129 replies to this topic

[Clatter]

I cant say I understand the desire to spice up the show, it's like an obsession amongst F1 fans that it's never quite good enough.

As someone who was subjected to hours if test cricket and cycling as a kid, I find F1 plenty exciting and could definitely absorbe more.

If I could change one thing however, I'd bring the midfield and tail end closer to Merc and Ferarri, I'd love to see Racing Point or Alfa taking wins away from the big boys and it would make a championship that bit harder to win.

So despite claiming to not understand why some want the show spiced up, the one thing you would change is something to spice the show up. What you have said you want, is what most want, competition.

[Clatter]

Here's a thought.

The more likely the WDC is decided at the final race, the less likely it is that the worthiest driver wins it.

Which is logical as someone who is "obviously" the best driver (or at least beast driver/car combo) in the field will wrap the thing up long before the season's end.

If it goes to the last race, then the most obviously best driver has not been able to rack up enough points for one reason or another.

And, indeed, if one looks at the overall WDC, the stats seem to bear it out.

Fangio lost a title at the final race to Farina.

Moss lost titles at the final race to Hawthorn and Brabham.

Clark lost titles at the final race to Graham Hill and Surtees.

Stewart lost a title at the final race to Graham Hill.

Prost lost titles at the final race to Piquet and Lauda.

Hamilton lost titles at the final race to Raikkonen and Rosberg.

I think in all of those cases there's a pretty strong argument that the "wrong" driver took the tile.

Whereas the converse is not always true. Fangio won one over Ascari, and another over Collins, which were plainly right; also Hamilton over Massa and Rosberg (both artificial thanks to FIA meddling). Also there was a justice in Prost over Mansell/Piquet (in terms of driver alone). But normally the "right" driver wins by a street. Clark's two titles, two of Fangio's, all of Stewart's, two of Lauda's, some of Schumacher's. And with some other years (e.g. 1979-82) it's not that obvious who "should" have won.

And it's pretty rare the wrong driver galumphs to a title and they tend to be freakish circumstances. Phil Hill in '61 or Button in '09 being the most egregious. Not sure if Mansell counts, Senna was obviously better but Mansell palpably deserved one.

So, if you want a last race showdown, it ought to be between two equal drivers (Senna/Prost, Alonso/Hamilton), rather than the sort of external circumstance-induced closeness (Lotus reliability).

Worthiest driver? That can be a bit subjective. What if the "worthiest" driver simply isn't in the best team?

[ensign14]

That's why I was talking in broad brush strokes.  Really the only champions before 1973 should have been Fangio, Moss, Clark, and Stewart.  But it's difficult to say why e.g. Brabham shouldn't have the '66 crown for a run of utter domination in a car he engineered himself.  And there's a level of retrospection there, had Rindt not been killed or had Emmo not switched to his brother's team we might have different appreciations of their talents.

[PlatenGlass]

Here's a thought.
 
The more likely the WDC is decided at the final race, the less likely it is that the worthiest driver wins it.

It's about the best driver/car combination, not the worthiest driver. If the worthiest driver isn't in the best car, then a little volatility might help them.

But if the season is long, and it doesn't go to the final round, the best driver/car combination will probably win, regardless of whether that includes the worthiest driver.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 15 November 2019 - 12:40.

[Risil]

I can think of a lot of last-race finales when the right, as in best over the season, driver won. 1996-1998, 2003, 2010 for starters. 1999 is another one of those years where it's not clear who should've triumphed.

The closer in performance drivers are, the more likely things will be decided by chance and luck. That's just the way things are.

[PayasYouRace]

Here's a thought.

 

The more likely the WDC is decided at the final race, the less likely it is that the worthiest driver wins it.

 

Which is logical as someone who is "obviously" the best driver (or at least beast driver/car combo) in the field will wrap the thing up long before the season's end.

 

If it goes to the last race, then the most obviously best driver has not been able to rack up enough points for one reason or another.

 

And, indeed, if one looks at the overall WDC, the stats seem to bear it out.

 

Fangio lost a title at the final race to Farina.

 

Moss lost titles at the final race to Hawthorn and Brabham.

 

Clark lost titles at the final race to Graham Hill and Surtees.

 

Stewart lost a title at the final race to Graham Hill.

 

Prost lost titles at the final race to Piquet and Lauda.

 

Hamilton lost titles at the final race to Raikkonen and Rosberg.

 

I think in all of those cases there's a pretty strong argument that the "wrong" driver took the tile.

 

Whereas the converse is not always true.  Fangio won one over Ascari, and another over Collins, which were plainly right; also Hamilton over Massa and Rosberg (both artificial thanks to FIA meddling).  Also there was a justice in Prost over Mansell/Piquet (in terms of driver alone).  But normally the "right" driver wins by a street.  Clark's two titles, two of Fangio's, all of Stewart's, two of Lauda's, some of Schumacher's.  And with some other years (e.g. 1979-82) it's not that obvious who "should" have won.

 

And it's pretty rare the wrong driver galumphs to a title and they tend to be freakish circumstances.  Phil Hill in '61 or Button in '09 being the most egregious.  Not sure if Mansell counts, Senna was obviously better but Mansell palpably deserved one. 

 

So, if you want a last race showdown, it ought to be between two equal drivers (Senna/Prost, Alonso/Hamilton), rather than the sort of external circumstance-induced closeness (Lotus reliability).

 

 

Why bother having any races at all if we’ve already decided who the champion should be?

[pdac]

Why bother having any races at all if we’ve already decided who the champion should be?

 

It's all entertainment anyway. The competition is only to give a reason to keep watching. If the competition ends early, then some will question the purpose of continuing.

 

Maybe they should just finish the season once the two championships are decided and just give cash prizes to the teams and drivers for the races still outstanding.

Edited by pdac, 15 November 2019 - 14:25.

[ensign14]

Why bother having any races at all if we’ve already decided who the champion should be?

 

Other way around.

 

Why bother having the championship when we can just have the races?
 

[pdac]

Other way around.

 

Why bother having the championship when we can just have the races?
 

 

Because people (apart from the die-hard F1 fans) wont bother to watch. There has to be something at stake. There has to be a purpose to it all.

[PayasYouRace]

Other way around.

 

Why bother having the championship when we can just have the races?
 

 

It was obvious that this was your anti-championship stance right from the start.

 

But my point remains, why have the races if you've already decided who the best is?

[ensign14]

Because you decide who is the best from the races, not from the championship.  There's no world championship in tennis or golf (well, not on F1 terms) yet people watch both.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Because you decide who is the best from the races, not from the championship.  There's no world championship in tennis or golf (well, not on F1 terms) yet people watch both.

I don't think that's true, there are still overall rankings.  It's a different take on a championship, but it's a matter of details rather than the general concept.  Instead of having discrete yearly rankings assigned, you just have a continuously updated ranking.

[pdac]

I don't think that's true, there are still overall rankings.  It's a different take on a championship, but it's a matter of details rather than the general concept.  Instead of having discrete yearly rankings assigned, you just have a continuously updated ranking.

 

Who honestly cares about the rankings apart from those taking part?

[PlatenGlass]

In tennis the grand slams are more important than rankings, but there are only four a year. It's difficult for each event to carry such significance when there are 20+ of them so the championship becomes more important.

Plus a grand slam is drawn out over two weeks so you can buy into each event more.

[PayasYouRace]

Because you decide who is the best from the races, not from the championship.  There's no world championship in tennis or golf (well, not on F1 terms) yet people watch both.

The races tell you who was best on a particular day. If you want to work it out for a season, you’ll then need to have some sort of system which takes into account the results of all the races.

[Bartonz20let]

Existing F1 fans are happy with the existing product.

just ask the question why are there so many people out there who are not F1 fans?

I totally disagree with the first point, I've lost count of the amount of posts and threads with various and sometimes wacky ideas for changes, could be my perception that's wrong though.

Second point, same reason not everyone watches reality tv, tennis or the news, not everyone is interested in the same things.

I doubt a closer title fight will bring new fans, it would make existing fans more excited though.

[Bartonz20let]

So despite claiming to not understand why some want the show spiced up, the one thing you would change is something to spice the show up. What you have said you want, is what most want, competition.

Yeah, I'm all for more competition, cant see how changing the points system or number of races achieves this??

[pdac]

I totally disagree with the first point, I've lost count of the amount of posts and threads with various and sometimes wacky ideas for changes, could be my perception that's wrong though.

Second point, same reason not everyone watches reality tv, tennis or the news, not everyone is interested in the same things.

I doubt a closer title fight will bring new fans, it would make existing fans more excited though.

 

Alright. Maybe existing fans are not totally happy. But they do put up with it.

 

You're right - not everyone is interested in the same things. But if you are running a commercial organisation, you need to grow. You do not grow by saying "not everyone is interested" and leave it at that. You need to find ways to make more people interested. So you take F1 and then you add all kinds of traditionally-not-F1 stuff to make it something that someone, who would not be interested, becomes interested. Sure, it bugs the hell out of the F1 die-hards who don't want all of that non-traditional stuff and don't think it belongs, but why would you, with your "I need growth" hat on worry too much about those fools.

 

Fans are the least important people when it comes to changes in F1. They only become important once they cease to be fans.

Edited by pdac, 15 November 2019 - 17:39.

[ensign14]

The races tell you who was best on a particular day. If you want to work it out for a season, you’ll then need to have some sort of system which takes into account the results of all the races.

 

But why though?  Why should excellence be parcelled out in convenient annual chunks?  Indeed you'd get a much better picture by taking it from August-July, so the races go over two seasons, two different car models for most, winter testing as a sort of transfer window...

[PayasYouRace]

But why though?  Why should excellence be parcelled out in convenient annual chunks?  Indeed you'd get a much better picture by taking it from August-July, so the races go over two seasons, two different car models for most, winter testing as a sort of transfer window...

Because people, including yourself, are going to do it anyway, so you might as well take the subjectivity out of it and make it official.

[PlatenGlass]

But why though? Why should excellence be parcelled out in convenient annual chunks? Indeed you'd get a much better picture by taking it from August-July, so the races go over two seasons, two different car models for most, winter testing as a sort of transfer window...

Have you got a list of the August to July champions?

[Bartonz20let]

Alright. Maybe existing fans are not totally happy. But they do put up with it.

You're right - not everyone is interested in the same things. But if you are running a commercial organisation, you need to grow. You do not grow by saying "not everyone is interested" and leave it at that. You need to find ways to make more people interested. So you take F1 and then you add all kinds of traditionally-not-F1 stuff to make it something that someone, who would not be interested, becomes interested. Sure, it bugs the hell out of the F1 die-hards who don't want all of that non-traditional stuff and don't think it belongs, but why would you, with your "I need growth" hat on worry too much about those fools.

Fans are the least important people when it comes to changes in F1. They only become important once they cease to be fans.

To be honest, I'm not an F1 die hard, not a traditionalist anyway and I agree that if the sport is to thrive and grow it needs to attract new blood, just dont think changing the points system for example would make much difference.

You only need to look at how max has energised the Dutch fans to see what can make a real impact.

Personality, competition and controversy probably have a bigger impact in my opinion.

The show could definitely be improved without touching the racing format.

I would be interested to see reverse grids, just for sheer comedy/carnage factor.

[pdac]

To be honest, I'm not an F1 die hard, not a traditionalist anyway and I agree that if the sport is to thrive and grow it needs to attract new blood, just dont think changing the points system for example would make much difference.

You only need to look at how max has energised the Dutch fans to see what can make a real impact.

Personality, competition and controversy probably have a bigger impact in my opinion.

The show could definitely be improved without touching the racing format.

I would be interested to see reverse grids, just for sheer comedy/carnage factor.

 

The thing is, they (Liberty) still have to deal with teams that hold a lot of power/influence. So what we end up with are changes that the teams don't mind. I agree entirely that controversy and conflict are, sadly, the things that will have the most effect. I'm sure that there will be subtle changes to encourage this side of things (be it conflict between drivers or conflict between teams).

 

But I do think that we will eventually see moves to make the closing rounds more significant.

 

Edit:

Maybe a race for a $10m prize, with some form of handicap system to give all of the teams a chance at it.

Edited by pdac, 15 November 2019 - 20:27.

[Bartonz20let]

But I do think that we will eventually see moves to make the closing rounds more significant.

Edit:
Maybe a race for a $10m prize, with some form of handicap system to give all of the teams a chance at it.

It wouldn't surprise me either but I'd argue the most watched sport on the planet rarely goes down to the final day of the season, rules hardly change and it does just fine in recruiting new fans.

Maybe we could hire some Premier League innovators to teach F1 a trick or 2?

[PlatenGlass]

People who aren't into F1 often see it as not a proper sport anyway (with unequal cars) so adding extra gimmicks that move it even further away might not exactly attract them towards it.

[Yamamoto]

Have you got a list of the August to July champions?

 

Much as I'd love to see this, I can't help thinking that certain events might have transpired differently. For instance, the battle between Schumacher and Alonso in 2006 would have been influenced by the former retiring mid-season, and the latter moving team whilst his erstwhile employer would have been forced to switch tyre manufacturers. I might try to figure a few out later. Off the top of my head, I think Rosberg doesn't win a title under such a format.

[PayasYouRace]

Much as I'd love to see this, I can't help thinking that certain events might have transpired differently. For instance, the battle between Schumacher and Alonso in 2006 would have been influenced by the former retiring mid-season, and the latter moving team whilst his erstwhile employer would have been forced to switch tyre manufacturers. I might try to figure a few out later. Off the top of my head, I think Rosberg doesn't win a title under such a format.

 

Well obviously it would be very different, as each season would start and finish in the summer, so all the driver contracts would start and end then. It would be much like the FE or WEC seasons.

[pdac]

It wouldn't surprise me either but I'd argue the most watched sport on the planet rarely goes down to the final day of the season, rules hardly change and it does just fine in recruiting new fans.

Maybe we could hire some Premier League innovators to teach F1 a trick or 2?

 

It's difficult to compare because, with F1, the line between team sport or individual sport is blurred. Most other sports are clearly either on one side or the other.

[Bartonz20let]

It's difficult to compare because, with F1, the line between team sport or individual sport is blurred. Most other sports are clearly either on one side or the other.

Sorry, I don't understand why that makes a difference?

I can't think of any other sport that changes rules or regulations quite as much as F1, could it be that the constant changes are a turn off for the casual fan?

[Anderis]

Why would a casual fan be turned off by regulation changes? Most likely they are even unaware of most of them. It doesn't change that much for a casual viewer if wings have a bit of a different shape or a fuel limit is different. And about racing itself, not that much has changed in the last 10 or so years. DRS is pretty much the same since 2011, pit stop rules and no refuelling since 2010, weekend format for even longer than that, how SC has worked is similar for many years too etc. There are actually not many changes to be confused by unless you're more of an engaged fan who tries to follow F1-specific news with all the technical stuff etc.

Edited by Anderis, 16 November 2019 - 16:47.