The place for anything and everything else to do with F1 history, different forms of motorsport, and all other randomness
by CoopsII 18 Feb 2021, 11:38
I've pondered this opinion myself a few times over the years without really coming to a conclusion either way. One thing I do think is that Mosley and Ecclestone got away with much of their approach through familiarity. These two guys had known nearly all the team principals since the halcyon days of modern F1 and I think that level of familiarity eliminates any bullshit, things are black and white, do it this way or else. These days with a more corporate influence you wouldn't get away with that, I don't think.

Nostalgia usually makes folk things were better that way but I'm not sure how true that is.

Just For One Day...
by mario 20 Feb 2021, 15:35
Frogfoot9013 wrote:
Butterfox wrote:I do no tthink people really had a problem with his interventionist style, but more with the fact that he would not compromise if one of his ideas was stupid. When he made good decisions that just went largely unnoticed.


This is probably more accurate tbh
I don't recall there being much criticism of how the FIA punished the likes of BAR and McLaren in 2005 and 2007 respectively (though IIRC with BAR, Mosley wanted to throw the team out of the championship full-stop and I think they got lucky by dint of getting caught early in the year versus getting caught later on in the year). Likewise, when McLaren got that $100m fine and being thrown out of the constructor's championship, there was little opposition to that. However, the FIA's lunacy in 2005 at Indianapolis was pretty universally disliked for obvious reasons.

However, I do think a lot of us took that sort of interventionism for granted at the time, not realising that in spite of all that was wrong with the way the FIA was run then, we'd never get it that good again.

You do raise a fair point that it wasn't perhaps so much of the interventionism, but the cases where there was unnecessary antagonism.

I would somewhat disagree with the assertion that the punishment that McLaren received wasn't without opposition though, as there were indications that it did result in a fair bit of discomfort and disquiet in the paddock.

There were those who felt it was disproportionately harsh when compared to similar cases around that time, as the investigation into McLaren was just one of multiple cases that the FIA was investigating at the time. Whilst the Ferrari-McLaren question was the headline, there were questions around how Spyker had got hold of design drawings for Red Bull's and Toro Rosso's 2007 spec chassis (and questions over whether Spyker's B spec car might have "borrowed" some ideas from those cars) and Renault was having to explain how it had details of McLaren's J-damper on their system.

Equally, others also referenced the 2003 Ferrari-Toyota case, as the legal trial of Mauro Iacconi and Angelo Santini took place in early 2007 (after the original trial date in 2006 was postponed). There did seem to be questions over the mixed messages the FIA seemed to be sending, given they chose to make an example of McLaren at the time, but were felt to be comparatively lenient elsewhere.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Bleu 20 Feb 2021, 19:31
Regarding FIA leadership I have to think whether disbanding FISA was a good idea.

Even though his background in rallying, sports cars and F1, Jean Todt as FIA president seems to be more interested in road safety. All respect to that, it is an important job globally.

But at the same time, being the head of motorsport might be too time-consuming.

I know that for example Balestre headed both at the same time, but it could be good if there were two persons heading two different organizations.
by yannicksamlad 22 Feb 2021, 09:24
Rob Dylan wrote:....These days the FiA is... barely even there? Especially when it comes to in-race decisions, there hasn't been an in-race DSQ since probably 2007 or 2008 or something, and there have been PLENTY of incidents that have warranted that kind of action*. There doesn't appear to be any kind of leadership from Todt at all...


I've been thinking about this point about not taking strong action against some dangerous (or at least pretty risky) driving, and I tend to agree with the point that the FIA doesnt seem to set a clear and high standard for the stewards to apply. There have been a number of incidents for which I feel F2 or F3 drivers would have been penalised/ castigated etc and yet F1 stewards havent felt able to take strong action. Strangely the stewards have issued small penalties ( and very strangely also penalty points on the licence) for plenty of small misjudgments that lead to tangles ( I think they judge the outcome and not the offence) , but cases of completely unnecessary endangerment of others have been given a light touch.
I agree - the FIA should be seen to be setting a high standard for driving conduct which should be seen to be paramount and sit above all the 'specific' rules about where/when it's acceptable to 'weave', run people off the road etc . And that's not been the case recently

Same goes for 'leading' on dealing with rule breaking. A strong FIA position on the consequences for rule breaking would be welcome as we go into budget caps , frozen engines etc where there will be grey areas

I started supporting Emmo in 1976 (3 points )....missed 75, 74, 73, 72...
by mario 24 Feb 2021, 19:56
yannicksamlad wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:....These days the FiA is... barely even there? Especially when it comes to in-race decisions, there hasn't been an in-race DSQ since probably 2007 or 2008 or something, and there have been PLENTY of incidents that have warranted that kind of action*. There doesn't appear to be any kind of leadership from Todt at all...


I've been thinking about this point about not taking strong action against some dangerous (or at least pretty risky) driving, and I tend to agree with the point that the FIA doesnt seem to set a clear and high standard for the stewards to apply. There have been a number of incidents for which I feel F2 or F3 drivers would have been penalised/ castigated etc and yet F1 stewards havent felt able to take strong action. Strangely the stewards have issued small penalties ( and very strangely also penalty points on the licence) for plenty of small misjudgments that lead to tangles ( I think they judge the outcome and not the offence) , but cases of completely unnecessary endangerment of others have been given a light touch.
I agree - the FIA should be seen to be setting a high standard for driving conduct which should be seen to be paramount and sit above all the 'specific' rules about where/when it's acceptable to 'weave', run people off the road etc . And that's not been the case recently

Same goes for 'leading' on dealing with rule breaking. A strong FIA position on the consequences for rule breaking would be welcome as we go into budget caps , frozen engines etc where there will be grey areas

There does seem to be the twist that, whilst Todt seems to be quite interested in his road safety campaigns, safety within F1 seems to have gone backwards in some areas. Whilst I don't want to be overly harsh, I do feel that Masi and the stewards under him have been rather inconsistent and that safety standards for marshalling work in particular has markedly worsened.

Last year, we had near misses in Imola, where race control allowed lapped cars to travel at high speed even though there were still marshals on the track, then qualifying being restarted in Turkey whilst marshals were still trying to recover a Haas from a gravel trap because Masi didn't wait for confirmation the marshals were clear and a marshal running across the live track in Bahrain when Perez's car caught fire.

Those are the most worrying aspects - it felt as if Masi was acting because of psychological pressure to make sure that action could resume as soon as possible in some cases, such as in Turkey, and Imola also showed a worrying trend that communications between race control and the marshals seems to be prone to breaking down more frequently.

There was also the accusations levied against Mika Salo after the Russian GP that he was passing information from the stewards room to broadcasters during official investigations. When the investigation into Hamilton was taking place, Niki Juusela reported on Finnish TV that Hamilton would be getting a penalty about 10 minutes before the official announcement was made - Salo, having also presented on that show and reportedly being pictured using his phone at around that time, was suspected of leaking info, though that was denied by both men.

That, to me, is also a pretty bad sign if stewards were looking to abuse the investigation process to give a scoop to the press - we shouldn't have that sort of behaviour occurring.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by James1978 30 Apr 2021, 16:02
I don't know if this could class as unpopular as such but it just struck me so wanted to state it - even though it's only 3-4 years ago, and despite the halo being introduced for the start of the 2018 season, I feel for me the 2017 and 2018 seasons both sort of blend into one, I struggle to differentiate one from the other.

Similar championship battles - Vettel looking good to challenge Hamilton early but falling away later in both seasons due to driver and team errors, many teams having static driver line-ups (and Renault and Toro Rosso both having their 2018 line-ups in place in late 2017), both championships being decided in Mexico with Verstappen winning both times despite not being a title contender, Vettel winning both season openers overtaking Hamilton in the pits, McLaren struggling both years - the only big difference apart from the appearance of the cars I can think of was Leclerc's impressive debut season in the Sauber in '18!

"Poor old Warwick takes it from behind all throughout this season". :) (Tony Jardine, 1988)
by Rob Dylan 01 May 2021, 22:36
I have been having very similar experiences of much of the races following Rosberg's retirement. I think in most part it is Hamilton's ultrareliability that is causing me to forget. I vividly remember when he blew up in Malaysia 16 and in Austria 18, but yeah (other than last weekend of course) otherwise the lack of real surprises is playing tricks with my memory as to "famous races where something truly impactful and exciting for the championship" happened.

Most seasons (or groups of seasons) have defining moments or themes - Prost v Senna, Schumacher domination in the early 00s, the craziness of 2007-2009, that kind of thing. For me though it feels like we have been in "the Mercedes moment" since 2014 really. Or at least we've been in the "Mercedes moment except there's no intra-team excitement because Rosberg retired" era since 2017.

Whilst I would agree that there have been great races from time to time, the defining thing about the four consecutive seasons after Rosberg, is that largely nothing has been done to topple Merc and Hamilton and give some real lasting excitement to the championship.

EXCEPT of course when the Ferraris both crashed at Singapore 2017, now THAT was era defining :badoer: :badoer: :badoer:

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by Francophone 03 May 2021, 20:18
Rob Dylan wrote:I have been having very similar experiences of much of the races following Rosberg's retirement. I think in most part it is Hamilton's ultrareliability that is causing me to forget. I vividly remember when he blew up in Malaysia 16 and in Austria 18, but yeah (other than last weekend of course) otherwise the lack of real surprises is playing tricks with my memory as to "famous races where something truly impactful and exciting for the championship" happened.

Most seasons (or groups of seasons) have defining moments or themes - Prost v Senna, Schumacher domination in the early 00s, the craziness of 2007-2009, that kind of thing. For me though it feels like we have been in "the Mercedes moment" since 2014 really. Or at least we've been in the "Mercedes moment except there's no intra-team excitement because Rosberg retired" era since 2017.

Whilst I would agree that there have been great races from time to time, the defining thing about the four consecutive seasons after Rosberg, is that largely nothing has been done to topple Merc and Hamilton and give some real lasting excitement to the championship.

EXCEPT of course when the Ferraris both crashed at Singapore 2017, now THAT was era defining :badoer: :badoer: :badoer:


Seems as though my post got lost!

I was saying that Singapore 2017 summed up the hybrid era until arguably this season very well. Ferrari look like they might challenge Lewis , then at the start Seb , Kimi and Max crash into each other - while you know who stole through to win on a track in which he was very much unfancied. To top it off Ferrari imploded in the next couple of races in Malaysia and Japan with engine problems.

I'd agree with what you said about 2017 and 18 being similar - though the defining moment was more Seb imploding in 2018 at Hockenheim (and arguably hasn't been the same driver since) , compared to Ferrari the season before , while Lewis took full advantage.

2019 would have remembered as a much better season if it were ran in reverse , and similar to the previous two years - the consecutive Mercs 1-2s killed a lot of interest in both championships (especially after Lewis got going) . We had the emergence of Charles Leclerc and Ferrari in the second half , although powered by a cheating engine.

2020 was my favourite season of the hybrid era. Lewis and Merc crushed everyone with an iconic black liveried car , Max followed them home but behind them it was chaos with so many cars evenly matched , Ferrari being made to pay for their cheating engine. And there were some crazy races , results , two new winners , and two podiums with entirely midfield teams for the first time since Nurburgring 1999.
by James1978 15 May 2021, 19:56
Got another one which could possibly be deemed "unpopular".

Perez in the Red Bull just feels totally wrong to me. I miss him being attached to a midfield team where he was seen as one of the family and always punched above his weight. I know Aston Martin are struggling right now but he'd have happily stayed there had they not took Vettel, and also Red Bull would not have interrupted Albon's learning curve. I think the list of drivers who could do the job they need in the second car is very short indeed (ie be what Bottas is to Hamilton as he is good at spoiling the rival teams' strategy - think Spain 2017, Italy 2018 etc).

If we were looking at a past equivalent, it's like Pierluigi Martini getting fired from Minardi where he was loved, and the only option he had was to take something like the 2nd Benetton alongside Schumacher or the 2nd McLaren alongside Senna and obviously being nowhere near either of them!

"Poor old Warwick takes it from behind all throughout this season". :) (Tony Jardine, 1988)
by tBone 16 May 2021, 09:58
James1978 wrote:If we were looking at a past equivalent, it's like Pierluigi Martini getting fired from Minardi where he was loved, and the only option he had was to take something like the 2nd Benetton alongside Schumacher or the 2nd McLaren alongside Senna and obviously being nowhere near either of them!

...Or Mika Salo getting dumped by Arrows and left without a seat, only to end up in a Ferrari halfway through the year?

YOUR
LOGO

Here
by Rob Dylan 16 May 2021, 15:33
I agree that it's weird seeing Pérez driving for "the man" rather than punching above his weight as the underdog that he's been seen as practically his whole career. I only hope he moves up from underdog to top-level driver this year - it would be a shame for that talent to be wasted as a form of Fisichellitis when I think he could win this year in that car.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by James1978 16 May 2021, 19:27
tBone wrote:
James1978 wrote:If we were looking at a past equivalent, it's like Pierluigi Martini getting fired from Minardi where he was loved, and the only option he had was to take something like the 2nd Benetton alongside Schumacher or the 2nd McLaren alongside Senna and obviously being nowhere near either of them!

...Or Mika Salo getting dumped by Arrows and left without a seat, only to end up in a Ferrari halfway through the year?


Not really as Salo had only been with Arrows for a year and not attached to the team in the way Martini was and Perez was for Racing Point. Though he did impress me at Tyrrell, especially the early part of 1996 where he often mixed it with McLarens and Jordans and the like. Maybe a better real-life example would be Ivan Capelli after some great performances with March/Leyton House, struggling at Ferrari - basically was the end of his career then.

"Poor old Warwick takes it from behind all throughout this season". :) (Tony Jardine, 1988)
by James1978 07 Jun 2021, 19:57
Scratch what I said above about Perez after what happened yesterday! :-)

But I have one here that will definitely be deemed unpopular by some anyway - every time I hear of a 2021 race been cancelled/postponed due to Covid, such as recent examples Canada, Turkey and now Singapore - I keep thinking they shouldn't replace them with other venues (such as Austria having 2 races) as 23 rounds is too many and I want to see the calendar cut down to a more reasonable size!!

"Poor old Warwick takes it from behind all throughout this season". :) (Tony Jardine, 1988)
by Ataxia 07 Jun 2021, 20:34
James1978 wrote:Scratch what I said above about Perez after what happened yesterday! :-)

But I have one here that will definitely be deemed unpopular by some anyway - every time I hear of a 2021 race been cancelled/postponed due to Covid, such as recent examples Canada, Turkey and now Singapore - I keep thinking they shouldn't replace them with other venues (such as Austria having 2 races) as 23 rounds is too many and I want to see the calendar cut down to a more reasonable size!!


Agreed 100%.

Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
by Freeze-O-Kimi 07 Jun 2021, 22:07
James1978 wrote:Scratch what I said above about Perez after what happened yesterday! :-)

But I have one here that will definitely be deemed unpopular by some anyway - every time I hear of a 2021 race been cancelled/postponed due to Covid, such as recent examples Canada, Turkey and now Singapore - I keep thinking they shouldn't replace them with other venues (such as Austria having 2 races) as 23 rounds is too many and I want to see the calendar cut down to a more reasonable size!!


I don’t think that’s unpopular at all. IMO it shouldn’t be any more than 19. I’m also not keen on the season still going in early December either. Early November finish used to be fine.
by Rob Dylan 08 Jun 2021, 08:32
James1978 wrote:Scratch what I said above about Perez after what happened yesterday! :-)

But I have one here that will definitely be deemed unpopular by some anyway - every time I hear of a 2021 race been cancelled/postponed due to Covid, such as recent examples Canada, Turkey and now Singapore - I keep thinking they shouldn't replace them with other venues (such as Austria having 2 races) as 23 rounds is too many and I want to see the calendar cut down to a more reasonable size!!
Haha, this must be the most popular "unpopular" opinion right now :D I suppose somebody somewhere has to please the phantom shareholders that are demanding 23 races a season, because in reality I think very few people, including the fans, actually want to have that level of fatigue come the end of the year.

For me it's as much the fixing of the number. I don't mind if one year we have 17 races, the next 20, the next 18, for whatever reason that occurs. That's ok! It doesn't have to be fixed the way they're trying to fix it. Ok, they wanted 23 races, but this year they might ONLY get 20 due to COVID. Oh well, nobody is mourning. They don't need to implement an Abu-Dhabi quadruple-header just to reach the magic 23 number that nobody wants anyway...

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by Wallio 18 Jun 2021, 17:54
I'm not sure if this unpopular or not, but a trend that started last year ad really bothers me: Why does Liberty/Sky/Local TV peeps/Whoever only ever use footage from the V6-Hybrid era for the highlights in their "action zone" bits in the opening of sessions? I get that at like Algarve and Baku it can't be helped, but Barcelona? Imola? Austria? Silverstone? Come on! Hell, show some old turbo stuff from Paul Ricard this weekend you cowards!

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by dr-baker 18 Jun 2021, 19:01
Wallio wrote:I'm not sure if this unpopular or not, but a trend that started last year ad really bothers me: Why does Liberty/Sky/Local TV peeps/Whoever only ever use footage from the V6-Hybrid era for the highlights in their "action zone" bits in the opening of sessions? I get that at like Algarve and Baku it can't be helped, but Barcelona? Imola? Austria? Silverstone? Come on! Hell, show some old turbo stuff from Paul Ricard this weekend you cowards!

Not unpopular with me at all. I have been thinking the same thing.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by dinizintheoven 20 Jun 2021, 20:16
This is going to be potentially unpopular: I want Lewis Hamilton to win the World Championship this year, and get his 100th win.

Why? Because these absolutely have to be the two final boxes in his F1 bucket list. With them ticked, he can cruise through the 2022 season, have that one year with the new regulations, and if Max and Red Bull win that year, he can say "oh well, they built the better car" and exit stage left for his new career as a political activist.

If Max beats him this year, he might hang around to chase the goals until he's even older than Louis Chiron.

James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time:
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
by UncreativeUsername37 22 Jun 2021, 02:59
Wallio wrote:I'm not sure if this unpopular or not, but a trend that started last year ad really bothers me: Why does Liberty/Sky/Local TV peeps/Whoever only ever use footage from the V6-Hybrid era for the highlights in their "action zone" bits in the opening of sessions? I get that at like Algarve and Baku it can't be helped, but Barcelona? Imola? Austria? Silverstone? Come on! Hell, show some old turbo stuff from Paul Ricard this weekend you cowards!

It isn't all from then, but yeah, there's definitely a skew. Evidenceless speculation warning, but it is in Liberty's marketing interest to say the most exciting stuff in history has happened recently, with cars comparable to the present day's.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by Freeze-O-Kimi 22 Jun 2021, 09:51
dinizintheoven wrote:This is going to be potentially unpopular: I want Lewis Hamilton to win the World Championship this year, and get his 100th win.

Why? Because these absolutely have to be the two final boxes in his F1 bucket list. With them ticked, he can cruise through the 2022 season, have that one year with the new regulations, and if Max and Red Bull win that year, he can say "oh well, they built the better car" and exit stage left for his new career as a political activist.

If Max beats him this year, he might hang around to chase the goals until he's even older than Louis Chiron.


The cynic in me says that Lewis only signed a one year extension last winter because he fears that Mercedes might not be all conquering when the 2022 regs come in. But I think he still enjoys his racing and he might love a stronger challenge so why not stay for next year?
by Rob Dylan 22 Jun 2021, 12:09
I'm divided over the potential world champions. I honestly think F1 desperately needs a new champion, especially someone who's not driving for Mercedes. On the other hand I do kind of agree that the reign of Hamilton might end quicker if he just got all those wonderful achievements he wants out of the way sooner and would go home.

I will say that I've been the most engaged this year in the action, the season, and wanting to follow each race, since Rosberg was still driving. I would very much like someone other than Hamilton to win. With the most dominant team in the sport's history, I don't even rate his championships all that highly, and him winning an eighth championship won't make me like him any more or enjoy F1 any better.

Then again that's just me. I think the Mercedes downfall can't come soon enough.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by mario 25 Jun 2021, 15:14
UncreativeUsername37 wrote:
Wallio wrote:I'm not sure if this unpopular or not, but a trend that started last year ad really bothers me: Why does Liberty/Sky/Local TV peeps/Whoever only ever use footage from the V6-Hybrid era for the highlights in their "action zone" bits in the opening of sessions? I get that at like Algarve and Baku it can't be helped, but Barcelona? Imola? Austria? Silverstone? Come on! Hell, show some old turbo stuff from Paul Ricard this weekend you cowards!

It isn't all from then, but yeah, there's definitely a skew. Evidenceless speculation warning, but it is in Liberty's marketing interest to say the most exciting stuff in history has happened recently, with cars comparable to the present day's.

I would agree that, if you want to promote the current season, it makes more sense to use footage that is from recent seasons.

It also has to be said that, in some cases, there might not necessarily be quite as much historical action as you might think. In the case of the Austrian GP, the modern circuit only saw 7 races from 1996-2003, so we've now had just as many races with the current cars as we've had with historic cars. Similarly, depending on which corners you are using, Silverstone's current layout has only been in use for a decade now, so most of the footage will come from the current cars as well.

Rob Dylan wrote:I'm divided over the potential world champions. I honestly think F1 desperately needs a new champion, especially someone who's not driving for Mercedes. On the other hand I do kind of agree that the reign of Hamilton might end quicker if he just got all those wonderful achievements he wants out of the way sooner and would go home.

I will say that I've been the most engaged this year in the action, the season, and wanting to follow each race, since Rosberg was still driving. I would very much like someone other than Hamilton to win. With the most dominant team in the sport's history, I don't even rate his championships all that highly, and him winning an eighth championship won't make me like him any more or enjoy F1 any better.

Then again that's just me. I think the Mercedes downfall can't come soon enough.

Now, I suspect this might be an unpopular opinion, but it is this - be careful for what you wish for, because you might not necessarily like the consequences of it.

In the frustration of saying "I'm tired of driver X dominating, I can't wait for somebody else to win", there is the inevitable question of whether, in trying to shift things in another direction to "mix things up", you instead end up imbalancing the sport even more in another direction.

If the 2022 regulation package doesn't work quite as planned, and instead you just end up having another team a major advantage - and bear in mind that regulation package would run from 2022 to 2026 - then what happens if, for example, we just switch Hamilton and Mercedes dominance to Verstappen and Red Bull dominance? Does that prospect look any more enticing than what we have now?

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 25 Jun 2021, 18:32
mario wrote:Now, I suspect this might be an unpopular opinion, but it is this - be careful for what you wish for, because you might not necessarily like the consequences of it.

In the frustration of saying "I'm tired of driver X dominating, I can't wait for somebody else to win", there is the inevitable question of whether, in trying to shift things in another direction to "mix things up", you instead end up imbalancing the sport even more in another direction.

If the 2022 regulation package doesn't work quite as planned, and instead you just end up having another team a major advantage - and bear in mind that regulation package would run from 2022 to 2026 - then what happens if, for example, we just switch Hamilton and Mercedes dominance to Verstappen and Red Bull dominance? Does that prospect look any more enticing than what we have now?



For me personally, it's not that one team is winning everything, it's how one team is winning everything. Going into this season, Mercedes had a win rate of over 75% (with a 41% chance of it being a 1-2!), a podium rate of 74%, and a pole rate just under 80%! And with the possible exception of 2017, if we are being generous, they haven't been challenged. At all.

Red Bull really only crushed all hopes and dreams in 2013. Ferrari had two insane years in '02 and '04 but damn close fights in '00 and '03. Renault was challenged each year they won. Brawn trailed off after Silverstone. Hell, even Williams had a strong Mclaren charge in '93 to deal with, to say nothing of their fights with Bennetton.

The V6 Hybrid era is statistically the least competitive formula since the emergency change to F2 rules in '52/'53. And that's with Racing Point and Alpha Tauri winning last year. It was even worse before. Basically, we have had 8 years each like 1992 or 1988. Which once in a while is fine but after 8 years? Yeah, shake it up a bit. Which to be fair, they have this year, but really only Mercedes, Red Bull (and to a MUCH lesser extent) Mclaren have put much effort into this year. I'm curious to see how it shakes out with ten fresh designs.

Will it work? I don't know, but I'm hopeful. But I'm fairly confident (cautiously optimistic?) that it would be as one-sided as before. History says it pretty much can't be.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 27 Jun 2021, 15:29
Wallio wrote:
mario wrote:Now, I suspect this might be an unpopular opinion, but it is this - be careful for what you wish for, because you might not necessarily like the consequences of it.

In the frustration of saying "I'm tired of driver X dominating, I can't wait for somebody else to win", there is the inevitable question of whether, in trying to shift things in another direction to "mix things up", you instead end up imbalancing the sport even more in another direction.

If the 2022 regulation package doesn't work quite as planned, and instead you just end up having another team a major advantage - and bear in mind that regulation package would run from 2022 to 2026 - then what happens if, for example, we just switch Hamilton and Mercedes dominance to Verstappen and Red Bull dominance? Does that prospect look any more enticing than what we have now?



For me personally, it's not that one team is winning everything, it's how one team is winning everything. Going into this season, Mercedes had a win rate of over 75% (with a 41% chance of it being a 1-2!), a podium rate of 74%, and a pole rate just under 80%! And with the possible exception of 2017, if we are being generous, they haven't been challenged. At all.

Red Bull really only crushed all hopes and dreams in 2013. Ferrari had two insane years in '02 and '04 but damn close fights in '00 and '03. Renault was challenged each year they won. Brawn trailed off after Silverstone. Hell, even Williams had a strong Mclaren charge in '93 to deal with, to say nothing of their fights with Bennetton.

The V6 Hybrid era is statistically the least competitive formula since the emergency change to F2 rules in '52/'53. And that's with Racing Point and Alpha Tauri winning last year. It was even worse before. Basically, we have had 8 years each like 1992 or 1988. Which once in a while is fine but after 8 years? Yeah, shake it up a bit. Which to be fair, they have this year, but really only Mercedes, Red Bull (and to a MUCH lesser extent) Mclaren have put much effort into this year. I'm curious to see how it shakes out with ten fresh designs.

Will it work? I don't know, but I'm hopeful. But I'm fairly confident (cautiously optimistic?) that it would be as one-sided as before. History says it pretty much can't be.

Are you saying that, prior to the 2018 German GP, Vettel and Ferrari were not challenging Mercedes that season? Vettel certainly seemed confident, even rather cocky, about his performances until then (just take his radio message after the British GP that year, for example). Also, wouldn't some point out that it's a little misleading to say that Red Bull was only dominant in 2013, leaving out 2011?

It does raise the question of what might be considered an acceptable level of "dominance" though - at what point does it switch from being seen as an acceptable level of domination to then being unacceptable? We might consider 2010 as being competitive in terms of the World Drivers Championship, but on the other hand Red Bull won almost half the races that season (over 47%) - is that performance considered "dominant" or not? How do perceptions of dominance shift over time? Would we consider that "too dominant" now, or would it seem acceptable after the current performances of Mercedes?

Looking back at it, I don't think that we necessarily always thought of those seasons as being quite as even a fight at the time as we might think of it in retrospect. Do we recast our view of the past and skew our perception of what we might consider acceptable in the future based on what is happening now?

Maybe it won't be quite as one sided as now - but we don't need the sport to be as one sided as it is now for us to have complained about a team being "too dominant" in the past.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Rob Dylan 28 Jun 2021, 07:31
To answer Mario's last subject, watching 2010-2013 I was obviously much younger and so "had hope" :D I remember even until after the summer break, having hope that 2013 would be competitive at least until the end, even if Vettel won.

Mercedes' domination has been twofold, however. While Red Bull bathplugged up relatively often, especially with intra-team issues or the occasional crazy races (or even, dare I say it, the world champion's car breaking down more than once every three years :mrgreen: ), Mercedes have been at the forefront in every single department. Their package has been so damn good and consistently reliably perfect that it feels like watching one of those Liam Neeson action movies from the last decade or two - at no point are you ever worried that Liam Neeson might not beat everyone to a pulp, rescue the kidnapped family member, suffer no injuries and get home no problem ready for the next time someone gets kidnapped :D


If Merc, or even just Hamilton, win again this season, it will have been eight championship years in a row for the team. BUT.

The main existential worry, I think for many on this site, is that the Merc team are such a brilliant package, that no big rule change will stop their crushing domination. With their ability to just sail over everything that has come their way, I at least have a very really concern that Merc could just turn up to a brand-new 2022 and have it be a repeat of 2014. With the hybrid era being the way it was with engine freezes and the like, when we see a team dominating, we're not counting by seasons, but by three or four seasons. For some reason, Red Bull domination seems a little more palatable if just for the knowledge that they might bathplug up a little more often :facepalm:

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by Wallio 29 Jun 2021, 16:48
mario wrote:Are you saying that, prior to the 2018 German GP, Vettel and Ferrari were not challenging Mercedes that season? Vettel certainly seemed confident, even rather cocky, about his performances until then (just take his radio message after the British GP that year, for example). Also, wouldn't some point out that it's a little misleading to say that Red Bull was only dominant in 2013, leaving out 2011?

It does raise the question of what might be considered an acceptable level of "dominance" though - at what point does it switch from being seen as an acceptable level of domination to then being unacceptable? We might consider 2010 as being competitive in terms of the World Drivers Championship, but on the other hand Red Bull won almost half the races that season (over 47%) - is that performance considered "dominant" or not? How do perceptions of dominance shift over time? Would we consider that "too dominant" now, or would it seem acceptable after the current performances of Mercedes?

Looking back at it, I don't think that we necessarily always thought of those seasons as being quite as even a fight at the time as we might think of it in retrospect. Do we recast our view of the past and skew our perception of what we might consider acceptable in the future based on what is happening now?

Maybe it won't be quite as one sided as now - but we don't need the sport to be as one sided as it is now for us to have complained about a team being "too dominant" in the past.



Honestly Mario, I never bought Ferrari's hype lol. The way Rob feels about RBR, I feel about Ferrari, they WILL bathplug something up, usually at a key point. I think overall you saw more people adopt this attitude this year, as I noticed the Sky team, especially Karun, were very sensitive of the criticisms of them anointing Ferrari (and this year Red Bull) too early, and made quite a few defensive comments about it during testing.

You may have a point about 2011. I have to go back and watch some of that again. I remember it being relatively close, (VERY close by 2014-2020 standards) but it could just be the rose-colored glasses of the year earlier and the year later blinding me. I 100% disagree about 2010 though. Webber and Vettel both were competitive. That makes a world a difference. If Merc had ever let Bottas compete, it would ease the sting quite a bit (see 2016).

But as to your question of what is "too dominant"? It is like the legal definition of obscenity. We just know it when we see it. And considering this week marks the first time in the hybrid era Merc has gone four races in a row with a win, yeah, we're seeing it all right.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 29 Jun 2021, 21:57
Wallio wrote:
mario wrote:Are you saying that, prior to the 2018 German GP, Vettel and Ferrari were not challenging Mercedes that season? Vettel certainly seemed confident, even rather cocky, about his performances until then (just take his radio message after the British GP that year, for example). Also, wouldn't some point out that it's a little misleading to say that Red Bull was only dominant in 2013, leaving out 2011?

It does raise the question of what might be considered an acceptable level of "dominance" though - at what point does it switch from being seen as an acceptable level of domination to then being unacceptable? We might consider 2010 as being competitive in terms of the World Drivers Championship, but on the other hand Red Bull won almost half the races that season (over 47%) - is that performance considered "dominant" or not? How do perceptions of dominance shift over time? Would we consider that "too dominant" now, or would it seem acceptable after the current performances of Mercedes?

Looking back at it, I don't think that we necessarily always thought of those seasons as being quite as even a fight at the time as we might think of it in retrospect. Do we recast our view of the past and skew our perception of what we might consider acceptable in the future based on what is happening now?

Maybe it won't be quite as one sided as now - but we don't need the sport to be as one sided as it is now for us to have complained about a team being "too dominant" in the past.



Honestly Mario, I never bought Ferrari's hype lol. The way Rob feels about RBR, I feel about Ferrari, they WILL bathplug something up, usually at a key point. I think overall you saw more people adopt this attitude this year, as I noticed the Sky team, especially Karun, were very sensitive of the criticisms of them anointing Ferrari (and this year Red Bull) too early, and made quite a few defensive comments about it during testing.

You may have a point about 2011. I have to go back and watch some of that again. I remember it being relatively close, (VERY close by 2014-2020 standards) but it could just be the rose-colored glasses of the year earlier and the year later blinding me. I 100% disagree about 2010 though. Webber and Vettel both were competitive. That makes a world a difference. If Merc had ever let Bottas compete, it would ease the sting quite a bit (see 2016).

But as to your question of what is "too dominant"? It is like the legal definition of obscenity. We just know it when we see it. And considering this week marks the first time in the hybrid era Merc has gone four races in a row with a win, yeah, we're seeing it all right.

Vettel didn't have as long a winning streak in 2011 that he did have in 2013, but Vettel was a long, long way ahead in 2011.

Whilst you say that "we know it when we see it" in your response to the question of the perception of dominance, given you then go on to say that you "remember it being relatively close" in 2011 does raise the question of whether it really is quite as obvious as you might think.

To give a contrast, if we take 2019 as the most recent undisrupted season - I believe that you have commented about 2019 being a dominant season by Hamilton, but by pretty much any metric you choose, Vettel's 2011 season was more dominant.

At the end of a 19 race season in 2011, Vettel was 122 points clear of his next nearest rival (392, versus 270 for Button) - that was the second highest winning margin that Vettel achieved over a title rival, with only 2013 outstripping that. Hamilton won in 2019 with a lead of 87 points over Bottas, and 135 over Verstappen - even with a longer season, he only won by slightly more points.

Vettel won the 2011 season with four races to go - he won it at the Japanese GP, which was round 15 out of 19 - where his lead was 114 points over Button, with a maximum of 100 points left. Going into the Japanese GP, Button had been the only driver who could even possibly be in mathematical contention, as he was 124 points behind Vettel with a maximum of 125 points available.

In 2019, if you then take a similar point in that season - the 2019 Japanese GP - then Hamilton went into that race with Bottas 73 points behind him, Leclerc 107 points behind and Verstappen 110 points behind.

In 2011, out of the 19 races that season, Vettel won 11 of them, meaning he won 58% of all races - more than the 52% that Hamilton won in 2019. In terms of finishing position, Vettel's average in 2011 was a finishing place of 1.3, and he only failed to finish on the podium twice that season - once due to a DNF, and one 4th place.

In qualifying, Vettel took 79% of all pole positions - 15 out of 19 - in 2011, as opposed to only 5 for Hamilton in 2019 (Leclerc, with 7, actually took more poles than Hamilton in 2019). As a whole, Red Bull took 95% of all possible poles in 2011 - in terms of pole positions, Red Bull's 2011 season ties with Mercedes for the maximum percentage of poles that could be taken in a season.

In terms of laps led, Vettel led 739 laps in 2011, or 65% of all possible laps that season - even with two more races, Hamilton led only 511 laps in 2019 (40.5%). In raw number terms, the 739 laps that Vettel led in 2011 is still the record for the most laps that any driver has ever led in a season, and percentage wise, only two drivers have ever bettered Vettel's 2011 season (Clark in 1963 holds the record, at 71.5%, with Mansell's 1992 season next at 67%) - I am leaving Verstappen and 2021 out for for the moment, though that would narrowly better Vettel's percentage too (66% laps led so far for Verstappen in 2021).

It's a strange thing, as you recall 2011 as being "VERY close by 2014-2020 standards" - but, statistically, Vettel really did dominate that season just as much, and indeed in some areas even more so, than anything Hamilton or Mercedes have done from 2014-2020.

That is why I raise the question about perception and about how we consider competitiveness between teams and within a team, and how both beliefs about what is an acceptable level of dominance changes over time.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 30 Jun 2021, 15:02
As I said, I'll have to go back and watch some of it again. But the fact that you have to nitpick so hard over one season from the last 15 or so pre-LOLMERCWINSLOL kind of makes my point for me. ;)

Even if for the sake of argument we accept 2011 as a squash, that still gives us 1988 (which at least had a title fight, but still),1992, 2002, 2004, 2011, 2013 as absolute soul-destroying years. 6 in 25 years. Versus 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020 for 5 in 8 years. And really that's with giving 2017 a pass (which I admitted in an earlier post is generous, but I'll stick with it) and with 2016 being LOLMERCWINSLOL but at least it was [i]two[i] Mercs, so there was competition.

There is a reason why places like The-Race, Motorsport.com, etc all have articles up about Mercedes' run being unprecedented. Because it is. Now whether or not that's a good thing or a bad thing is a whole another argument. But the facts are the facts.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by mario 01 Jul 2021, 22:43
Wallio wrote:As I said, I'll have to go back and watch some of it again. But the fact that you have to nitpick so hard over one season from the last 15 or so pre-LOLMERCWINSLOL kind of makes my point for me. ;)

I'm not sure it really does make the point you are making, because that is not what I am asking about though.

What I've been asking about is more about what point at which do we switch from tolerating to not tolerating dominance by a particular team, and how perceptions can be skewed over time. I wanted to emphasise that 2011 season in part because, by many metrics, it was a crushingly dominant season by Vettel, and yet it seems that, looking back, it's looked at in a rather different light to how it was viewed at the time.

Similarly, it's quite possible to find some forums which were around in the early to mid 2000s where some of the comments being made about the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Williams were not too dissimilar to what we hear now. Whilst we might look back on that era now and say that it was a much more competitive era, if you look at what was being said at the time, the fans were often complaining that the sport was still dominated too much by the same small group of teams - it's clear that there has been a rather marked shift in perceptions, with people tending to look on that era much more favourably than the contemporary comments they made at the time.

As such, even if the sport was not necessarily dominated quite as heavily in the future by a single team as it might have been in recent years, that doesn't necessarily rule out that we could see complaints that a particular team, or perhaps a group of teams, is still too dominant and that we've just shifted the problem around.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by Wallio 02 Jul 2021, 23:12
mario wrote:
Similarly, it's quite possible to find some forums which were around in the early to mid 2000s where some of the comments being made about the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Williams were not too dissimilar to what we hear now.


Now that you're 100% correct about. I hung out on the SPEED Channel forums from the early 2000s until it was shuttered, and yeah, people moaned constantly, mostly about Ferrari. Even in competitive years like 2003 and 2006. I would kill to see what they would say now. The only regular I still chat with occasionally has stopped watching F1 entirely. I wonder if others have done the same.

Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Hot Rod Builder/Whiskey & Cigar Enthusiast

"I've done the upside-down bit in one of these cars enough in my day!" - Martin Brundle Me too, Martin......me too.
by Rob Dylan 02 Aug 2021, 06:51
In the wake of Vettel's DSQ (pending), I think the rules need changing. They need to be clearer, and therefore harsher. If Russell also didn't have enough fuel, he and Williams shouldn't be able to just park the car early under a false pretence to avoid getting DSQd when they've committed the same fault as Aston Martin. Russell should 100% have been DSQd too.

The cars need a litre of fuel in them to pass inspection, right? Ok, well if they don't make it back to the paddock after the race, force the teams to have two litres. It's outrageous that Russell escapes a penalty for in practice committing the same fraud that Vettel's Aston Martin did, only to escape punishment under wording of the rules, just by stopping the car when it has 1 litre left in it. Force the cars that stop "with problems" post-race to have even more fuel, and I assure you they'll learn quickly.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by dr-baker 02 Aug 2021, 16:26
Rob Dylan wrote:In the wake of Vettel's DSQ (pending), I think the rules need changing. They need to be clearer, and therefore harsher. If Russell also didn't have enough fuel, he and Williams shouldn't be able to just park the car early under a false pretence to avoid getting DSQd when they've committed the same fault as Aston Martin. Russell should 100% have been DSQd too.

The cars need a litre of fuel in them to pass inspection, right? Ok, well if they don't make it back to the paddock after the race, force the teams to have two litres. It's outrageous that Russell escapes a penalty for in practice committing the same fraud that Vettel's Aston Martin did, only to escape punishment under wording of the rules, just by stopping the car when it has 1 litre left in it. Force the cars that stop "with problems" post-race to have even more fuel, and I assure you they'll learn quickly.


According to what I've read on Autosport, they have to do exactly that. But not a set quantity. They have to have left over however much the FIA decide at their discretion they ought to have to make it back to the pits.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by Rob Dylan 02 Aug 2021, 19:06
dr-baker wrote:According to what I've read on Autosport, they have to do exactly that. But not a set quantity. They have to have left over however much the FIA decide at their discretion they ought to have to make it back to the pits.
Well in that case, thank you for unrantifying me :D that sounds a lot better than how the rules appeared to me.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by dr-baker 02 Aug 2021, 20:02
Rob Dylan wrote:
dr-baker wrote:According to what I've read on Autosport, they have to do exactly that. But not a set quantity. They have to have left over however much the FIA decide at their discretion they ought to have to make it back to the pits.
Well in that case, thank you for unrantifying me :D that sounds a lot better than how the rules appeared to me.

The rule now reads: "After a practice session, if a car has not been driven back to the pits under its own power, it will be required to supply the above mentioned sample plus the amount of fuel that would have been consumed to drive back to the pits. The additional amount of fuel will be determined by the FIA."

Source: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/vette ... t/6641092/

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests