2014-2021 hybrid regulations - success or failure?

From my personal point of view, they've been quite a failure.

- For the first time in many years, the engine sounds are not exciting. Prior to 2014 it was just pleasure to watch the cars drive by themselves and listen to them. Not anymore.

- The greatest domination of a single team in F1 history.and few competitive seasons. Overcomplicated power-units only exacerbated the difference between the rich and the poor, the factory teams and the customer teams.

- Bad racing as for the ever growing dirty air problem, made worse by stupid 2016 changes and ever more powerful DRS, so overtaking is almost every time either too difficult or too easy depending on circumstances and almost never in the in-between zone that produces the most fun.

- 10 teams is too few.

- Cars getting bigger and heavier which makes them look less nimble and seemingly easier to drive as drivers seem to spin much less frequently and the time gaps between drivers are smaller than in the past.

I would much rather be where we were in 2011-2013 than where we're now. Hopefully 2022 will get better than this due to budget caps, different prize money structure and reintroduction of ground effect. Probably 3 best single changes I could think of, although I think there's more to be done, but that's a great start.

Edited by Anderis, 13 December 2021 - 13:07.

No it isn't otherwise Lewis would have lots more pole positions this year.
You cannot take the motor out of motorsports.
Don't confuse drs+slipstream with engine formula. Qualifying Saturday max was pulling ahead on the straights.

RB seems to have one lap performance. They seems to match Mercedes over one lap. Either in quali or when perez kept lewis behind.

Could be ERS or something.

Over the race distance Honda was simply no match to Mercedes since Brazil and Mercedes can simply continue this engine superiority next year and beyond.

From my personal point of view, they've been quite a failure.

- For the first time in many years, the engine sounds are not exciting. Prior to 2014 it was just pleasure to watch the cars drive by themselves and listen to them. Not anymore.

- The greatest domination of a single team in F1 history.and few competitive seasons. Overcomplicated power-units only exacerbated the difference between the rich and the poor, the factory teams and the customer teams.

- Bad racing as for the ever growing dirty air problem, made worse by stupid 2016 changes and ever more powerful DRS, so overtaking is almost every time either too difficult or too easy depending on circumstances and almost never in the in-between zone that produces the most fun.

- 10 teams is too few.

- Cars getting bigger and heavier which makes them look less nimble and seemingly easier to drive as drivers seem to spin much less frequently and the time gaps between drivers are smaller than in the past.

 

I would much rather be where we were in 2011-2013 than where we're now. Hopefully 2022 will get better than this due to budget caps, different prize money structure and reintroduction of ground effect. Probably 3 best single changes I could think of, although I think there's more to be done, but that's a great start.

This post sums up what I think about the hybrid era.

Edited by skicrack, 13 December 2021 - 19:22.

Absolutely a failure. They were dependent on who spent the most money and had the most resources. The manufacturers had to participate in an untenable spending war to keep up. 

Edited by ARTGP, 13 December 2021 - 19:24.

I like complexity it adds to technical innovation and makes it less spec series.

Is a shame they disabled engine mode changes the last couple of years.

F1 has always had rich and poor, when I started watching in the 1990s, the lead cars were miles ahead of the rest then as well.

Edited by chrcol, 13 December 2021 - 19:26.

Hybrid power units had to happen.  Around 2014 I was a frequent reader of New Scientist magazine (for US readers, think Scientific American).  Their reporting made it clear that they viewed F1 as it was at the time to be anti-social, immoral and indefensible, and they felt the move to hybrid units and greater fuel efficiency essential for F1 to make a case for survival.  This necessitated larger, heavier cars.  It wasn't F1's fault that only one supplier took the new rules seriously - just like Ferrari in 1960 worked at perfecting their 1.5 litre V6 Dino engine for the new formula, so Mercedes did the same for the hybrid era.  Other manufacturers refused to invest properly in order to catch up, but that was their fault, not Mercedes' fault or the fault of F1.  In that sense, it was a clear success as I cannot imagine F1 would have survived into the 2020s had it still been internal combustion only.

Edited by cpbell, 13 December 2021 - 19:28.

If I had my druthers I would have enforced the three engine per car per season with much more draconian measures. Use more than that and you finish the season starting at the back of the grid in all of the remaining races unless the engine is deemed unusable after a crash.

Hybrid power units had to happen.  Around 2014 I was a frequent reader of New Scientist magazine (for US readers, think Scientific American).  Their reporting made it clear that they viewed F1 as it was at the time to be anti-social, immoral and indefensible, and they felt the move to hybrid units and greater fuel efficiency essential for F1 to make a case for survival.  This necessitated larger, heavier cars.  It wasn't F1's fault that only one supplier took the new rules seriously - just like Ferrari in 1960 worked at perfecting their 1.5 litre V6 Dino engine for the new formula, so Mercedes did the same for the hybrid era.  Other manufacturers refused to invest properly in order to catch up, but that was their fault, not Mercedes' fault or the fault of F1.  In that sense, it was a clear success as I cannot imagine F1 would have survived into the 2020s had it still been internal combustion only.

It's not Merc's fault, but F1 could have certainly thought of financial regulations far sooner than they did.  The spending war was not sustainable back then no more than it would be now. 

Edited by ARTGP, 13 December 2021 - 19:31.

F1 has always had rich and poor, when I started watching in the 1990s, the lead cars were miles ahead of the rest then as well.

There's a difference between something being a norm for a long period of time and something being desirable. Racing is much more interesting when the differences between cars are not too big. And we need it much more than in the 80s or 90s to compensate for decrease in unpredictability that has taken place since then. Also we're in a better position than ever to achieve it because F1 now generates so much money through TV rights that there's enough to sustain everyone above the level of the "poors" from 30 or 40 years ago. 
 

The rules are the same for everyone and they all signed up to it.

The fact that one team did a better job doesn't mean it was a failure. It's not mercedes fault the others are not as good as them.

In terms of the topic title it needs to change. Still the same pu for next year.
2017 there was a massive rule change throw of the dice when they made cars able to lap 5-7 seconds faster. Again with that rule reset mercedes did a better job, albeit Ferrari got alot closer.

Firstly, no-one is disputing that they all signed up for it.  Don't get the relevance.

Secondly, the fact that one team made a success of it to the extent that they dominated for most of the period and the only time anyone got close was due to running trickery in the PU that ended up being banned, does indeed make it a failure.  If there's no competition, it's not much of a sport.  Don't understand the need to defend Mercedes since the complaint is against the era, not one team.

Which F1 has been for most of its existence. It was only during the 2009-2013 period that it wasn't. Remember that - at least for road cars - HALF of the spending of the total vehicle goes in to the powertrain. All the rest added up cover the other half. Powertrains are hugely important, and should remain as such.

yeah, but for the rest of F1's existence teams had a lot greater technical freedom to catch up.  The regulations surrounding the introduction of the hybrids meant it was all but impossible for anyone to catch up for years.  The failure is not just in introducing the hybrids, but in all the regulations surrounding it.

Well the hybrid rules aren't changing until 2025/26 (can't remember which?), so this thread is probably more valid for then. We had a big aero change in 2017, and then another huge aero concept change next year. 

 

I don't like the hybrid engines personally, and F1 since 2014 hasn't been that great. One team dominating much of it has pretty much wasted the careers of some great drivers from this period. 

 

The hybrids have taken away one of the essences of F1 - the sound. However, it has maintained the techonlogical marvel aspect of the sport - these engines are amazing in terms of what they are, but I still don't like them in F1. However, they are a necessary evil given the way the world is going. 

 

So my verdict is that it's probably the best it could have been so far, but man I wish we had V10s still. 

BIB: great, and often overlooked, point

Fair enough, but I would have expected the engineers in teh customer teams to have been prodding and probing just what was possible with their new shiny toys. Sounds like they took a true "blackbox" approach.

I get the impression they aren't actually allowed near it?  The only people tinkering with the PUs are the personnel supplied by the manufacturer I believe

I think any formula that produces eight consecutive constructor's championships is a failure. It's had its moments but generally the competitive order was set in 2014 and has changed very little since. It must be easier for teams to make up ground in future.

Edited by Pingu Pi, 13 December 2021 - 23:41.

Firstly, no-one is disputing that they all signed up for it.  Don't get the relevance.

 

Secondly, the fact that one team made a success of it to the extent that they dominated for most of the period and the only time anyone got close was due to running trickery in the PU that ended up being banned, does indeed make it a failure.  If there's no competition, it's not much of a sport.  Don't understand the need to defend Mercedes since the complaint is against the era, not one team.

2nd point - disagree, the others need to work harder.  Maybe from a sporting pov i can understand the frustration but what's the alternative - dumb the system down to the lowest common denominator?  That's not the pinancle of motorsport either, and what you're essentially asking for is taking the motor out of motorsport.

They also use 60%?  of the fuel for the same power of the old engines.  We are heading into a net zero future, this isn't celebreated enough.

THe only bits that are/were failures:

1) the token system

2) lack of noise, but I also understand the world has to move on here.  EV's have the same challenge.

All I'm reading is people annoyed that 1 engine was too good and had that performances been equal, i.e. spec engine series, they would be happy, bar the lack of noise.

Even in 2025 these engines ain't going.  Maybe will lose the MGU-H on the basis that its too hard for VW/Audi.

Nothing wrong the engines IMO, only thing wrong is the AERO rules that don't allow close racing.  If that is fixed next year, we don;t need this thread.

I just miss the noise tbh.

Edited by flyboym3, 13 December 2021 - 23:48.

Complete and utter disaster.

Merc played the system.

Edited by grunf77, 13 December 2021 - 23:51.

Hybrid power units had to happen.  Around 2014 I was a frequent reader of New Scientist magazine (for US readers, think Scientific American).  Their reporting made it clear that they viewed F1 as it was at the time to be anti-social, immoral and indefensible, and they felt the move to hybrid units and greater fuel efficiency essential for F1 to make a case for survival.  This necessitated larger, heavier cars.  It wasn't F1's fault that only one supplier took the new rules seriously - just like Ferrari in 1960 worked at perfecting their 1.5 litre V6 Dino engine for the new formula, so Mercedes did the same for the hybrid era.  Other manufacturers refused to invest properly in order to catch up, but that was their fault, not Mercedes' fault or the fault of F1.  In that sense, it was a clear success as I cannot imagine F1 would have survived into the 2020s had it still been internal combustion only.

I don't think New Scientist were right, tbh.  Indycar isn't introducing hybrid engines until 2023 and their viewing figures have been slowly increasing.  They moved to twin-turbos around the time F1 moved to hybrids, so a reasonable comparison.  Ironically, F1 also considered twin turbos at the time but Renault threatened to leave if they didn't get hybrids and so here we are. Obviously, there are a number of things that go into what makes a sport popular and Indy doesn't have  the global reach that F1 does, but I think the moral issue is largely imagined.  Indycar isn't moving to hybrids because they are afraid that people will turn away on moral grounds, but because the technology has matured to the extent that most, if not all manufacturers have hybrid offerings in their consumer markets and it makes sense to make the move now.  F1 moving to hybrids wasn't the problem in itself, but the timing of it, along with the execution, was a disaster.  It was hugely complicated and expensive, and introduced years before it should have been.

Now that Pandora's Box has been opened, F1 can't go back anymore, and hybrids were to a great extend inevitable, but it should have been evolution instead of revolution and they took the plunge long before they were really ready.  They thought it would be easy, but what they introduced, as technologically impressive as it was, was a huge backward step.  Aside from the well documented technical issues and the gulf between Mercedes and the rest, it created a two-tier system much more rigidly defined than ever before, and now you're either a manufacturer or you're fighting for scraps.  And nobody else wants to come in without change because the memory of what happened to Honda is still very fresh

I think it was the fault of F1, collectively.  They failed to anticipate what would happen and as a result they boxed themselves into a corner.  They were blinded by the sci-fi tech and didn't stop to consider all of the pitfalls.

2nd point - disagree, the others need to work harder.  Maybe from a sporting pov i can understand the frustration but what's the alternative - dumb the system down to the lowest common denominator?  That's not the pinancle of motorsport either, and what you're essentially asking for is taking the motor out of motorsport.

 

They also use 60%?  of the fuel for the same power of the old engines.  We are heading into a net zero future, this isn't celebreated enough.

 

THe only bits that are/were failures:

1) the token system

2) lack of noise, but I also understand the world has to move on here.  EV's have the same challenge.

 

All I'm reading is people annoyed that 1 engine was too good and had that performances been equal, i.e. spec engine series, they would be happy, bar the lack of noise.

 

Even in 2025 these engines ain't going.  Maybe will lose the MGU-H on the basis that its too hard for VW/Audi.

 

Nothing wrong the engines IMO, only thing wrong is the AERO rules that don't allow close racing.  If that is fixed next year, we don;t need this thread.

 

I just miss the noise tbh.

If that's all you're reading then I think you probably need to re-read it again.  The thread is about whether the hybrids were good for the sport and speculates what might the alternatives have been.  Note the "were."  If aero is fixed next year it doesn't invalidate the frustration of almost a decade, and nor does 2021 wipe out everything that went before.

I don't agree with the dumbing down argument.  Remember, we're talking about when the hybrids were introduced and whether that was successful.  At the time, there were other choices available which wouldn't have been dumbing down by any means.  Twin turbos were seriously considered, which would be a step backwards now but not back in 2014.  The problem was largely one of timing and F1 went hybrid without fully understanding what they were getting themselves into.  They probably went in a good 6-8 years before they were really ready to, and the result was that most of the teams have largely been playing catch up ever since.  Saying they need to "work harder" is just glib and unfairly dismisses the size of the challenge.  The fact that these are supposedly among the best brains in motorsport and it's taken them the better part of the decade and they still haven't quite caught up, should give some idea of what they are facing.  And from the viewer's perspective, it diminishes the spectacle somewhat

Horrible era of F1, loved only by those enjoying their favourite driver win all the time with ease 90% of the time as there wasn't real competition. The fact pointed out earlier, that Mercedes disguised their huge advantage really does take the pi&& out of F1 and all other competitors really.

Well that's easy. The engine guys that work for the customer teams are all Mercedes employees. Matthew Carter came out a while back on Missed Apex Podcast that once at Lotus at Spa they got an engine setting they hadn't known existed before that point. It turned the car in a monster. That was the only time they were allowed to use it and they never heard of it again.

 

Rosberg saying they held back. And there's an interview by a Mercedes engineer from the beginning of the hybrid era that said the same.

 

If anything I still believe they have a massive engine advantage over everyone else. We saw it at the end of this season, where suddenly they were WAY quicker than Honda. The only reason they want to hide it is because the engines are about to be frozen for the next few years. No manufacturer ever got close in this era, except Ferrari, which ended up to be illegal. 

This is unbelieveable stuff. Disgusting actually.

This is unbelieveable stuff. Disgusting actually.

Nothing wrong the engines IMO, only thing wrong is the AERO rules that don't allow close racing. If that is fixed next year, we don;t need this thread.

Another angle for the success of the rules, is the planned performance levels, and the actual. 

With the 100kg/hr fuel flow rate @ 10,500rpm, it was expected (and planned) that the cars would match the V8s in their non-KERS mode. Therefore, around 750PS at most. And that since you couldn't throw any more fuel at the problem, it would plateau around that figure. 

How wrong we (and the FIA) were. Very quickly it was realised in the first 2014 tests that these things were monsters. The way they can use that limited amount of fuel and run very, very lean, means they not only create silly power levels but also silly efficiency levels.

The questionable 2019 Ferrari engine was probably close to 1100PS. 

First, we've had '14-'16 and '17-21 as two different chassis era's. The hybrid era still continues.

The hybrid engine era is the worst thing that they could have done. You only have to watch the demo run from Alonso in AD last year and peoples responses to it for all the reasons. 

Another angle for the success of the rules, is the planned performance levels, and the actual. 

 

With the 100kg/hr fuel flow rate @ 10,500rpm, it was expected (and planned) that the cars would match the V8s in their non-KERS mode. Therefore, around 750PS at most. And that since you couldn't throw any more fuel at the problem, it would plateau around that figure. 

 

How wrong we (and the FIA) were. Very quickly it was realised in the first 2014 tests that these things were monsters. The way they can use that limited amount of fuel and run very, very lean, means they not only create silly power levels but also silly efficiency levels.

 

The questionable 2019 Ferrari engine was probably close to 1100PS. 

But that one used more fuel than allowed to achieve it.

The regulations themselves were pretty decent, but it was unfortunate that one team emerged so far ahead of the rest, and that the regulations effectively obstructed the oppositions possibility to catch them. 

In general I'd be for gradual introductions of new regulation (so as to avoid locking in dominance over a longer period of time). 

What's disgusting?

Yeah maybe bad choice of word by me but, heyho, you still understood I am sure

Been pretty poor overall for the reasons mentioned.

Who can forget the clusterf*** that was elimination qualifying too 😂😂😂

It’s still surprising to read comments that seem to think hybrids were introduced to F1 in 2014. Hybrids came in in 2009.

The 2014 rule set can quite reasonably be claimed to have been too complex. Having two hybrid elements (MGU-K and MGU-H) was probably the biggest mistake. But F1 already had a hybrid system in KERS (remember KERS?) that was mated to the 2.4 l V8s.

Maybe it would have been a better idea to have a twin turbo and retain KERS? The hybrid element could have been slowly increased in power and F1 would have still been at the forefront of hybrid tech in racing. Let’s face it, only LMP1 and it’s successors have been remotely comparable in the past decade.

Instead we got a formula that favoured too heavily whoever got it right at the start, and when whoever got it right was a manufacturer with deep pockets, it’s no surprise we’ve experienced such prolonged dominance.

The 2009 system was a push to pass like system. I only consider it a hybrid when power is directly and independant from the driver in its usage. It also wasn't mandatory.

Edited by SenorSjon, 14 December 2021 - 09:31.

Overall they have been very poor. When a team wins over 75% of the races held in that period, it's definitely not good showing. Even though RBR dominated 2013, overall we had some very close battles between 2009-2013 in the last of the v8s. 2009 was epic with its story, 2010 we had 4 drivers fighting for a WDC going into the last race and the guy who was 4th in the standings won it. Wasn't it 2012 where we had 7 different winners in the first 7 races and that years championship battle was epic in its own right. 2013 maybe was a one off in that everyone probably switched focus to 2014 and left what was a very fast RBR to sweep the championship.

Personally, the only reason we had such a close 2021 was because Mercedes got a bit hampered with the tweak in regs from 2020 into 2021. Once MB caught up and unloaded few sandbags of their engine, their pace was no match for RBR. Had the car been a direct rollover from 2020 without any changes I genuinely believe MB and LH would have steam rolled everyone to a 8 consecutive double. 

If what we read is true that MB still has potential speed up sleeves re their PU, then we're in for a surprise. They've been wounded this year and I can bet all gloves are off with regards to the PU next year. They had to agree to an Engine Development Freeze to keep RBR in which I presume didn't go down too well in the MB hierarchy. LH's new engine in Brazil was maybe a preview of what more is to come from that PU once all sandbags are off. So when the last remaining heaviest sandbags will truly come off in 2022, we will all be jaw dropped thinking where has this speed come from.

Overall MB had much influence over the Hybrid Engine regs and they made sure that influence translated in total and utter dominance, much to the detriment of the sport. I would not at all be surprised if they called it quits as soon as the new Engine regs are finalised for 2026. Until then MB PU are going to be the dominant factor. As its still the Hybrid Era, I don't see that changing. The only thing changing is the chassis/aero regs. The only way MB can get knocked off is if they develop a terrible chassis, which i doubt will happen. Until 2026 nothing changes i'm afraid.

Edited by iSpeedFreak, 14 December 2021 - 10:12.

But that one used more fuel than allowed to achieve it.

Whatever they were doing was not "illegal". Major loopholing going on.

But still, we ended up with powerunits 50% more powerful than intended. That's some going.

It’s still surprising to read comments that seem to think hybrids were introduced to F1 in 2014. Hybrids came in in 2009.

The 2014 rule set can quite reasonably be claimed to have been too complex. Having two hybrid elements (MGU-K and MGU-H) was probably the biggest mistake. But F1 already had a hybrid system in KERS (remember KERS?) that was mated to the 2.4 l V8s.

Maybe it would have been a better idea to have a twin turbo and retain KERS? The hybrid element could have been slowly increased in power and F1 would have still been at the forefront of hybrid tech in racing. Let’s face it, only LMP1 and it’s successors have been remotely comparable in the past decade.

Instead we got a formula that favoured too heavily whoever got it right at the start, and when whoever got it right was a manufacturer with deep pockets, it’s no surprise we’ve experienced such prolonged dominance.

The MGU-H is the heart of the hybrid powertrains and makes them viable. In an F1 car, it means you have 60-80kW recovery/deployment available at all times. If they went for a KERS-type system from the pre-turbo days, it would not have been anywhere near as effective.

The MGU-H is excellent systems engineering. Even without a battery, you could have an MGU-H directly driving the MGU-K. A "self-sustaining" mode, that would give free power. Marvellous.

It’s still surprising to read comments that seem to think hybrids were introduced to F1 in 2014. Hybrids came in in 2009.

The 2014 rule set can quite reasonably be claimed to have been too complex. Having two hybrid elements (MGU-K and MGU-H) was probably the biggest mistake. But F1 already had a hybrid system in KERS (remember KERS?) that was mated to the 2.4 l V8s.

Maybe it would have been a better idea to have a twin turbo and retain KERS? The hybrid element could have been slowly increased in power and F1 would have still been at the forefront of hybrid tech in racing. Let’s face it, only LMP1 and it’s successors have been remotely comparable in the past decade.

Instead we got a formula that favoured too heavily whoever got it right at the start, and when whoever got it right was a manufacturer with deep pockets, it’s no surprise we’ve experienced such prolonged dominance.

The final sentence really sums it up for me. In terms of racing quality, I think we have had generally better racing in this era than in the preceding eras (though that may not have much if anything to do with the engines), but the main issue I have with this era is that relative performance was... well not locked in per se, but much much more rigid than in previous eras. And it was so right from the start. 

Failure.

Beacuse Mercedes were free to dominate for so long. They did a amazing job, but come on. At least in the past there were some unpredictability (engine failiure).. And during the 90's Williams/Renault domination, they (Frank) had the good taste swapping drivers. Every sport must make sure that a team or athlete do not make it to predictable and boring, I know many times rule changes been applied becuase of that, but this time in F1, Mercedes been untouchble until this season, that is just wrong.

Edited by JG, 14 December 2021 - 10:11.

I hope they change the engine penalty rules. This year pooling of engines made a back door entry back into the sport.

Rule should be that once a penalty engine is taken all the previous engines cannot be used.

It should be like the gearbox rules. Iirc, we had that before.

The MGU-H is the heart of the hybrid powertrains and makes them viable. In an F1 car, it means you have 60-80kW recovery/deployment available at all times. If they went for a KERS-type system from the pre-turbo days, it would not have been anywhere near as effective.

The MGU-H is excellent systems engineering. Even without a battery, you could have an MGU-H directly driving the MGU-K. A "self-sustaining" mode, that would give free power. Marvellous.

Failure.

Beacuse Mercedes were free to dominate for so long. They did a amazing job, but come on. At least in the past there were some unpredictability (engine failiure).. And during the 90's Williams/Renault domination, they (Frank) had the good taste swapping drivers. Every sport must make sure that a team or athlete do not make it to predictable and boring, I know many times rule changes been applied becuase of that, but this time in F1, Mercedes been untouchble until this season, that is just wrong.

It’s still surprising to read comments that seem to think hybrids were introduced to F1 in 2014. Hybrids came in in 2009.

The 2014 rule set can quite reasonably be claimed to have been too complex. Having two hybrid elements (MGU-K and MGU-H) was probably the biggest mistake. But F1 already had a hybrid system in KERS (remember KERS?) that was mated to the 2.4 l V8s.

Maybe it would have been a better idea to have a twin turbo and retain KERS? The hybrid element could have been slowly increased in power and F1 would have still been at the forefront of hybrid tech in racing. Let’s face it, only LMP1 and it’s successors have been remotely comparable in the past decade.

Instead we got a formula that favoured too heavily whoever got it right at the start, and when whoever got it right was a manufacturer with deep pockets, it’s no surprise we’ve experienced such prolonged dominance.

yeah but, they only became a problem for many when Lewis Hamilton and Merc started winning.........before that it was all fine 

yeah but, they only became a problem for many when Lewis Hamilton and Merc started winning.........before that it was all fine

Overall they have been very poor. When a team wins over 75% of the races held in that period, it's definitely not good showing. Even though RBR dominated 2013, overall we had some very close battles between 2009-2013 in the last of the v8s. 2009 was epic with its story, 2010 we had 4 drivers fighting for a WDC going into the last race and the guy who was 4th in the standings won it. Wasn't it 2012 where we had 7 different winners in the first 7 races and that years championship battle was epic in its own right. 2013 maybe was a one off in that everyone probably switched focus to 2014 and left what was a very fast RBR to sweep the championship.

 

Personally, the only reason we had such a close 2021 was because Mercedes got a bit hampered with the tweak in regs from 2020 into 2021. Once MB caught up and unloaded few sandbags of their engine, their pace was no match for RBR. Had the car been a direct rollover from 2020 without any changes I genuinely believe MB and LH would have steam rolled everyone to a 8 consecutive double. 

 

If what we read is true that MB still has potential speed up sleeves re their PU, then we're in for a surprise. They've been wounded this year and I can bet all gloves are off with regards to the PU next year. They had to agree to an Engine Development Freeze to keep RBR in which I presume didn't go down too well in the MB hierarchy. LH's new engine in Brazil was maybe a preview of what more is to come from that PU once all sandbags are off. So when the last remaining heaviest sandbags will truly come off in 2022, we will all be jaw dropped thinking where has this speed come from.

 

Overall MB had much influence over the Hybrid Engine regs and they made sure that influence translated in total and utter dominance, much to the detriment of the sport. I would not at all be surprised if they called it quits as soon as the new Engine regs are finalised for 2026. Until then MB PU are going to be the dominant factor. As its still the Hybrid Era, I don't see that changing. The only thing changing is the chassis/aero regs. The only way MB can get knocked off is if they develop a terrible chassis, which i doubt will happen. Until 2026 nothing changes i'm afraid.

Unfortunately, I believe you are spot on. Mercedes showed their true selves this year, that attitude will continue now. Like I said in a different thread Mercedes treat motorsport as war not sport, as seen this year and before in DTM.

yeah but, they only became a problem for many when Lewis Hamilton and Merc started winning.........before that it was all fine 

I think even you know that's nonsense.  2014 was much bigger than just Lewis winning - he was just the lucky recipient of the best car by far.  The regulations didn't have him in mind, though, and they still would have been poorly designed and executed had anybody else been in that car

Complex hybrid engines were probably something F1/FIA had to embrace at some point in an ever more environmentally conscious world, and they are as complicated as they are because it's F1 and that what F1 tends to do. But it hasn't been a failure for those reasons, it's been a failure because Mercedes (by their own admission) had a PU in development for at least 2 years prior to the FIA and manufacturers agreeing to go down the hybrid route. Why were Merc incurring very significant costs developing a PU there was no use for at the time in F1? Logic says most probably they were thinking of re-entering WEC, but saw the potential to re-purpose it for F1 and took advantage of the other manufacturers desire to introduce hybrids. A stroke of genius really, they got a massive baked-in development advantage and avoided the considerable potential to be 4th of 4 chasing Audi, Porsche, and Toyota in WEC. F1 on the other had got a situation (until this year, and briefly when Ferrari were running their NDA PU) when you had to be driving a Mercedes to compete for championships.

Unless you are a Mercedes shareholder, or a Ham Fan, a pointless failure. Ecclestone was right.