296 replies to this topic

[TheFish]

 

I agree with the things you mention about the Vettel/RB package making things harder for themselves. It is an unpopular opinion but I also firmly believe that the RB5 was, talking about the full course of the 2009 season, was on par with the BGP 001. Brawn's pace was deceptively good in the first couple of races, but even as early as Malaysia and China, one could see that they suffered from tyre warming issues. Had it not been for the red flag, Malaysia would have been a W for Toyota. And from the British GP, Brawn was hopelessly left behind in the development race as after early May not a single upgrade was made for the car anymore. The team simply run out of funds, and they had to survive until the end of the year with the package they had in early May. 

 

People always talk about the double diffuser (the one that made Williams and Toyota so victorious ... oh wait) and the first seven races, but even early in the season, Brawn was vulnerable. It was down to Vettel for not being able to capitalise and do more damage. He collided with Kubica in Australia for which he was penalised and subsequently spun off in Malaysia. He then crashed out at Monaco, and gave up track position to Button at Turkey due to a mistake on lap 1 and ultimately ended up only third even though he had both the pace and the track position to control and win the race. This is four races out of the first seven where he should and could have done much more, and that's exactly why he lost the title to Button even though from the British GP onwards the Red Bull was a better car to have bar Monza.

 

Completely agree about 2009.

 

2009 was a great year though, Toyota went from locking out the front row to being on the back row in consecutive races, loads of teams won (or could have won) races, you never knew when turning up who would be quickest.

 

We could do with 2022 being similar.

[FortiFord]

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree then about what "special" means.

 

Hakkinen already looked impressive against Senna, that's quite something special. And Ayrton probably had one of his best seasons that year. 

I feel you are trying to really stretch it to be honest, if he was not special Ron Dennis would never have kept him for all those years and believed in him.

And I am saying that not being a fan of Mika. And again, in 1997 he looked fast, just through bad luck he did not win before Jerez. I think if you look up articles/magazines from the time it's pretty obvious that he was always regarded as one of the best from that era. One of the best means "special", just in case if that's not clear.

 

Mclaren in 1996 was not as good as Ferrari, just like the previous year, altough Michael quite clearly made the difference.

And I don't think even Michael would be able to get more than 1-2 wins in those Mclaren's between 1994-1996.

 

I'm not talking about one off qualifying performances. Even Irvine managed to outqualify Schumacher on his debut at Ferrari but that does not make Irvine special. 

 

Ron kept Hakkinen around for a long time, he also kept DC around for an equally long time. Again, not proof that he was special. 

 

First half of 1997, he was not very good and his drive was on the line. In the second half he improved and should have won at Nurburgring and might have won in Austria. 

 

Why do you think the Mclaren was not as good as the Ferrari of 1996? Both Mclaren drivers were able to outscore Irvine quite easily. 

 

Question for you, if you think Hakkinen was special, do you also think Villeneuve and Hill were special?

[FortiFord]

Indeed. Mika was very highly regarded from 1993 onwards when, after sitting out most of the season, he managed to beat Senna of all people in his first-ever qualifying as a McLaren driver. He was leading and could have won both the British and Luxembourg GPs in 1997 if not for rotten luck.

 

And the driver whom Michael Schumacher himself called his fastest and greatest rival ever, is not supposed to be regarded as special? Only on AS 

 

If he had won the British GP in 1997, it would have been a lucky win. Villeneuve had a terrible first stop and Schumacher dropped out with wheel bearing failure. 

 

Schumacher said Hakkinen was the rival he respected the most. He never described Hakkinen as special. 

[FortiFord]

Once again, this was because Mika flew through the still wet Eau Rouge and Radillon flat out. Just watch at what speed Michael arrived to Kemmel and at what speed Mika did and compare it with the previous laps. That difference had nothing to do with actual car performance but the fact that Mika dared to do something that even Michael was not prepared to do.

 

As for 1998, don't forget that when Mika said that, McLaren's innovative double braking system was yet to be banned. If not for Ferrari's protest, it would certainly would have taken much longer until Michael can beat the MP4/13 on pure pace (because that's what happened at Argentina).

 

Wasn't Schumacher running an intermediate/wet setup? I'm sure that also contributed to his lack of top speed. 

[Requiem84]

So instead of talking about how F1 is rubbish/awesome we go into detail about specific F1 races and specific moments.

 

The reflex of most fans, as this is what people like talking about most / like discussing most. I mean, even from horrible years you can find great races or great moments. I thought the idea of the topic was more the general nature / status of F1 currently. 

[Dicun]

If he had won the British GP in 1997, it would have been a lucky win. Villeneuve had a terrible first stop and Schumacher dropped out with wheel bearing failure. 

 

Schumacher said Hakkinen was the rival he respected the most. He never described Hakkinen as special. 

 

So what is your point? You have to be there to inherit the lead. A fortunate win doesn't take any merit away from the driver, especially if his car is not the class of the field. And the MP4/12 wasn't. Many wins were inherited ones in the history of the sport. Michael inherited the win at Barcelona in 2000 from Mika. Senna inherited the win from Mansell at Monaco two times (1987, 1992). The list is endless. Does that mean those wins worth less somehow? Both the Williams and the Ferrari were faster than the McLaren in 1997 - and even the Benettons were up there, too. And what about the Luxembourg GP where Mika was leading for the majority of the race, from pole? 

 

I think we are just arguing about semantics now. Don't you think that someone Michael respected the most meaning he was special, according to Michael? Would you say that Michael respected a driver that much whom at the same time he doesn't consider special? That's some very odd logic, to say the least.

[lightstoflag]

It was basically like Massa wasn't in many of the races. He wasn't close enough to play any strategic role (Germany 2010 excepted). He didn't take wins off anyone, so saying that was a particular advantage to Alonso rather than, say, Hamilton doesn't make sense. 

It makes sense because it meant that Alonso was basically guaranteed to not have internal interference when the Ferrari was hooked up, which happened a fair number of times that year. Take the Bahrain Grand Prix. In that race, the Ferrari was one of the front runners, and Massa actually proved to be a boon to Alonso. He out-qualified Fernando, grid-spot 2 vs. 3, but couldn't hold on to his position. After Vettel started suffering from a spark-plug issue and got swallowed by Alonso, Massa, and Hamilton, Ferrari ended up with a nice 1-2 finish! That was a case of Massa's ineptitude directly aiding Alonso to the tune of 7 points more over the next person from a rival team (Hamilton).  

Edited by lightstoflag, 22 July 2020 - 16:09.

[FortiFord]

It makes sense because it meant that Alonso was basically guaranteed to not have internal interference when the Ferrari was hooked up, which happened a fair number of times that year. Take the Bahrain Grand Prix. In that race, the Ferrari was one of the front runners, and Massa actually proved to be a boon to Alonso. He out-qualified Fernando, grid-spot 2 vs. 3, but couldn't hold on to his position. After Vettel started suffering from a spark-plug issue and got swallowed by Alonso, Massa, and Hamilton, Ferrari ended up with a nice 1-2 finish! That was a case of Massa's ineptitude directly aiding Alonso to the tune of 7 points more over the next person from a rival team (Hamilton).  

 

What about Australia? Massa prevented Alonso from potentially winning that race. 

 

It's swings and roundabouts really. 

[FortiFord]

 

So what is your point? You have to be there to inherit the lead. A fortunate win doesn't take any merit away from the driver, especially if his car is not the class of the field. And the MP4/12 wasn't. Many wins were inherited ones in the history of the sport. Michael inherited the win at Barcelona in 2000 from Mika. Senna inherited the win from Mansell at Monaco two times (1987, 1992). The list is endless. Does that mean those wins worth less somehow? Both the Williams and the Ferrari were faster than the McLaren in 1997 - and even the Benettons were up there, too. And what about the Luxembourg GP where Mika was leading for the majority of the race, from pole? 

 

I think we are just arguing about semantics now. Don't you think that someone Michael respected the most meaning he was special, according to Michael? Would you say that Michael respected a driver that much whom at the same time he doesn't consider special? That's some very odd logic, to say the least.

 

 

The point is that if you adjust for reliability, Hakkinen would have finished 3rd in Silverstone, a long way behind Villeneuve and Schumacher. 

 

For the Luxembourg GP, if you adjust for reliability, then Hakkinen would have won followed by Coulthard in 2nd. 

 

The question is, does Mike potentially winning that race in 1997 make him special? Coulthard had already won 2 races in the same car and was unlucky not to win in Montreal. 

[Dicun]

The point is that if you adjust for reliability, Hakkinen would have finished 3rd in Silverstone, a long way behind Villeneuve and Schumacher. 

 

For the Luxembourg GP, if you adjust for reliability, then Hakkinen would have won followed by Coulthard in 2nd. 

 

The question is, does Mike potentially winning that race in 1997 make him special? Coulthard had already won 2 races in the same car and was unlucky not to win in Montreal. 

 

Wow. I haven't realised that you are such a dedicated detractor of Mika until this post, but now I see it. Our debate has been quite futile then.

 

I was talking about inheriting wins in general; now you try to twist it as if winning one particular race in one particular season should be the sole reason for Mika being special. DC inherited the win at Australia in 1997 after Irvine crashed into Villeneuve and Frentzen was hindered by a slow pit stop and then he had brake failure. Yet, it was no problem for you using an inherited win as an argument against Mika, stating what's the big deal, DC has done it already.

 

Not to mention you avoided addressing my point about Michael's opinion. Well, you are entitled to have your own opinion, of course. But I think if the most successful driver in the history of the sport, who raced against Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Alonso, Raikkönen, Hamilton and Vettel, says that Mika Hakkinen was his most respected rival ever, that's good enough for me. In fact, I can hardly think of any bigger or better argument for Mika being special than that, so let's just agree to disagree.

Edited by Dicun, 22 July 2020 - 16:37.

[noikeee]

So instead of talking about how F1 is rubbish/awesome we go into detail about specific F1 races and specific moments.

The reflex of most fans, as this is what people like talking about most / like discussing most. I mean, even from horrible years you can find great races or great moments. I thought the idea of the topic was more the general nature / status of F1 currently.

It's telling that we ended up talking about the 1990s here then... Instead of the last few years. There's not much to say about them!

[AustinF1]

Aye, and at least Le Mans ends after 24 hours and doesn't carry on to the next 6 weekends

Yep ... or 6-7 seasons!

[Anuity]

Apart from the 90s, I would say that every season from 2005-2010 was fantastic. Nice title fight in each of them (except 2009), diverse winners, strong lineups and amazing cars.

[Dicun]

Apart from the 90s, I would say that every season from 2005-2010 was fantastic. Nice title fight in each of them (except 2009), diverse winners, strong lineups and amazing cars.

 

I would argue that 2009 was quite an intense title fight but from a different perspective. It was very exciting to see whether Button could hold on to his lead in the standings with the Brawn getting left behind more and more with each passing GP or if Vettel could capitalise on the RB becoming the best package overall from the British GP onwards (except for Monza). And no matter how many qualfyings Button cocked up, he kept on delivering come Sunday, not putting a foot wrong on race days and scoring crucial points in every race but Spa (and even there it wasn't his fault he retired).

[farsailor]

I'm not talking about one off qualifying performances. Even Irvine managed to outqualify Schumacher on his debut at Ferrari but that does not make Irvine special.

Ron kept Hakkinen around for a long time, he also kept DC around for an equally long time. Again, not proof that he was special.

First half of 1997, he was not very good and his drive was on the line. In the second half he improved and should have won at Nurburgring and might have won in Austria.

Why do you think the Mclaren was not as good as the Ferrari of 1996? Both Mclaren drivers were able to outscore Irvine quite easily.

Question for you, if you think Hakkinen was special, do you also think Villeneuve and Hill were special?

Not that you asked me bit isn't this an absurd discussion, who gets to decide what driver is "special"? MS himself said JV was the one he did not beat. If that does not make him "special" his Indy car title and Indy 500 win does, along with the way he raced. Humilated Schumacher not only once in F1 (around the outside at Estoril for ex).

In my opinion JV and Mika are more "special" than some of those other drivers mentioned like Button, Verstappen and Leclerc. The later two have time on their side however.

[Beri]

Apart from the 90s, I would say that every season from 2005-2010 was fantastic. Nice title fight in each of them (except 2009), diverse winners, strong lineups and amazing cars.

 

I would add 2003 in the mix as well. But during the 90s, not many seasons were that great. 1990 and 1991 were okay. 1992 was a complete walkover by Williams as well as 1993. 1994 was brought back to life by the penalties Schumacher endured. But in reality the season itself was dull. 1995 was a walkover by Schumacher. 1996 was domination by Williams. Only the last 3 seasons were really interesting. 1997, 1998 and 1999 were fantastic to my memory.

[Lights]

Apart from the 90s, I would say that every season from 2005-2010 was fantastic. Nice title fight in each of them (except 2009), diverse winners, strong lineups and amazing cars.

 

So you're saying 2005 had a nice title fight, but 2009 didn't. Why not?

[PlatenGlass]

Apart from the 90s, I would say that every season from 2005-2010 was fantastic. Nice title fight in each of them (except 2009), diverse winners, strong lineups and amazing cars.

Were the 90s even in 2005-2010?

[Anuity]

So you're saying 2005 had a nice title fight, but 2009 didn't. Why not?

I was doubting to include that one, in the end it’s just personal preferences. I felt somebody would bring this up.
I included it because for me 2005 was a bit more tense I guess, even if it never got too close. But McLaren seemingly had pace advantage over Renault, Kimi was fantastic and during the course of the season it looked like if he could manage to cut the point deficit.
2009 was good, if you wish you can include it as well.
But it was weird, and did not feel as tense, at least for me. At that time I did not really expect Seb to mountain a serious title challenge, given his 2008 season, the first part of which was pretty bad.
2005 had Kimi who was already regarded as a top driver with title challenging season and Alonso who was driving fantastically as well.

[Anuity]

Were the 90s even in 2005-2010?

I don’t know, were they? 🤷‍♂️

[Anuity]

I would add 2003 in the mix as well. But during the 90s, not many seasons were that great. 1990 and 1991 were okay. 1992 was a complete walkover by Williams as well as 1993. 1994 was brought back to life by the penalties Schumacher endured. But in reality the season itself was dull. 1995 was a walkover by Schumacher. 1996 was domination by Williams. Only the last 3 seasons were really interesting. 1997, 1998 and 1999 were fantastic to my memory.

Yes 2003 as well. I made 2005-2010 simply for continuity Of uninterrupted great seasons.

If we are only talking about the decades (leaving out 2010) then obviously 2000 was also great. In fact even 2001 was not completely horrible either.
1990-1992 I did not watch in full so difficult to comment.
I thought 1993 was pretty enjoyable after all. 1994, apart from the tragic events wasn’t boring.
1995 I always found very entertaining overall, different podium finishers, etc. the title battle had the tension because of 1994, and I would not call it a walkover, unlike 1996.

I would say only 1996 is an outlier, also because of ugly cars.

1997-1999 are classics.

[Requiem84]

This is not the nostalgia/historic forum.

Why are we talking about which decade 30 years ago was good or not.

This thread is about the current state of F1, so let’s talk about that...

[vlado]

F1 is awesome but at this point even Hamilton must be bored. Competition at the top is very weak.. 

[PlatenGlass]

I don’t know, were they? 🤷‍♂️

Your sentence implies it!

[Ben1445]

Honestly, I think the 70 years of history is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. 

 

Sure, it provides a practically unbeatable provenance that ties together generations of fans from humble TV viewers to the legendary names of the sport. That's hugely special don't get me wrong. 

 

But it also gives it so much historical baggage to carry around, weighing it down in the same place, simultaneously trying to be everything that made it special over the years to a multitude of different people all at once. The history pulls from all directions, trapping it and keeping it from adapting to something more suited for the times. 

 

In the past this may have been a steadying force, never allowing it to stray too far from the line and keeping Formula One recognisable as one, linear championship since 1950. But now we face a highly uncertain and transitional time for our energy and transportation sectors I think it's paralysing it from being able to adapt.

 

As a fan... You might love the technology side, pushing boundaries of automotive tech. That love might stop at electrification or carry on through seamlessly to embrace it. You might be a fan of the noise and the smells, the V10s and V12s or an old DFV. You might love the independent constructors for their passion of racing or the manufacturers for the money they can put in to make highly advanced racing machines. You might love how the teams compete to engineer and race the best cars, or you might love seeing some of the best drivers fight it out to be on top of the world in roughly equal machinery. You might love the extravagant levels of money and glamour thrown at the sport or despise it and wish for the days of stripping down a car on wooden trestles in a marquee. 

 

Every one of those passions is equally valid. 

 

And yet they are so conflicting, hence we end up in stuck in that middle-ground compromise with no clear direction. 

[Sterzo]

The only problem with all history is that people misuse it. Knowledge of history is a blessing. People insisting that history supports their preferences is a curse. No history tells us what we ought to enjoy tomorrow; it can give us some understanding and awareness but when someone insists what F1 is or must be they are misusing history. Nothing is fixed, everything is changeable.

[Blackmamba]

That sums it up pretty good for me too.
 
The thing that makes me roll my eyes is how the Hamilton fam (whom admittedly are the most populous and pugnacious group in these boards too) keep moving the goalposts with regards to dominance. I've been following the sport for some three decades and remember well how the general public ( = not the fans of the teams/drivers winning everything at that particular time) viewed the Williams dominance back in the nineties or the Ferrari + Schumacher years or the Vettel era. And I remember how the fans of Hamilton were dismayed by Vettel's dominance and how Hamilton himself said stuff about Vettel having it easy with his car since "Sebastian misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn't do that lap even if I was on the limit. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.”
 
But I can't hear him saying stuff like that now when even the last year's edition of his car is beating the current field on pure pace.
 
Now, all I can hear and read is along the lines of "don't hate the player, hate the game" BS from his fanbase. No fan of Hamilton is dismayed now over the dominance. I can't see discussions among Hamilton fans of them wanting to see Verstappen instead of Bottas as his teammate, or how this Mercedes is so far ahead of the competition that it really isn't that much of a challenge winning races and titles with this equipment. And of course, I will get ganged up on by the usual suspects for expressing these thoughts, no doubt.
 
My point is: yes, Hamilton and Mercedes are doing a fantastic job. They fully deserve their success. They can't be blamed for being successful, they are just the best at what they do, and it is what it is. But I'd like to see those Hamilton fans, who were moaning during the Vettel era about technical superiority and weak teammates making Vettel's job easy, to do the same now and call a spade a spade. Hamilton has had it easy since the beginning of 2017. It is not a criticism. He just does what he has to do, and he is doing it immaculately. But he has it way, way too easy, and you Hamilton fans know it too. You don't really have anything to be concerned about as long as Lewis is healthy and can compete - he got these titles in the bag at least until 2022, and even if you don't admit here publicly, you know it too.

You’re very right mate. I support Hamilton and Mercedes comes as a package deal. I too am getting tired of people who are overly defensive over what Hamilton has achieved in the sport. I say join me in utterly loving the s**t out of this period of dominance. I love it when Hamilton crushes any hopes and dreams other fans might have held for their driver. Frankly there is nothing I enjoy more than loading up forums like this one and read all the utter despair when fans declare they are never gonna watch another F1 one race ever again. I love it.
I wish Hamilton fans would just embrace this awesome display of true excellence both in driver and team. What’s the worst that could happen besides detractors coming onto these forums and declare that Schumacher did it better. What those detractors fail to grasp is that they are already comparing him to Schumacher. That is all that’s required to truly arrive at the summit of the sport because objectively there is no way we can compare drivers without putting them in the same car. Lewis has already made it. He is in every single discussion over who is the greatest our sport has ever seen. That for any F1 driver is the ultimate success.
So in Toto’s words ‘let’s crush them’, and if the sport dies in the process as some here wish then it will be long after Hamilton has left the stage. It’s not gonna happen overnight is it? I want to see utter dominance in 2021 as well. You see a lot of people staking their hopes on 2022 and to be honest I would just love it......just, just love it if Mercedes produced another beast of a car better than anything else on the grid and Hamilton rakes up a couple of more championships lol. Oh, the smile on my face at the thought of that. It would just be the best thing ever lol. 10 championships! Goodness gracious me!

[Ben1445]

Ah yes, Formula One and good section of its fanbase's enthusiastic relationship with the concept of 'domination'. Forgot about that. 

 

I've made a post very similar to this before...somewhere... but the language commonly used to describe F1 success is often very violent terminology. It never seems good enough to just beat teammates and adversaries, they need to be 'destroyed' or 'crushed'. 

 

Not being dominant is laughed at and ridiculed whether it's a team or a driver. Vettel makes some driving mistakes which derails his 2018 championship campaign? Time to laugh at and revel in how he has been psychologically destroyed by Hamilton/Mercedes, apparently. 

 

Now, I'm not and never have been a Vettel fan. It isn't at all 'crying fanboy' for me to say that I dislike this phenomenon. I also fully respect that this is not how everyone in the fanbase acts or that it is even at all limited to Hamilton/Mercedes only - it's just one example that springs to mind. 

 

On that note, don't get me started on the car-crash that is the Red Bull young driver program with its needlessly cut-throat, back-and-white, success-or-failure set up. Dropping drivers after a couple of seasons for no good reason. Punitive demotions, mid-season, with no warnings given. And this is all practically celebrated as being really good, Formula One culture even though it is, to my mind, highly damaging and actually a near total failure at developing and keeping driving talent. 

 

Either F1 has changed this way over the last ten years or I have, but It's definitely one of the reasons I no longer consider myself an active F1 fan even though I am still a motorsport fan through and through. 

[Beri]

Yes 2003 as well. I made 2005-2010 simply for continuity Of uninterrupted great seasons.

If we are only talking about the decades (leaving out 2010) then obviously 2000 was also great. In fact even 2001 was not completely horrible either.
1990-1992 I did not watch in full so difficult to comment.
I thought 1993 was pretty enjoyable after all. 1994, apart from the tragic events wasn’t boring.
1995 I always found very entertaining overall, different podium finishers, etc. the title battle had the tension because of 1994, and I would not call it a walkover, unlike 1996.

I would say only 1996 is an outlier, also because of ugly cars.

1997-1999 are classics.

 

9 victories out of 17 Grands Prix was somewhat a walkover for Schumacher. Certainly considering he failed to finish on the podium just once during the times he actually finished the race.

 

But in essense it could be that the simpler aerodynamics, the lesser amount of computers and simulations used, the higher reving engines and the bigger mechanical grip were all in the advantage of having some good seasons during the late 90s

[Astro]

Wolff: "But it is not up to the team that has made steps to be seen as responsible for the predictability of the championship."

 

It seems so harmless. But what about...

 

1. Early start and huge budget to develop an hybrid engine;

 

2. Reluctance to cap budgets;

 

3. Selling old engine versions to other teams while hogging all their data.

 

5. Lobbying for having hybrid engines as the ONLY option in F1 in full knowledge that their complexity locks Mercedes at the top for the foreseeable future and makes it really steep for any new manufacturer to catch up (ex. Honda).

 

Etc, etc.

 

It'd have sounded just as odd coming from Ferrari or Red Bull, since they act similarly.

 

IMO, short of signing for NASA, no team has the means to make any significant development able to surpass Mercedes. The rules is what guarantees that few big manufacturers will stay ahead, not their genius. And while comparable, it is not as Ferrari's dominance in 2000s, where there was still wiggle room for development, tires, reliability, and drivers to make a difference (ex. Renault 2005), even if small. Today, Michael Andretti would be one of the favorites in that Mercedes.

 

Regarding Hamilton, while it might be relatively sad to see his accomplishments forever downplayed, it can't compare to the total joke that is to witness huge talents like Verstappen spending their best years as sideshows in F1.

 

If the new rules in F1 do not bring back balance and competition, I rather see F1 become a niche for octogenarians and an expanded IndyCar taking over (F1 can't hold a candle to the IndyCar series these days).

 

(BTW, it's probably just my feeling, but we Europeans seems particularly good at finding ways to make Monty Python's over-bureaucratized dystopia of silly walks a reality.)

[MasterOfCoin]

Wolff: "But it is not up to the team that has made steps to be seen as responsible for the predictability of the championship."

 

It seems so harmless. But what about...

 

1. Early start and huge budget to develop an hybrid engine;

 

2. Reluctance to cap budgets;

 

3. Selling old engine versions to other teams while hogging all their data.

 

5. Lobbying for having hybrid engines as the ONLY option in F1 in full knowledge that their complexity locks Mercedes at the top for the foreseeable future and makes it really steep for any new manufacturer to catch up (ex. Honda).

 

Etc, etc.

 

It'd have sounded just as odd coming from Ferrari or Red Bull, since they act similarly.

 

IMO, short of signing for NASA, no team has the means to make any significant development able to surpass Mercedes. The rules is what guarantees that few big manufacturers will stay ahead, not their genius. And while comparable, it is not as Ferrari's dominance in 2000s, where there was still wiggle room for development, tires, reliability, and drivers to make a difference (ex. Renault 2005), even if small. Today, Michael Andretti would be one of the favorites in that Mercedes.

 

Regarding Hamilton, while it might be relatively sad to see his accomplishments forever downplayed, it can't compare to the total joke that is to witness huge talents like Verstappen spending their best years as sideshows in F1.

 

If the new rules in F1 do not bring back balance and competition, I rather see F1 become a niche for octogenarians and an expanded IndyCar taking over (F1 can't hold a candle to the IndyCar series these days).

 

(BTW, it's probably just my feeling, but we Europeans seems particularly good at finding ways to make Monty Python's over-bureaucratized dystopia of silly walks a reality.)

You better hope Merc don't get any ideas and build a IndyCar/Engine......Because the moaning will reach stratospheric levels.......   

[rf90]

One of the reasons I do not think F1 is awesome (any more) is the meaningless records that will be broken, although I guess that multiple manufacturer titles have some worth. With regards to F1 driver records though, so what. Comparing multi driver wins and titles with previous eras of F1 can only really excite the relevant drivers' fans. Hamilton's current period of championship wins I can only see as something like Vettel's 4 titles, but he is more fortunate because of the continued dominance of the Mercedes car and team. I haven't thought F1 to be awesome since the start of 2011.

Edited by rf90, 27 July 2020 - 13:06.

[Collombin]

Hamilton's current period of championship wins I can only see as something like Vettel's 4 titles, but he is more fortunate

I don't get this logic at all. I have no issue (apart from the boredom factor) with the best driver being in the best car and racking up the stats. That's much more palatable than when it's about the third or fourth best driver doing it.

[rf90]

I don't get this logic at all. I have no issue (apart from the boredom factor) with the best driver being in the best car and racking up the stats. That's much more palatable than when it's about the third or fourth best driver doing it.

I agree hamilton is a better F1 driver than vettel in terms of F1 racecraft, but neither have been up against the best drivers of the seasons... one could say that rosberg and webber were similar in terms of team-mate challenge, certainly better than bottas.

[Dicun]

I agree hamilton is a better F1 driver than vettel in terms of F1 racecraft, but neither have been up against the best drivers of the seasons... one could say that rosberg and webber were similar in terms of team-mate challenge, certainly better than bottas.

 

That's quite an insult to Rosberg imo.

[PlatenGlass]

Bottas has been better than Webber, certainly post 2010 Webber.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 28 July 2020 - 07:38.

[Branislav]

Flavio Briatore: 'Fans don't want to see Mercedes dominance'

 

Ex-Formula 1 team boss, Flavio Briatore, says fans want to see the drivers be “gladiators” against each other rather than having them bow down to Mercedes.

 

The Silver Arrows has won every race so far in the 2020 season and won every Drivers’ and Constructors’ title since 2014. With Red Bull and, even more notably, Ferrari not able to keep up with the pace set, Mercedes will be adding another two trophies to the cabinet come December.

Mercedes team principal, Toto Wolff, is well aware that the team are “not making any friends” with their continued dominance but they will not let complacency to sink in for a single second and potentially allow their rivals a chance to dethrone them.

Briatore says the focus on technology, and how Mercedes has been able to master the turbo hybrid era, has come at the expense of driver skill – the actual battle that the fans want to see.

“More technology exists in Formula 1, and that’s right on the one hand,” Briatore said in an interview with Betway.

“But on the other, if you want to see the real Formula 1, for me it is the difference between drivers who are gladiators and who are not.

“Theoretically, if all the cars were the same, let’s take for example GP2, I made it together with Bernie Ecclestone and the cars are the same.

“If you give these cars to Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Verstappen, the best 7 or 8 drivers, you will see incredible races. When the race ends there would be just a tenth of a second between one and another.

“Yes, technology is important, but technology always leverages the driver’s skill. This is what we have to think about.

 

“In our time in Formula 1, even in 96/97, the cars were pretty similar, the engines were pretty similar, and then you saw wonderful races.

“Now you have the dominant team, Mercedes, and they have been good for years, I mean, you can’t argue with that.

“But this is not what people want to see.

“People want to see gladiators, want to see fighting, they want to see wheel against wheel.

“So the more technology there is, the less spectacular the sport will be.”

______________________________________________________________________________________

       

[PayasYouRace]

Flavio, like the average fan, quick to point out the obvious problems but a bit short on a working solution. Plus a bit of self promotion and rose tinted glasses thrown in.

[Lights]

Typical how Flavio calls years like '96 '97 wonderful with having similar cars.

 

The difference with now isn't at all that the cars are less similar to each other than back then, or many other years. The differences lie in the consistency, through a better team, better trackside operations, increase of technology and simulations, more optimized setups (before they even get to the track), better reliability, less error-prone driving, etc. That's why the Mercedes dominance can be perceived as more boring though being more predictable. Not at all because their car is so much better than other leading cars have been throughout history. But because of all those reasons listed above, F1 now requires cars to be very close to each other in order to have a close championship.

[PayasYouRace]

And 1997 (Lights’ example above) was one of the closest and competitive seasons of the 90s.

[shure]

Underlying it all, Flav has a salient point, though.  The more technology there is, the less spectacular the sport will be.  That's not saying we should go back to Model Ts, but all the simulation work and data processing takes more away from the drivers.  And as technology increases, I only see that getting worse.  They need to get a better balance between tech and sport; at the moment the pendulum is too far towards the former

[PayasYouRace]

I don’t think it’s necessarily the level of technology. It’s the very different levels of recourses available to the teams. The technology isn’t stopping the midfield battle from being very close and exciting. It’s just not happening at the front.

[PlatenGlass]

Flavio who used to run one-car teams...

[Frood]

This fan would like to see/hear less of Flavio Briatore, but we can't all get what we want.

[Ben1445]

Underlying it all, Flav has a salient point, though.  The more technology there is, the less spectacular the sport will be.  That's not saying we should go back to Model Ts, but all the simulation work and data processing takes more away from the drivers.  And as technology increases, I only see that getting worse.  They need to get a better balance between tech and sport; at the moment the pendulum is too far towards the former

 

I'm sort of hoping the slimmed down weekend schedule for Imola can form one of the ways that this can be addressed. Simply giving them less time to collect and pour over the data. 

[shure]

I don’t think it’s necessarily the level of technology. It’s the very different levels of recourses available to the teams. The technology isn’t stopping the midfield battle from being very close and exciting. It’s just not happening at the front.

I feel the technology has helped enable to top teams to stay ahead of the rest.  I can't remember where it was now but I remember reading a report last year that had Mercedes running something like 150 simulations back at HQ during a race and feeding the info back to help the strategists.  Smaller teams just can't compete with that.  

 

I'm convinced that removing much of the data and telemetry during a race would help even things up a bit.  Number crunching is expensive and the top teams can do much more with it than the lesser teams.  Removing that advantage and placing the responsibility for managing the race back with the drivers would help take away some of the advantages the bigger teams have.  And it would cut costs and limit the driving to deltas that is largely unpopular but necessary today.

 

I don't have figures so happy to be proven wrong on this but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the hyper modern simulators, wind tunnels and full chassis dynos, which again only the top teams have, are probably more expensive than the analogue testing they used to do.  And they again refine everything so much that they leave little margin for error.  Banning these would be very positive IMO (although realistically improbable given the outlay these teams have already made).  

 

And the hybrid PUs are so insanely complicated (and again expensive) that it allegedly took cheating to allow one team to catch the leader and forced another PU manufacturer to spend three years using the races as tests.  The tech was forced upon us before everyone was really ready for it IMO.

 

Finally, the expense of all this tech has forced measures to limit its development or testing, which has meant that a team that starts badly, like McLaren did in the Honda years, or Ferrari with its too small turbo in 2014 or its seriously under-powered PU now, will never be able to catch up.  It's counter productive from a sporting perspective.  That would never have happened in days of yore as teams at least had the opportunity to rectify things

 

I get that F1 is a tech showcase, but I just think the way it is now has made tech too prominent and it's doing more harm than good

[Sebastien007]

Today at Spa, proves it