliability and forgiving circuits. If you remove 90% of the random factor, predictability is bound to be high.

5 Stars for using Clermont-Ferrand as avatar! Lovely stuff!

[Fisico54]

One team being dominant can still be okay...if there is proper intra-team competition.

But lets be honest we haven't had that. Rosberg just isn't up to Hamilton's standard, on race day at least. He's never been a great racer.

Exactly Prost - Senna in 88 was a classic year as we had 2 great drivers going head to head fighting it out.
This year isn't as everybody knows Hamilton will beat Rosberg nearly every time. If it was Alonso or Vettel in the other Merc?

[P123]

Too predictable, or slightly more predictable? Outside of wet races F1 has always been predictable, with only tyre issues or safety cars mixing it up.

These days there are no longer gravel traps to catch out driver errors (note the effect such can have re. Hamilton Hungary lap 1 chicane) and send them back in the pack or out of the race, and there are limited unreliability to let the plucky underdog to have their day.

[Lights]

This is partially the result of cost cutting. Engines, gearboxes etc. must last several races. There are less people retiring, especially from the top teams as they have things in order. Thus there are less freak wins due to attrition, and it's harder to catch up with the best team in raw speed as development possibilities are extremely limited. As others above here have also mentioned, forgiving circuits without gravel traps don't help with this either.

[TurnOffTheLights]

And if you look into the data you posted we have pretty regular just 4 winners (had the Bahrain GP tooked a few laps longer this season also would have had 4 winners)

 

I don't like that argument. Pretty likely there've been races in other seasons, too, in which an underdog was close to win but ultimately failed to do so. How about Malaysia 13? I vaguely remember something about Webber almost winning that Grand Prix ;)  Then there would have been 5 different winners in that season instead of 4. 

[HeadFirst]

Another reason for reversed grids.

 

There is NO good reason for reversed grids. F1 is a competition for teams and drivers, not some real-life version of Super Mario Kart.

[Mart280]

F1 needs to get attrition back into the sport, races can get a bit boring when every car finishes, 20 -30 years ago things where a lot more unpredictable, lets get V8's V10's and even some V12's back, attrition gives some of the lower teams a chance of points and generally makes races more interesting.

[MasterOfCoin]

This year isn't as everybody knows Hamilton will beat Rosberg nearly every time. If it was Alonso or Vettel in the other Merc?

I always wonder why some fans think by having Alonso or Vettel in the other Merc the results will change much if any, considering Nico is a pretty good qualifier, Vettel and Alonso would have to do the same as Nico, by trying to get pole so that they have the preferred Merc pit strategy, if not your race will hampered by pitting 2nd. and that makes it just as predictable. 

[TurnOffTheLights]

Most in here are only talking about much higher reliability and thus less "freak" results. And rightfully so. But if you have a second look at the first post, you can also see the numbers of different pole setters. That has nothing to do with reliability at all. There aren't that many seasons in the list that had only 3 different pole drivers. And there have never been to back-to-back seasons with only 3 different pole drivers. So it's not only about reliability, it's more about the current domination of Mercedes in raw speed.

Edited by TurnOffTheLights, 20 October 2015 - 17:14.

[Marklar]

I don't like that argument. Pretty likely there've been races in other seasons, too, in which an underdog was close to win but ultimately failed to do so. How about Malaysia 13? I vaguely remember something about Webber almost winning that Grand Prix ;)  Then there would have been 5 different winners in that season instead of 4.

Yeah, just to underline that the number of race winners is no argument especially as this number could have been easily different without changing the quality of the season

As others mentioned: based on that 2004 and 2005 were equal...not really

[maximilian]

Bring on gravel traps everywhere.

[superden]

Predictability is predictable.

[Atreiu]

There is NO good reason for reversed grids. F1 is a competition for teams and drivers, not some real-life version of Super Mario Kart.

 

Agree to disagree. It might be what it takes for teams to realize how turbulence has been the racing killer.

 

Or, more honestly, I don't care anymore. Years and years of teams bickering over rules and doing **** to actually make racing better while Bernie runs away with it have left me jaded.

 

Just have something done.

[Marklar]

Most in here are only talking about much higher reliability and thus less "freak" results. And rightfully so. But if you have a second look at the first post, you can also see the numbers of different pole setters. That has nothing to do with reliability at all. There aren't that many seasons in the list that had only 3 different pole drivers. And there have never been to back-to-back seasons with only 3 different pole drivers. So it's not only about reliability, it's more about the current domination of Mercedes in raw speed.

For me the poles are even underlining the argument that it is pretty normal: we had from 1996-2013 3×3 pole sitters and 5×4 pole sitters. In 8 of 18 seasons. And 2004 is not even among them. That has a reason:we had an different quali system back than, they started the race with the amount of fuel they qualified, thats why we rarely had in this period less than 5 pole sitters per season.

However for me personally not the results are defining that, in this aspect 2004 was awful (12 of the first 13 races won by Schumacher), its the way how the results came together. And due to the already mentioned points it was more exciting than now, the quali system might also have helped for that.

[Ruusperi]

Comparing the number of race winners and pole sitters isn't the best way to highlight the predictability. A statistic that would show average absolute difference between starting position and finishing position would tell more.

I don't have the statistics, but we know very well that even Minard was multiple times in the top-6 despite the fact they usually started from the back of the grid. As a comparison, it may take several years for Marussia to get points again (i.e. finish 10th or higher).

Personally I would like very much if rules, reliability and gravel traps would allow Marussia a real chance be in top 6. With the current state of F1 this will not happen.

 

Also, the current qualifying system is less likely to give random results. With single 60 minute sessions changing conditions meant that even Arrows or Jordan could grab a pole if they set a lap in a right moment. Nowadays a smaller team needs already luck to first be in Q2 and Q3, and since everyone usually go out at the same time, the chances are that everyone has the same track conditions.

[MasterOfCoin]

The Teams are not stupid the amount of sponsor money available to them are far less and costs are higher than ever so attrition is bad for business, the 1st rule about finishing first, 1st you have to finish which applies. You don't get any constructor money by dropping out of races, with what little money Bernie gives you for finishing in the points, is one of the reasons the teams strive to be as reliable as possible, so that they can stay in business. 

[TurnOffTheLights]

we had from 1996-2013 3×3 pole sitters and 5×4 pole sitters. In 8 of 18 seasons.

So we've had 5 or even more different pole drivers in 10 out of 18 seasons. 
Plus the seasons that saw only 3 or 4 different drivers on pole:

 

1996: Hill 9, Schumacher 4, Villeneuve 3                     - Williams 12, Ferrari 4
1998: Häkkinen 9, Coulthard 3, Schumacher 3, Fisichella 1    - McLaren 12, Ferrari 3, Benetton 1
1999: Häkkinen 11, Schumacher 3, Barrichello 1, Frentzen 1   - McLaren 11, Ferrari 3, Stewart 1, Jordan 1
2000: Schumacher 9, Häkkinen 5, Coulthard 2, Barrichello 1   - Ferrari 10, McLaren 7
2001: Schumacher 11, Montoya 3, Coulthard 2, R. Schumacher 1 - Ferrari 11, Williams 4, McLaren 2
2002: Schumacher 7, Montoya 7, Barrichello 3                 - Ferrari 10, Williams 7
2007: Massa 6, Hamilton 6, Räikkönen 3, Alonso 2             - Ferrari 9, McLaren 8
2011: Vettel 15, Webber 3, Hamilton 1                        - Red Bull 18, McLaren 1
2014: Rosberg 11, Hamilton 7, Massa 1                        - Mercedes 18, Williams 1
2015: Hamilton 11, Rosberg 3, Vettel 1                       - Mercedes 14, Ferrari 1

 

red: number of poles of the best driver in a different team than the WDC

bold: total number of poles of the dominant team

 

So every season bar 2011 (which is the only one that's comparable in terms of qualifying domination to 2014 and 2015) has been much more balanced. 

But before 2011 we've had an exciting 2010 season and after 2011 an even more exciting 2012 season, so while 2011 was the most boring season for a long time, the boredom didn't last as long as it's the case right now. 2 seasons in a row. And who's gonna bet that it'll end next year?

Edited by TurnOffTheLights, 20 October 2015 - 18:14.

[Fastcake]

Bring on gravel traps everywhere.

 

It would certainly be unpredictable if the entire circuit was a rally stage.

[Marklar]

So we've had 5 or even more different pole drivers in 10 out of 18 seasons.
Plus the seasons that saw only 3 or 4 different drivers on pole:

1996: Hill 9, Schumacher 4, Villeneuve 3 - Williams 12, Ferrari 41998: Häkkinen 9, Coulthard 3, Schumacher 3, Fisichella 1 - McLaren 12, Ferrari 3, Benetton 11999: Häkkinen 11, Schumacher 3, Barrichello 1, Frentzen 1 - McLaren 11, Ferrari 3, Stewart 1, Jordan 12000: Schumacher 9, Häkkinen 5, Coulthard 2, Barrichello 1 - Ferrari 10, McLaren 72001: Schumacher 11, Montoya 3, Coulthard 2, R. Schumacher 1 - Ferrari 11, Williams 4, McLaren 22002: Schumacher 7, Montoya 7, Barrichello 3 - Ferrari 10, Williams 72007: Massa 6, Hamilton 6, Räikkönen 3, Alonso 2 - Ferrari 9, McLaren 82011: Vettel 15, Webber 3, Hamilton 1 - Red Bull 18, McLaren 12014: Rosberg 11, Hamilton 7, Massa 1 - Mercedes 18, Williams 12015: Hamilton 11, Rosberg 3, Vettel 1 - Mercedes 14, Ferrari 1

red: number of poles of the best driver in a different team than the WDC
bold: total number of poles of the dominant team

So every season bar 2011 (which is the only one that's comparable in terms of qualifying domination to 2014 and 2015) has been much more balanced.
But before 2011 we've had an exciting 2010 season and after 2011 an even more exciting 2012 season, so while 2011 was the most boring season for a long time, the boredom didn't last as long as it's the case right now. 2 seasons in a row. And who's gonna bet that it'll end next year?

You are implying that the predictibility has to do with the Mercedes dominance and that Mercedes have unlike Ferrari (edit I mean 2000-04 Ferrari) not the task to fight during the race for the win as they are anyway always starting first? Am I right? Thats one point of course. You could call it the cherry on the cake.

Edited by Marklar, 20 October 2015 - 18:40.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

So, here are the full stats from 1950 until today. The 3y average currently is at an all time low at 3,7 and the maximum from the past three years is at 5 from 2013.

 

It is encouraging to notice, that the 3y max value never dipped below 5 since 1950. So it is more likely to have more than 3 winners in 2016 than 3 or less!

 

[ANF]

Quick and dirty but hopefully accurate pre-Bernie stats.

[ANF]

I guess I was a bit late.

[P123]

So, here are the full stats from 1950 until today. The 3y average currently is at an all time low at 3,7 and the maximum from the past three years is at 5 from 2013.
 
It is encouraging to notice, that the 3y max value never dipped below 5 since 1950. So it is more likely to have more than 3 winners in 2016 than 3 or less!
 

No point comparing the past. Insert '50s, '60s, 70s, 80s, 90s levels of reliability to modern F1 and you'd have more 'winners' per season.

How about a graph for the average number of cars finishing on the same lap as the GP winner...

[Risil]

You'd also have to adjust in the other direction for the number of championship races in a season...

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

#winners/#races

There's a general downward trend, the 3y average is also at an all time low at 19,3%. It can still change, of course as the season isn't done yet.

The 3y max is at 26,3%, slightly below the 27,8% value from 2006/2007.

 

I know it's still not perfect, you'd also have to take into account the number of drivers that competed, for example.

 

 

The numbers are from http://www.motorspor...sults/index.php

Edited by thegforcemaybewithyou, 20 October 2015 - 19:14.

[Massa_f1]

F1 has always been predictable to a certain point.

 

in 1992/3 it was obvious a Williams would be on pole and win unless something strange happened.

same for 1996.

 

Then same with the Ferrari's in 2002 and 2004, and the Red Bull in 2011.

 

In the past periods of dominance like this only lasted 2 seasons max before at least 1 other team challenged closely on a regular basis. Unfortunately I can easily see Mercedes keeping the same distance between themselves, and the rest of the field until the next major change in the rules.

 

What F1 needs is the field being closer to each other again like it was in the late 2000's 06-08. You never knew what team or driver would be on pole and win before the race weekends during them seasons.

 

[PlatenGlass]

1988 was a cracker, wasnt it?

I don't think it was. We had a close championship battle (i.e. statistical battle) between the two drivers most people would say were the greatest of that time, but I don't think the individual races were generally that brilliant. There weren't many exciting on-track battles between the two of them. Generally one or the other would win quite easily. I'd say it was quite a poor year overall actually. It was probably the worst season of the 80s actually.

[Otaku]

Bernie mentioned this in the German interview, and I have to say I think he is correct.

Here's some figures, I put them; different race winners, different pole sitters, total different drivers, different winning teams.

2015; 3 winners, 3 poles, 3 total, 2 teams, 15 races.
2014; 3 winners, 3 poles, 4 total, 2 teams, 19 races.
2013; 4 winners, 5 poles, 6 total, 4 teams, 19 races.
2012; 8 winners, 8 poles, 8 total, 6 teams, 20 races.
2011; 4 winners, 3 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 19 races.
2010; 5 winners, 5 poles, 6 total, 3 teams, 19 races.
2009; 6 winners, 8 poles, 9 total, 3 teams, 17 races.
2008; 7 winners, 6 poles, 7 total, 5 teams, 18 races.
2007; 4 winners, 4 poles, 4 total, 2 teams, 17 races.
2006; 5 winners, 6 poles, 6 total, 3 teams, 18 races.
2005; 5 winners, 9 poles, 9 total, 3 teams, 19 races.
2004; 5 winners, 6 poles, 7 total, 4 teams, 18 races.
2003; 8 winners, 6 poles, 8 total, 5 teams, 16 races.
2002; 4 winners, 3 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 17 races.
2001; 5 winners, 4 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 17 races.
2000; 4 winners, 4 poles, 4 total, 2 teams, 17 races.
1999; 6 winners, 4 poles, 7 total, 4 teams, 16 races.
1998; 4 winners, 4 poles, 5 total, 3 teams, 16 races.
1997; 6 winners, 6 poles, 7 total, 4 teams, 17 races.
1996; 4 winners, 3 poles, 4 total, 3 teams, 16 races.
This year looks set to match the most dominant constructors season ever.

1988; 3 winners, 3 poles, 3 total, 2 teams, 16 races.

 

1988 may have been a McLaren walkover, but it was far from predictable and every single race was on the edge.

[warp]

All you need is two drivers with equal machinery and similar skills to make a championship exciting.

 

Senna Vs. Prost in 88 as the archetypal example.

 

Problem is, Barrichello was not a match for Schumacher and Rosberg not really matching Hamilton. Then, we have a driver running away with a championship and sort of killing the excitement. 

[Ickx]

I agree with pointing the blame to modern reliability and forgiving circuits. If you remove 90% of the random factor, predictability is bound to be high.

 

While I agree to a point I don't think it is the full story, About 10 years ago I went through forix and plotted the number of classifications/starters and it did not really correspond to the number of race winners plot. It was actually quite constant from 1950 to 2000, after that reliability improved significantly.

[Ickx]

All you need is two drivers with equal machinery and similar skills to make a championship exciting.

 

Senna Vs. Prost in 88 as the archetypal example.

 

Problem is, Barrichello was not a match for Schumacher and Rosberg not really matching Hamilton. Then, we have a driver running away with a championship and sort of killing the excitement. 

 

But did 1988 produce godd races or is it only the result of the season that look exciting in retrospect? If one look at the individual race results they do not tell a story of close racing for the lead. Of the 16 races the second place was only within 10 seconds of the winner seven times, twice less than 1 second and once each about 3 and 6 seconds. 

[ViMaMo]

Fire Rosberg !!