27 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

I was thinking about the champions in recent years and noticed that in most categories of racing there have been unprecedented periods of domination in most top forms of car racing.

- F1 saw Schumacher and Ferrari win 5 and 6 years on the trot respectively. Hopefully Vettel and Red Bull won't continue to win the championships for the next 3 years.
- In Indycar Dario Franchitti has now won every year since 2007, except 2008 when he didn't compete. In the dying days of Champcar Bourdais also dominated.
- Audi has made the winner of the Le Mans 24 hours a forgone conclusion.
- The traditionally competitive NASCAR saw 5 in a row for Jimmie Johnson.
- Sebastien Loeb has won 8 in a row in WRC and killed my interest in it.

I was going to include Valentino Rossi in MotoGP but noticed that domination has traditionally been more common in bikes, with Agostini or Doohan being examples. But in car racing, it seems like defending a your title has become easier than ever. Do you think that is really the case? I'm a young guy and I wish I could have seen more of the times when the driver with No.1 on his car was almost certain to have to put up a difficult fight to retain that status. It seems like being a multiple champion was worth more in the past. Or are we just living in an age of absolute superstars? What do you think?

[Kraken]

You make it sound like domination is a bad thing. Personally it wouldn't bother me if Loeb won 10 on the trot. If you're the best then you're going to win all the time.

What I hate is when rules are changed for no other reason than to stop someone winning.

It's hardly a new thing anyway. I remember Lotus, McLaren and Williams all dominiating F1 for years at a time. If they had kept drivers in the same way that modern teams to do we would have seen the same guy win over and over again. Perhaps that's the main difference, it wasn't often (from what I can remember anyway) that someone would stay with a team for the amount of time they do these days.

[wj_gibson]

I dunno, I seem to recall McLaren drivers winning 7 out of 8 WDCs from 1984 to 1991. Had they taken the conventional approach of having one continuous no. 1 driver and a subservient no. 2 for that entire period then most likely it would have been Schumacher-like.

[PayasYouRace]

Fair points. It's a genuine question. I'm not looking for any particular answer.

You make it sound like domination is a bad thing.

Well it does suck a lot of excitement out of it.

[sosidge]

These are mature sports. There are very few epoch-changing concepts left for motorsport, unless they get forced on the sport by the regulations.

Modern example is the 2009 rule changes which gave Brawn both titles. Half-way through the season the better resourced teams had caught up and passed Brawn. So the advantage gained by an innovation is very short lived one.

What generates success in motorsport? Engineering innovation and driver talent, certainly. But if you have money, you can buy those.

And once you've bought success, its a lot easier to attract more money to your team. And hence generate more success.

[7MGTEsup]

These are mature sports. There are very few epoch-changing concepts left for motorsport, unless they get forced on the sport by the regulations.

Modern example is the 2009 rule changes which gave Brawn both titles. Half-way through the season the better resourced teams had caught up and passed Brawn. So the advantage gained by an innovation is very short lived one.

What generates success in motorsport? Engineering innovation and driver talent, certainly. But if you have money, you can buy those.

And once you've bought success, its a lot easier to attract more money to your team. And hence generate more success.

I tend to disagree on the money buys success, Toyota being a case in point. They had the biggest budget for quite a few years but never had any success.

[Radoye]

Well Fangio won 5 out of first 8 World Championships (skipping one due to injury), that's quite dominant i'd say.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Would driver turn-over have something to do with it? In the Indycar examples, Helio Castroneves has been with Penske since 2000 and Scott Dixon with Ganassi since 2002. Jimmie Johnson an Jeff Gordon have spent their entire careers with Hendrick, Loeb with Citroen, etc.

[sopa]

Interesting debate about domination. Regarding F1 one important aspect is the level of reliability. Nowadays cars are very reliable, so fastest cars gather big points in every single race and year after year. In the past cars were more inconsistent and this also affected domination.

People say that Lotus used to dominate, but this wasn't a consistent domination. Clark won 63 and 65 titles dominantly, but poor reliability cost him 62, 64 and 67 titles.
Piquet won in 81 and 83. He was fast in 82 and 84 as well, but bad reliability made it impossible to participate in title fight.

Also injuries/deaths were more common in the past, which shaked up the order and also caused more uncertainty/inconsistency. Lauda could have won 3 titles in a row, but missed the 76 title due to Nurburgring.

What has affected IndyCar, is probably common chassis. In the past there was competition between chassis manufacturers and more fluctations.

The change of WRC has been unique. And that in two ways. In the past we used to have lots of specialist drivers, who would win only in their own specific event - either tarmac, gravel, snow or their home rally. Modern top rally drivers have to be all-rounders and teams are not interested in "one-offers", so the list of front-runners has narrowed down. Another thing is the amount of manufacturers - there were only two for a few years. For sure improvement in reliability and change in general nature of rallies (shorter) has affected here as well. You don't see reigning champion suddenly having a very bad year by retiring from most of the rallies.

Edited by sopa, 23 February 2012 - 14:45.

[Faupa]

I was thinking about the champions in recent years and noticed that in most categories of racing there have been unprecedented periods of domination in most top forms of car racing.

- F1 saw Schumacher and Ferrari win 5 and 6 years on the trot respectively. Hopefully Vettel and Red Bull won't continue to win the championships for the next 3 years.
- In Indycar Dario Franchitti has now won every year since 2007, except 2008 when he didn't compete. In the dying days of Champcar Bourdais also dominated.
- Audi has made the winner of the Le Mans 24 hours a forgone conclusion.
- The traditionally competitive NASCAR saw 5 in a row for Jimmie Johnson.
- Sebastien Loeb has won 8 in a row in WRC and killed my interest in it.

I was going to include Valentino Rossi in MotoGP but noticed that domination has traditionally been more common in bikes, with Agostini or Doohan being examples. But in car racing, it seems like defending a your title has become easier than ever. Do you think that is really the case? I'm a young guy and I wish I could have seen more of the times when the driver with No.1 on his car was almost certain to have to put up a difficult fight to retain that status. It seems like being a multiple champion was worth more in the past. Or are we just living in an age of absolute superstars? What do you think?

What is wrong with domination? Look how Peugeot were forced to improve the breed at Le Mans, Honda in Moto GP, Ford in WRC. Red Bull raised the bar in F1 two years ago after Ross Brawn showed what could be done with a small but highly efficient team, limited resources and the talents of many dedicated people and efficient use of available resources.

I am sorry your interest in WRC has been killed by Loeb's domination. Last year was a stellar year in WRC with the final result in doubt until the ultimate event.

This year's regulations in F1 have resulted in the Platypus nose on many cars, a direct descendant of the (much criticized) Walrus nose on Williams some years ago. As an Australian I find this name "platypus" confusing. A platypus is a weird shy mammal which inhabits dark areas of streams and rivers, hardly synonymous with Formula 1! In fact when the first examples of this duck billed mammal where taken to England they were regarded as frauds ( Maybe that is the F1 connection).

So take a deep breath, pour another bevvy and sit back and watch F1, WRC, Moto Gp, Rolex Can-Am and NASCAR and if the racing in these categories does not satisfy you, nothing will.

[HaydenFan]

I think the domination in motorsports today is different than in the past. I believe today's domination by a particular driver/team falls onto the rules and regulations. While meant to create parity, the rules also create a small window in which a car is truly competitive. And while in every series, the competition is closer than ever, one person/one team/one engineer-crew chief has been able to find perfection within that window.

Even looking at touring car racing. Where every rules seems to be made to create equalization you have periods of domination in the last decade. First BMW cars were unstoppable. Then SEAT's, and now Chevrolet makes the car to have in WTCC and BTCC.

Domination is fun though. Every year is creates the story of the chase. Who can run down Red Bull this year? Who can run down Audi this year. When will Jimmie Johnson fall?

In the Hollywood, entertainment world which motorsport is in, is domination a good thing? Of course not. The casual fans (the one's who fill up most of the seats at a race and watch on the television), usually want to see super competitive racing. Where everyone has a shot to win, where it's a free-for-all. But in historic racing term, that free-for-all is crap. That style of racing takes away many of the elements which makes racing exciting for many racing fans.

Edited by HaydenFan, 24 February 2012 - 11:53.

[ensign14]

Domination is easier today because there is less risk of being killed or seriously injured. Ascari v Fangio, Moss v Clark, Senna v Schumacher would have been duels for the ages...

[HaydenFan]

Domination is easier today because there is less risk of being killed or seriously injured. Ascari v Fangio, Moss v Clark, Senna v Schumacher would have been duels for the ages...

Not even from a drivers aspect. You could put bicycle tires on an F1 car and the drivers will push the car to the limit. It's more about the people building the cars. It's easier to make a car safer and more stable at the limit, making the cars in a sense, easier to driver. Also, you have circuits becoming easier to drive. They are safer, so the drivers can push much more easily.

Look at the Vegas IndyCar race. The drivers said the track was just too easy. And it scared the drivers. It was a perfect combination of car and track. But as shown during the race, it created a situation why parity in motorsport is sometimes a very bad thing.

[LewEngBridewell]

Easier? Well it's certainly not any more prevalent. Just look at how Alfa Romeo dominated F1 when things first started in the early 50s! Look at how McLaren and Williams both dominated in the 80s and 90s.

Nothing changes.

[BenettonB192]

If it was easy to dominate we wouldn't see a dominator.

[PayasYouRace]

What is wrong with domination? Look how Peugeot were forced to improve the breed at Le Mans, Honda in Moto GP, Ford in WRC. Red Bull raised the bar in F1 two years ago after Ross Brawn showed what could be done with a small but highly efficient team, limited resources and the talents of many dedicated people and efficient use of available resources.

Not much wrong with domination but it does sap some of the interest away. However I disagree with some of your examples. Peugeot and Ford weren't so much improving the breed as being forced to keep up with Audi and Citroen respectively. At the end of the day while I can appreciate the talent, skill and determination of those doing the dominating, it's not as interesting as 2 or more teams pushing each other to greater things.

I am sorry your interest in WRC has been killed by Loeb's domination. Last year was a stellar year in WRC with the final result in doubt until the ultimate event.

There's other reasons, such as it being hard to follow on TV, etc. which is all beyond the scope of this thread. But if Loeb is the assumed winner every time, it makes it hard to get interested.

This year's regulations in F1 have resulted in the Platypus nose on many cars, a direct descendant of the (much criticized) Walrus nose on Williams some years ago. As an Australian I find this name "platypus" confusing. A platypus is a weird shy mammal which inhabits dark areas of streams and rivers, hardly synonymous with Formula 1! In fact when the first examples of this duck billed mammal where taken to England they were regarded as frauds ( Maybe that is the F1 connection).

WTF? The current nose designs have nothing to do with the Williams walrus nose. That was a totally different design philosophy. Still, what does this have to do with the topic?

So take a deep breath, pour another bevvy and sit back and watch F1, WRC, Moto Gp, Rolex Can-Am and NASCAR and if the racing in these categories does not satisfy you, nothing will.

Nice job of reading way to much into my question. You should be in politics. In fact I enjoyed last year's F1 season immensely because even though Vettel dominated the championship, the racing was excellent. It was just a shame in was often for 2nd place.

[PayasYouRace]

If it was easy to dominate we wouldn't see a dominator.

That makes no sense.

[ensign14]

It's Zen.

[Radoye]

If it was easy to dominate we wouldn't see a dominator.

That makes no sense.

Actually it makes sense, if it was easy to be "dominant" (in the sense being always at the sharp end contending to top results) then there would be a lot of drivers / teams contending for the top all at the same time, effectively cancelling out each other and making domination by a single driver / team practically impossible. You would see different people be dominant at certain periods within a season, having dominant victories in races where nobody can touch them etc but not being able to stretch it over the whole year let alone multiple successive seasons.

So to have a successful long term domination it really takes an extra special effort on behalf of the "dominator". The very fact that it is something truly hard to achieve is what makes it possible to have a single dominant driver / team from time to time.

[PayasYouRace]

Actually it makes sense, if it was easy to be "dominant" (in the sense being always at the sharp end contending to top results) then there would be a lot of drivers / teams contending for the top all at the same time, effectively cancelling out each other and making domination by a single driver / team practically impossible. You would see different people be dominant at certain periods within a season, having dominant victories in races where nobody can touch them etc but not being able to stretch it over the whole year let alone multiple successive seasons.

So to have a successful long term domination it really takes an extra special effort on behalf of the "dominator". The very fact that it is something truly hard to achieve is what makes it possible to have a single dominant driver / team from time to time.

Then he should have said, "If it was easy to win we wouldn't see a dominator." or something along those lines. What he said was nonsense by definition.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 24 February 2012 - 17:02.

[HaydenFan]

It's easier to push the car to the limit in today's motorsport. Just to dominate, it takes something extra to extend what that limit is. In the case of Red Bull, it took Adrian Newey & Vettel to make them go extend the limit. Michael Schumacher took the Ferrari beyond it's normal limit. This set those cars above the others to string up wins and championships.

[SCUDmissile]

it is easier when you make one massive change, but then don't allow the teams to test. at least for F1.

it would be like FIFA saying 'you can only play in a plastic pitch' then not allowing teams to practise on the plastic, so if one team gets it right, they will be there for a long time.

[BenettonB192]

Then he should have said, "If it was easy to win we wouldn't see a dominator." or something along those lines. What he said was nonsense by definition.

My comment was maybe a bit too meta for some

Of course it doesnt make literal sense because the implication of the OP that domination is easy is already nonsense to begin with. Domination always involves hard work, lots of determination, massive talent and plenty of ressources.

[pingu666]

its more of a science now, plus the cars are so reliable now

[icecream_man]

I think once Newey retires the balance will change.

Let's face it, Williams dominated while they had him, McLaren dominated for a bit while they had him, and would have done for longer if he hadn't gone through a phase of designing fragile cars, and now Red Bull are dominating with him.

There's no denying the guy is a genius

[PayasYouRace]

Very interesting replies guys.

[TeamSideways]

domination sucks , it kills a lot of people interest, make the racing very boring and emphasize the weakness of the opponents who cannot compete with the champions . i watch motorsport because i dont know who will finish at the end of the race. i dont want to watch a race when i am sure 90% that vettel will finish ahead by 15 seconds .

[RaoulDuke]

If you watch a basketball game with a final score 99-100, you saw a great game!

In Formula 1, if you run at 99% of the competition, you'll be lapped.

I saw an interview with Patrick Head years ago where he made a similar statement and it’s been velcro’d to my head since. We're talking fractions of a percentage between Best and rest.

An example: Spa 1954 – Fangio wins by 24.2 seconds beating Trintignant – Winning Margin 1.002%. (ok, this example doesn’t jibe with the 1% = lapped statement but we’re talking 1954 at Spa – a race that ran 2:44’42.4, further illustrating the speck of a margin we’re discussing here.)

Winning margins have always been tight through the history of F1 and motorsport in general. The real magic is the ability to maintain these minute margins of dominance over any period of time, from a three race winning streak to three championships in a row. No matter the duration, any period of dominance is very special to witness and scrutinize.