51 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

Between 1961 and 1985 there was no driver who won 2 World Championships in a row. Now, since the 00s we have 5 times Michael Schumacher, 4 times Vettel and now 3 times Hamilton - and more to come I think.

 

So we have more and longer dominant teams/drivers. I think that could be the case for the future as well

The computer simulation programms are quite good, so many teams get the same ideas. There are no big differences on the car. I think today the teams with a lot of money and know-how are in the front for a couple of years - until new regulations come in.

 

There is also not that much room for developement today, to fight back if you are far back from winning teams: Almost no testings, tokens, a very specific regulations which is not very opens and allows almost no other ways and so on.

 

What do you think about that?

 

And what are the consequences of that?

- more stability on the driver market because of there are no big chances to move on (see Rosberg - where should he go if he wants to change the team?)

- less interest of new teams / works entrys?

- more deeper regulation changes what's very expensive?

[Marklar]

Between 1961 and 1985 there was no driver who won 2 World Championships in a row. Now, since the 00s we have 5 times Michael Schumacher, 4 times Vettel and now 3 times Hamilton - and more to come I think.

The season is not over yet 

 

I think we need to be careful. We did had long dominations over a long time span before that, but the crucial variable which changed is reliability. Many dominations didnt appeared to be as painful because the fastest car was suffering from reliability issues and enabled slower cars to fight for the championships with consistent finishes.

 

However, the current restrictions are certainly a reason why we are in the current situation.

 

I agree with your consequences. This is exactly what is happening right now.

[Silverstone96]

Interesting points and some truth to them - the sport has probably evolved to the point where it's too clever for itself now - the cars run like a fleet of planes and the engineers know so much they can see and predict what will happen before it does

The real question is the next team to win after Mercedes, say for example it's Ferrari (I don't think it will be by the way) - if they just win one title fine but if they go on a run of titles of 4-5 years straight after Red Bull and merc then that would probably kill what interest there is left in the sport.

The merc domination currently is driving people away in their droves, 2017 is a massive year for F1 and its future

[Nonesuch]

What do you think about that?

 

If you wanted to build a car to win a race over 305 kilometres, nobody would build an F1 car. That may seem like a silly point, but I think it underlies many of the problems affecting the series. F1 cars are the way they are because that's what the regulations mandate. In such a highly restrictive situation, optimization becomes key to being better than your opponents. Optimization, however, is very expensive and usually the result of a long process of making various rather small improvements. To make matters worse, many ways in which to achieve progress have been closed off or severly limited by the FIA.

 

It is my opinion that the time of open development racing series has reached, or is very close to reaching, its natural conclusion. Engineers can now make cars that are so unimaginably fast that you cannot race with them, and more importantly, would be far too dangerous to drive. Other racing series have already made the decision to move away from this idea: GT cars are almost all subject to 'balance of performance', LMP2 cars are going to see a standard engine and a significantly limited number of chassis options, many US-based series are already operating on what may be said to be a spec-light basis.

 

I think the FIA should get together the big parties involved in motor racing - GP2 and F1 in particular - and start to seriously investigate the creation of a  "GP1" championship.

Edited by Nonesuch, 18 August 2016 - 15:01.

[Mekola]

In this case, with too many restrictions, F1 team budgets must go down, and not going up.

[Calorus]

If you wanted to build a car to win a race over 305 kilometres, nobody would build an F1 car. That may seem like a silly point, but I think it underlies many of the problems affecting the series. F1 cars are the way they are because that's what the regulations mandate. In such a highly restrictive situation, optimization becomes key to being better than your opponents. Optimization, however, is very expensive and usually the result of a long process of making various rather small improvements. To make matters worse, many ways in which to achieve progress have been closed off or severly limited by the FIA.

 

It is my opinion that the time of open development racing series has reached, or is very close to reaching, its natural conclusion. Engineers can now make cars that are so unimaginably fast that you cannot race with them, and more importantly, would be far too dangerous to drive. Other racing series have already made the decision to move away from this idea: GT cars are almost all subject to 'balance of performance', LMP2 cars are going to see a standard engine and a significantly limited number of chassis options, many US-based series are already operating on what may be said to be a spec-light basis.

 

I think the FIA should get together the big parties involved in motor racing - GP2 and F1 in particular - and start to seriously investigate the creation of a  "GP1" championship.

 

They should totally create it. But I wouldn't watch it; I'd rather watch robo-raced F1 cars than F1 drivers in Faster GP2 cars - although F1 is best because we can pretend that the driver is very significant, although we absolutely know he's less important than the car's ability to look after tyres.

[AlexanderF1]

 

 

It is my opinion that the time of open development racing series has reached, or is very close to reaching, its natural conclusion. Engineers can now make cars that are so unimaginably fast that you cannot race with them, and more importantly, would be far too dangerous to drive. Other racing series have already made the decision to move away from this idea: GT cars are almost all subject to 'balance of performance', LMP2 cars are going to see a standard engine and a significantly limited number of chassis options, many US-based series are already operating on what may be said to be a spec-light basis.

 

I think the FIA should get together the big parties involved in motor racing - GP2 and F1 in particular - and start to seriously investigate the creation of a  "GP1" championship.

very good point we have reached the physical technological barrier in 1990s; front to rear engines, turbos, slicks, downforce, carbon fiber and integrated chassis. The only developments now are in electronics , coding and the hybrid stuff which is just using and optimising whats already there.

 

I would love a spec series for f1 as everyone has the chance to nail setup and win(like indycar/gp2)and costs way less and it is more exciting . Its ethir that or go back to the 80s and allow the teams to freely develop 2000hp ground effect monsters(if they werent banned that it is).

[Calorus]

very good point we have reached the physical technological barrier in 1990s; front to rear engines, turbos, slicks, downforce, carbon fiber and integrated chassis. The only developments now are in electronics , coding and the hybrid stuff which is just using and optimising whats already there.

 

I would love a spec series for f1 as everyone has the chance to nail setup and win(like indycar/gp2)and costs way less and it is more exciting . Its ethir that or go back to the 80s and allow the teams to freely develop 2000hp ground effect monsters(if they werent banned that it is).

 

If you want that - why not watch IndyCar or GP2 instead? Or better yet, Super Fomula.

Edited by Calorus, 18 August 2016 - 16:03.

[Silverstone96]

The casual audience wouldn't care if they were just faster GP2 cars if it meant Alonso, Button, Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel, Ricciardo and Verstappen fighting like crazy in a championship where none of them has a big advantage

Great sporting battles are captivated by the star names who compete against one another. Ultimately F1 is no different

[AlexanderF1]

If you want that - why not watch IndyCar or GP2 instead? Or better yet, Super Fomula.

i do watch them. All f1 drivers in the same car would be a greater spectle is what i'm saying

[Spillage]

The more the money crystallises in the top teams the more likely, I fear, that is to happen. What chance does a privateer team have nowadays?

[pdac]

The casual audience wouldn't care if they were just faster GP2 cars if it meant Alonso, Button, Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel, Ricciardo and Verstappen fighting like crazy in a championship where none of them has a big advantage

Great sporting battles are captivated by the star names who compete against one another. Ultimately F1 is no different

 

I'd say that the casual TV viewers would not care if F1 cars were much slower (as long as no one pointed it out to them). F1 is all about the brand name now. People watch F1 on TV because ... it's called F1 and, in the casual viewers mind, that means it's the best (regardless of what F1 is offering or what other series are offering too).

 

I think F1 is already losing it's appeal, so although going fully 'spec' rubs against the grain for most of us, it is probably the correct way to go. There really is no room for innovation anymore - just optimization, as has been stated.

[Afterburner]

I imagine forcing the teams to design their cars solely through the use of pen and paper and track testing might address a lot of the problem, but it simply isn't practical...

[senna da silva]

The physical limitation is only due to aero, get rid of it. Let them have as much power as they want without aero. Let the technology race on power units rage.

[Jazza]

The recent string of domination by 1 team has been going on for longer than just the 21st century. Since the 80's we have seen teams win the WDC year after year, but team rivalry or a constant change of driver stopped anyone from doing more than back to back.

Prost could have won 3 in a row (84, 85, 86.). Senna or Prost could have won 4 in a row (88, 89, 90, 91). Had Williams had just one top driver in the 90's and not a constant turn over of ageing and rookie drivers we may have even seen anywhere between 3 and 7 in a row during that time.

This new trend started by Schumacher seems more to do with a dominate driver within the team, plus that driver staying with the team for multiple years. But teams being championship winners and challengers for multiple years in a row has been happening for a while.

[PayasYouRace]

I remember starting a thread about this years ago. This domination happens across the whole of the motor racing world. Whether Audi at Le Mans, or Jimmie Johnson in NASCAR, or Seb Loeb in WRC, or any number of strings of titles. But you look back and similar things happened in the past. I think motorcycle racing has always been a sport for domination when you look back, for example. I think it was just the case that F1 got lucky with unreliability and other outside factors for a while.

 

 

Prost could have won 3 in a row (84, 85, 86.). Senna or Prost could have won 4 in a row (88, 89, 90, 91). Had Williams had just one top driver in the 90's and not a constant turn over of ageing and rookie drivers we may have even seen anywhere between 3 and 7 in a row during that time.

 

Too right. And if you look back further things could have looked different if Lauda hadn't had his accident, or Clark's Lotus been more reliable or he hadn't been killed, or Mercedes hadn't pulled out in 1955.

[Wes350]

 

It is my opinion that the time of open development racing series has reached, or is very close to reaching, its natural conclusion. Engineers can now make cars that are so unimaginably fast that you cannot race with them, and more importantly, would be far too dangerous to drive.

 

 

very good point we have reached the physical technological barrier in 1990s; front to rear engines, turbos, slicks, downforce, carbon fiber and integrated chassis. The only developments now are in electronics , coding and the hybrid stuff which is just using and optimising whats already there.

 

 

I agree that F1 cars started about what was fastest. But in time the open cockpit/open wheel formula has kind of become its own thing.

 

And that's OK.

 

Tech wise - I don't know what kind of "innovation" fans can now expect.

 

Mechanically - The teams know what they are doing with formula cars.

 

Real Innovation - it's all in the realm of electronics now. Basically stuff which removes a lot of the driver input from things. Which the fans don't like.

 

 

You want to keep it a motorsport where cars are custom made to a specific formula? OK then.

 

But there needs to be some kind of cost cap to keep the top 2-3 teams from optimi$ing there cars to the point it's impossible for anyone to catch up because they throw so much more money at their teams every year than anyone else

 

And the car Formula needs to be well though out to reflect this.

 

Not the throwing spaghetti at a wall to see what sticks method that the FIA is currently using for 2017.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

The merc domination currently is driving people away in their droves, 2017 is a massive year for F1 and its future

I disagree, what I think is all the moaning about the sport from all angles be it the media, teams, drivers etc...

 

If Mercedes had a clear number 1 and 2 driver policy then we would be in a worse position than now!

[chunder27]

Domination only benefits few people, the people dominating and their sponsors.

 

The sport as a whole ALWAYS suffers long term, unless the racing is good either between the team-mates or there is another rival close regularly.

 

Prost/Senna was incredible, the relationship between these two was intense and actually overshadowed the racing which was dull really at the time.  Same as Mansell/Piquet just before, they hated each other too and Mansells histrionics were back page stuff.

 

The modern era has had years of Schumacher dominating in a one good car team. Only spiced up initially by his battles with Williams and later on his friendship with Hakkinen the two pushing each other to heights neither knew they had. That era was followed by Vettel doing the same with the same deal at Red Bull. In between you had the new kid Alonso coming in and winning and also WIlliams, McLaren, BAR and a few others getting close to winning regularly, so a lot of teams in with a chance.

 

Interestingly, now you have two guys battling fairly closely, but people are still not interested even if one of them is a Brit, though for some reason Brits do not flock to support him as they did Hill or Mansell, he comes across as a bit of a Coulthard, sort of a fan but can take or leave it.

 

Look at series that were dominate by one man, WRC with Loeb and now Ogier, 500cc bikes with Doohan, in 2000 there were less than 20000 people at Donington to watch Rossi win his first GP, now you get 70000.

 

NASCAR seems able to sustain dominance and always has. But they embrace the bad boy far better than F1. So its OK to "hate" Earnhardt or Busch or Jimmie Johnson. Its not seemingly OK to hate Vettel, Rosberg or Hamilton.

[sopa]

As mentioned in this thread, it is not just the future, it is the present and has been the past as well. Throughout 1991-1997 Williams had a car with which to win a championship. Had the stars aligned, they could have won 7 in a row. I mean even though Ferrari and Red Bull won championships consecutively, some of them were very close matters too (2003, 2010, 2012).

 

However, this recent string of domination is certainly a bit unique. If we could add Red Bull's 2013 in there as well, it has been four consecutive years of one team being way above others. In the past we used to have close seasons between multiple (usually 2) teams often enough, even if these were largely the same teams at the front.

 

As for the future. There is a glimmer of hope Red Bull can take the fight to Mercedes next year, but generally yeah - there is not much reason to expect a change. It has been a standard for a while that especially with new regulations a great team can get a stronghold on competition and can keep it for a while if the key ingredients of the team stay put (i.e budget, top engineers). Top teams are so well-established that it takes quite a lot to take them down from there.

[sopa]

Between 1961 and 1985 there was no driver who won 2 World Championships in a row. Now, since the 00s we have 5 times Michael Schumacher, 4 times Vettel and now 3 times Hamilton - and more to come I think.

 

From mid-1980s onwards there was certainly some kind of a shift in the "competition structure" of F1, to put it this way. Before that we often used to have 3-4 (if not more) top teams in a season. Lots of different race winners. Cars looked very different to each others. And pecking orders could change a lot from year-to-year. This was possible, because F1 was cheaper (more affordable to garagiste challengers to build a great car) and development rates were faster as the cars were less refined then. This meant if you stumbled across a great innovation, you could overtake the whole field. But it didn't mean this advantage you gained was a long-lasting advantage!

 

From mid-1980s onwards at best we have 2 teams at the front in a given season. Usually these are the same teams, which can of course vary from decade to decade. In the beginning these were McLaren and Williams, who took turns in dominating. Now these are Mercedes and Red Bull, who have taken turns in dominating in current decade. It is a new level of professionalism, in which underdog teams can't challenge established top teams, except on some rare occasions.

 

As for drivers winning multiple championships in a row, I guess teams have seen greater effect on building up modern marketing on certain drivers. Williams changed their drivers almost each year in the 1990s. But if there is a lot of status quo at the front, there is little reason to change. I.e if you have a great driver, you don't need to replace him if you believe in his skills. And that driver doesn't have a reason to leave if there is not much reason to expect a change in pecking order.

 

Also perhaps... teams have learnt a bit from historical experience. As mentioned, Senna could have won 4 WDC-s in a row in 1988-1991. But after that Ferrari, RBR and Mercedes have been very wary of hiring a "destabilizing force" alongside their top driver. Because they know line-ups like Senna-Prost or Hamilton-Alonso didn't last long. And why would you need to change the chemistry? Hence the likes of Barrichello, Webber and Rosberg could get long careers in top cars.

Edited by sopa, 19 August 2016 - 08:58.

[Marklar]

I think this is really another issue: In the last 25 years the only high quality team battle for the championship fight was Alonso/Hamilton (Ricciardo/Verstappen could become one in the future). Of course Mercedes is doing us the favour and treat the 2nd driver at least as good as the 1st driver and that unreliability is striking on the faster driver this year, but you feel that there is some inbalance in terms of capabilities within the dominant team stil and this is killing it completely.

If Hamilton, Vettel and especially Schumacher had a stronger team mate they wouöd probably not have won so many titles in a row

[sopa]

Ricciardo/Verstappen certainly looks like a hope for the future.    Though we do not know yet if they would fall out with each other if they actually fought for a championship!

 

So there are some optimistic notes for the future. It can't get worse than what it has been the last 4 years anyway!

 

Though I don't expect a repeat of a 5-way fight for the WDC like we had in 2010 any time soon. Seems like a pipedream nowadays.

[johnmhinds]

I think this is really another issue: In the last 25 years the only high quality team battle for the championship fight was Alonso/Hamilton (Ricciardo/Verstappen could become one in the future). Of course Mercedes is doing us the favour and treat the 2nd driver at least as good as the 1st driver and that unreliability is striking on the faster driver this year, but you feel that there is some inbalance in terms of capabilities within the dominant team stil and this is killing it completely.

If Hamilton, Vettel and especially Schumacher had a stronger team mate they wouöd probably not have won so many titles in a row

 

Barrichello and Webber and Rosberg weren't/aren't exactly slouches, they are some of the best drivers F1 has ever had.

 

Rosberg has won 16 races in the last 3 years, I don't think any other "number 2" team mate has come close to matching his performance level.

[sennafan24]

Barrichello and Webber and Rosberg weren't/aren't exactly slouches, they are some of the best drivers F1 has ever had.

Steady on. 

 

It's questionable if they were even close to being the best of their time. 

Edited by sennafan24, 19 August 2016 - 09:57.

[Nonesuch]

If you want that - why not watch IndyCar or GP2 instead? Or better yet, Super Fomula.

 

Why instead? IndyCar and Super Formula are good fun to watch. GP2 not so much; not due to its cars but because the drivers tend to be rather 'unimpressive'.

 

It may not matter so much to viewers today, but I'd think the FIA would be concerned about where F1 is going to be in 2025. Open development series are nice when there is actually development, which is open. But F1 is neither open nor seeing a lot of development. The regulations brought in to slow the cars down force teams to perfect (which is very expensive) a couple of highly restricted avenues for development. Perhaps this is sustainable from an economic perspective. But the consequence of stale grids and domination by a single team and driver (sorry Nico and Mark) are very bad for the sport. Some will say there has been domination in the past, but not to this degree. Not for three years straight.

 

The other teams are embarrassing - but what can they do? Unfortunately not a whole lot.

[johnmhinds]

Steady on. 

 

It's questionable if they were even close to being the best of their time. 

 

I wasn't saying they're near being the best of their time, but it's a bit silly to put them down because they aren't as good as Michael Schumacher, Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton, arguably the three foremost drivers of this era, they'd still be the lead drivers in any other team.

Edited by johnmhinds, 19 August 2016 - 10:03.

[sopa]

In the light of this thread I can't help but ask though - who will be the next one to get 4 consecutive WDC's? Max? 2018-2021? 

[sopa]

I remember starting a thread about this years ago. This domination happens across the whole of the motor racing world. Whether Audi at Le Mans, or Jimmie Johnson in NASCAR, or Seb Loeb in WRC, or any number of strings of titles. 

 

The good news is that as bad as the state of affairs in F1 is, it can't get anywhere near the level of state in WRC. 

 

Man named Sebastien (be it Loeb or Ogier) has won all titles since 2004. F1 can only dream of domination like that. 

[sennafan24]

I wasn't saying they're near being the best of their time, but it's a bit silly to put them down because they aren't as good as Michael Schumacher, Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton, arguably the three foremost drivers of this era, they'd still be the lead drivers in any other team.

Ah right. You were referring to Lewis, Vettel and Schumacher as "some of the best drivers F1 has ever had"

 

Depends on what you mean by "lead drivers". I think Rosberg would struggle against at least 3 or 4 drivers on the current grid. Even during his peak years (2006-2010) - there were always 3 or 4 drivers generally considered to be being better than Webber. The same applied with Rubens. All 3 would probably end up in the same position - clear 2nd best driver - if they joined a few other teams. 

[Marklar]

Barrichello and Webber and Rosberg weren't/aren't exactly slouches

Didnt said that. But don't you think that everything would look different if Vettel and Hamilton were paired with someone like Alonso? Or Schumacher with Hakkinen (to be fair that era was relatively weak anyway)?

Senna with Berger (and he is an excellent driver too) as his team mate in 1988/89 would have caused the same, but he was paired with Prost.

Edited by Marklar, 19 August 2016 - 10:54.

[johnmhinds]

Didnt said that. But don't you think that everything would look different if Vettel and Hamilton were paired with someone like Alonso? Or Schumacher with Hakkinen (to be fair that era was relatively weak anyway)?

Senna with Berger (and he is an excellent driver too) as his team mate in 1988/89 would have caused the same, but he was paired with Prost.

 

Rosberg is only one win away from tying with Hakkinen and has won double the amount of races that Berger did, how much better does he have to be before you think he is a challenge for Hamilton?

 

I think it's unfair to downplay the talent of drivers just because they haven't reached the heights of the multiple world champions around them.

Edited by johnmhinds, 19 August 2016 - 12:11.

[f1paul]

In the light of this thread I can't help but ask though - who will be the next one to get 4 consecutive WDC's? Max? 2018-2021? 

Hopefully nobody, because that means nobody has dominated. Probably Max though, remember he could still be in F1 for at least 15 more years.

[BillBald]

Rosberg is only one win away from tying with Hakkinen and has won double the amount of races that Berger did, how much better does he have to be before you think he is a challenge for Hamilton?

 

I think it's unfair to downplay the talent of drivers just because they haven't reached the heights of the multiple world champions around them.

 

Puzzling argument. To be a challenge for Hamilton, Rosberg has to fight him and win a few more times. Tying with Hakkinen or beating Berger has nothing to do with it.

 

The thought of future battles between the Merc pair doesn't really thrill me. I'm just hoping that another team can rise to their level.

[PayasYouRace]

Though I don't expect a repeat of a 5-way fight for the WDC like we had in 2010 any time soon. Seems like a pipedream nowadays.

 

I don't think F1 ever had such a close title fight between 5 drivers. That was definitely a once in a blue moon occasion. But I'm sure that there were many who didn't expect such a close fight would ever be possible in the early 2000s.

[f1paul]

I don't think F1 ever had such a close title fight between 5 drivers. That was definitely a once in a blue moon occasion. But I'm sure that there were many who didn't expect such a close fight would ever be possible in the early 2000s.

1986 and 1982 were quite close especially 1986

Edited by f1paul, 19 August 2016 - 20:03.

[PayasYouRace]

1986 and 1982 were quite close especially 1986

 

1986 was between Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Senna. Though it was also one of the epic title battles in F1 history.

 

I don't count 1982 because it was such a tragic and tumultuous season.

[RPM40]

The sport saw rises and falls of teams because they were still essentially small garage operations just toying around with new concepts and technologies. The barriers of entry weren't so huge and new teams could get involved.

Now F1 is only for the largest companies in the world and even they can barely justify its expense. So we will see titles traded between the large teams with no one new really coming into the fray. 

[minime]

I have this radical idea to invigorate F1 and bring it back to earth so to speak. Open up the regs, give them overall rules to cover chassis length, width etc, just to create the envelope and let them go for it, carte blanche. You see all those engineers on the pit wall? ban them altogether and all the data collection, not allowed at all by any means except in the pits and it can't be networked back to the factory. The car must be managed with one lap top by two people and that is all. They can do what they want, invent what they want but they will have to be very clever to manage it all if they do. Also the steering  wheels will have no buttons at all and there will be no pit to car radio comms except by race control for emergencies. I reckon we would get some very clever answers out of it all and save buckets of money to boot. It would be a fun meeting when the teams were told and I would pay to be there.

[RPM40]

I have this radical idea to invigorate F1 and bring it back to earth so to speak. Open up the regs, give them overall rules to cover chassis length, width etc, just to create the envelope and let them go for it, carte blanche. You see all those engineers on the pit wall? ban them altogether and all the data collection, not allowed at all by any means except in the pits and it can't be networked back to the factory. The car must be managed with one lap top by two people and that is all. They can do what they want, invent what they want but they will have to be very clever to manage it all if they do. Also the steering  wheels will have no buttons at all and there will be no pit to car radio comms except by race control for emergencies. I reckon we would get some very clever answers out of it all and save buckets of money to boot. It would be a fun meeting when the teams were told and I would pay to be there.

 

The cars would be dangerously fast and many drivers would get killed. The top teams would still dominate.

[minime]

I dunno about many drivers getting killed but no matter what you do the top teams always dominate in any sport and given any budget be it small or large, that is why they are the top teams. That point is what very few people seem to grasp, make a budget of say $10,000,000 as a stupid low figure for an F1 team and I bet MB would still win.  

[Silverstone96]

Even when indycar was a one make series including engine the richest teams still dominated

[pdac]

How about having teams that don't manufacture anything. The FIA organises a list of suppliers and teams buy part from them for a set price. The teams can submit their own designs and have them manufactured, but the manufacturer can supply that part to anyone that wants it and at the same price (teams get no money for submitting designs). Big-budget teams will still have a slight advantage - they can afford any of the parts available and they can design parts which other teams might not understand how to use effectively.

[F1Mad85]

The recent string of domination by 1 team has been going on for longer than just the 21st century. Since the 80's we have seen teams win the WDC year after year, but team rivalry or a constant change of driver stopped anyone from doing more than back to back.

Prost could have won 3 in a row (84, 85, 86.). Senna or Prost could have won 4 in a row (88, 89, 90, 91). Had Williams had just one top driver in the 90's and not a constant turn over of ageing and rookie drivers we may have even seen anywhere between 3 and 7 in a row during that time.

This new trend started by Schumacher seems more to do with a dominate driver within the team, plus that driver staying with the team for multiple years. But teams being championship winners and challengers for multiple years in a row has been happening for a while.

You still don't understand, the sport hasn't changed in that aspect but the casual fans have. The only way to get fans back is to have a massive reinvention of the sport imo.

[Jazza]

You still don't understand, the sport hasn't changed in that aspect but the casual fans have. The only way to get fans back is to have a massive reinvention of the sport imo.

"Still don't understand" what? What exactly did I not "understand" about the opening post?

[sidewinder26]

There is one thing in particular that every sport needs which is uncertainty. And for uncertainty you need competitiveness. And a lot of overtaking. The question I would ask myself is ´how do I make F1 more like high level karting?´

[minime]

No one knows the magic elixer that would set F1 on the path to recovery, when you find it ring Bernie. 

[George Costanza]

As mentioned in this thread, it is not just the future, it is the present and has been the past as well. Throughout 1991-1997 Williams had a car with which to win a championship. Had the stars aligned, they could have won 7 in a row. I mean even though Ferrari and Red Bull won championships consecutively, some of them were very close matters too (2003, 2010, 2012).

However, this recent string of domination is certainly a bit unique. If we could add Red Bull's 2013 in there as well, it has been four consecutive years of one team being way above others. In the past we used to have close seasons between multiple (usually 2) teams often enough, even if these were largely the same teams at the front.

As for the future. There is a glimmer of hope Red Bull can take the fight to Mercedes next year, but generally yeah - there is not much reason to expect a change. It has been a standard for a while that especially with new regulations a great team can get a stronghold on competition and can keep it for a while if the key ingredients of the team stay put (i.e budget, top engineers). Top teams are so well-established that it takes quite a lot to take them down from there.

The 1990s Williams would have done that from 1994-1997 if Ayrton lived. The fact that Williams had 4 different champions of different drivers is a different type of domination. That truly speaks of how good the equipment was. And for the record, I would consider the 1993 Williams the most dominant car ever given the drivers (past prime Alain Prost and rookie Damon Hill doing the winning is crazy today).

Edited by George Costanza, 20 August 2016 - 20:13.

[f1paul]

No one knows the magic elixer that would set F1 on the path to recovery, when you find it ring Bernie. 

Water sprinklers and double points at the final race is the answer 

[pdac]

There is one thing in particular that every sport needs which is uncertainty. And for uncertainty you need competitiveness. And a lot of overtaking. The question I would ask myself is ´how do I make F1 more like high level karting?´

 

Ban computers