2018 Season Launch and Testing Thread

[wnut]

The following table details teams who scoring victories in more than 75% of the races in a season. The number of points scored out of the total possible points (1st and 2nd in every race)
I included RBR’s most dominant season 2013 (when everybody was concentrating on the “new hybrid formula” and Mercedes 2017 campaign where they won 60% of the races but still managed to score 73% of a perfect score, the points that would be earned from finishing 1st and 2nd in every race in the season.


F1 dominance, teams winning more than 75% of the races in a season since 1986.

1988 McLaren won 15 of 16 races 93% scoring 199 of 240 points 83%.
1996 Williams won 12 of 16 races 75% scoring 175 of 256 points 68%.
2002 Ferrari won 15 of 17 races 88% scoring 221 of 272 points 81%.
2004 Ferrari won 16 of 18 races 89% scoring 262 of 324 points 81%.
2013 Red Bull won 13 of 19 races 68% scoring 596 of 874 points 68%.*
2014 Mercedes won 16 of 19 races 84% scoring 701 of 874 points 80%.
2015 Mercedes won 16 of 19 races 84% scoring 703 of 874 points 80%.
2016 Mercedes won 19 of 21 races 90% scoring 765 of 966 points 79%.
2017 Mercedes won 12 of 20 races 60% scoring 668 of 920 points 73%.*
· Not over 75% Race wins included for interest.

Conclusion, last five years have thrown up a pretty ordinary competition.
Just in case somebody thinks Ferrari and RBR dominance was worse than the current Mercedes problem!

[AdrianM]

I seem to remember AutoSport did a similar exercise a couple of years ago based on wins, podiums, fastest laps etc and Mercedes was quite a way ahead and that was without the last couple of seasons.

For me that's the biggest difference with Mercedes against Red Bull and Ferrari. It's been the team not one driver for all but one season. If Rosberg had still been in the car would Vettel have had as many chances last year?

[S griffin]

I think we have to be thankful Merc have let their drivers race or it could have been even worse

[littleman]

It's the global car manufacturers who've inadvertently ruined F1.

They should be restricted to engine supply only. This will immediately reduce budgets, probably increase engine choice and place more emphasis on car/chassis innovation.

The more the FIA try to legislate for equality the more unequal the sport gets.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by littleman

It's the global car manufacturers who've inadvertently ruined F1.

They should be restricted to engine supply only. This will immediately reduce budgets, probably increase engine choice and place more emphasis on car/chassis innovation.

The more the FIA try to legislate for equality the more unequal the sport gets.

Aren't global car manufacturers heading in droves to FE?

[insane014]

The worst state F1 can be in is manufacturers vs privateers. That makes no sense whatsoever. Either go all privateer or all manufacturer. They've tried the second one and it was all nice and dandy until all of them started to pull out in short notice.

[RWill2073]

I still say if you are going to have dedicated payments to certain teams solely because of their heritage or for existing, you ought to give the lesser teams more freedom in car design so they can find some kind of "trick" solution to combat the advantage of the bigger teams.

As good as Force India has been, and on a team size/performance or dollars spent/performance basis, it could be argued that they are as good as anyone, they can't sniff a win, and barely a podium. But if they were allowed a larger set of parameters to build their car within, maybe it would allow them to achieve an odd win here or there and the occasional podium. Maybe have an outside shot of competing for a championship if things went just right.

Something like that is needed to allow these smaller teams to gain realistic shots at higher monetary payouts through higher constructor points finishes, to offset the unequal payments to teams like Ferrari.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by insane014

People live off subscription money so it would be kind of a dick move to spoil it here but do you really think his list is better than yours? Do you think his list is influenced by some behind the scene info we don't know about? Not so sure.

It cannot be any substantially different than:
1. Mercedes
2. Ferrari
3. Red Bull
4. Renault
5. Haas/McLaren/Toro Rosso
6. Williams/Force India
7. Sauber

He might be promote some team higher up or downgrade it for some shock factor but that's about it pretty much.

Disclaimer: I did not read the article.

Would be interesting to see someone do a list based on team size, money spent, and performance from those dollars and personnel size.

Then you could make an argument a team like Force India is as good as any. Not necessarily shock factor, but different criteria, such as efficiency or something.

Something like this, including results of recent testing?

1) Force India
2) Red Bull
3) Mercedes
4) Toro Rosso
5) Ferrari
6) Haas
7) Williams
8) Renault
9) Sauber
10) McLaren

Is there a team that does more with less than Force India?
Mercedes has all the advantages, still great team though.
Toro Rosso already doing more with same engine that McLaren was awful with.
Ferrari has too many advantages to not be closer to Mercedes.
Renault is a factory team that hasn't shown much more than customer teams like Haas or Williams.
McLaren, poor McLaren. Or should I say, Alonso, poor Alonso. It was one thing when you could claim it was the Honda engine. But after testing.... They have for now earned this position.

[Richard C]

This is all way off topic, and I am a bit late to the game, but I will join in...

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

If they'd simply make the rules less technical and allow teams to build cars to fit the regs with whatever engine (of a certain volume) they wanted, there'd be no need to legislate against success.

I appreciate the thought and desire behind this thinking, but this IMHO makes zero logical sense.

Originally Posted by bella

i’d love to see this happen, but couldn’t help but think it’d price all but the massive teams out of the market?

Agree.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this to me is why F1 requires a budget cap or at least the removal of special payments.

Agree. Teams will spend as much money as is available to them.

Originally Posted by bella

don't get me wrong, i love the idea of engineering freedom and it'd move things forward far quicker than the current status quo. but i can't see how it'd work now we've opened pandora's box.

Agree. See comment below about not being able to "unlearn" what we know today.

Originally Posted by wnut

...F1 will go the same way that CanAm (which had no rules - comparatively) went when Porsche decided to outspend and out tech everybody else in the series.

Agree (from the perspective that free money in an open tech series will result it destruction)

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

It's what it was and it didn't. Sorry but making it so technical has created the problem.

Sorry, this direct quote above mangles the context of the discussion. I take the first sentence as effectively saying "Back in the old days it was different and it was fine". I both think people have rose colored glasses regarding the past and also the world has changed.

There is a general nostalgic view submitted by a number of participants on the forum that somehow reverting to the rules of yesteryear is the solution. To the Pandora's Box point above... We just can't unlearn how to do this stuff. We know so much more about how these things work. Unless the spec calls for it, they will never be less complex than they are now. If we allow unlimited budgets and effectively unlimited freedom (open technical specs)... you think the cars today are "technical". Oh boy, get ready for a technology war! Modern day Can-Am! The cars may be unrecognizable.

Also, people keep looking for the return of the underfunded garagista who is lead by some type of savant who decides to disavow monetary remuneration for his/her brilliant ideas (i.e. not work for the large teams) and then smash the giants. It sounds great, but it is pure fantasy!

I for one am not putting my eggs into the basket of awaiting for a supreme being with super human mental abilities plus a monasticism lifestyle to save F1!

Richard

PS: Testing is over. I can't wait for the start of the season. Race weekend is roughly a week away!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There is a general nostalgic view submitted by a number of participants on the forum that somehow reverting to the rules of yesteryear is the solution.

That's because there's a corresponding general view that the type of *racing* brought about by the rules of yesteryear was better than the racing is now.

That's right in some ways - today's cars are nailed to the floor, have utterly breathtaking acceleration and braking, corner on rails, are usually fairly reliable (McLaren notwithstanding) and even the bad car & driver combinations aren't that far off the really good ones in terms of overall performance.

Yesteryear's cars (for some value of "yesteryear" which depends on how old you happen to be) were unstable, unreliable, slid around a lot and in a visual sense were more spectacular to watch. They were also dramatically more dangerous to drive.

BUT (that's a big but ) both sets of cars were/are at the technological peak for their era. The drive for engineering perfection which is embodied in F1 and endurance prototypes has seen the margins in every sense, including car performance and stability, get so small that they're practically invisible now and that gives no room for four-wheel drifts or the side-by-side wheel banging that we used to see.

Just like we don't have Trimphones any more, it's impossible to take modern F1 back from where it came.

In terms of unlimited development, how about a simple set of rules (and I mean really simple): a given quantity of externally supplied energy, whether fuel or electricity, must last an entire weekend. And that's it.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I for one am not putting my eggs into the basket of awaiting for a supreme being with super human mental abilities plus a monasticism lifestyle to save F1!

its funny because we almost had that and he's a big reason we are where we are now.

Bernie reigned supreme, had super human bargaining abilities, and while he enjoyed the accumulation of wealth he never seemed to indulge in the trappings of it.

now days he also hates everything that is going on in F1 so he has got that going for him!

[Richard C]

I very much agree with your entire post, but wanted to call out a few specific things for comment...

Originally Posted by Greem

That's because there's a corresponding general view that the type of *racing* brought about by the rules of yesteryear was better than the racing is now.

And IMHO, the fallacy is to assume that the quality of racing then was caused purely by the technical regulations of that era. I believe a number of factors were at play of which one large one is that it was a product of that particular point in time. That the conditions can't be replayed in a way as to recreate the same results because some of those conditions can never be recreated.

The same results may be somewhat achievable, but I fully believe the recipe has changed. What that recipe is remains the big question! We all have opinions.

Originally Posted by Greem

Yesteryear's cars (for some value of "yesteryear" which depends on how old you happen to be) were unstable, unreliable, slid around a lot and in a visual sense were more spectacular to watch. They were also dramatically more dangerous to drive.

BUT (that's a big but ) both sets of cars were/are at the technological peak for their era.

The last bit is a significant point.

Those cars were designed and built as good as they could be given the resources and knowledge of the time. It is only in hindsight (and with cars that perform at a much higher level) do we see the crudeness of the solutions then. My point is how do you try to use rules that are designed to foster greatness to create sub-par solutions? Remember, technical regulations don't give a flip as to the quality of racing, or by how many laps someone might win over second place!

Originally Posted by Greem

In terms of unlimited development, how about a simple set of rules (and I mean really simple): a given quantity of externally supplied energy, whether fuel or electricity, must last an entire weekend. And that's it.

It's a deep topic and one that has been discussed heavily on the forum. Without getting into a long winded explanation of my larger thoughts... I think minus budget caps of some sort, that open technical regulations would create chaos. So I am very much for open technical regulations, but in parallel with other controls to provide an appropriate level of sanity and stability to the system. For me that is budgetary and maybe other things.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

its funny because we almost had that and he's a big reason we are where we are now.

Bernie reigned supreme, had super human bargaining abilities, and while he enjoyed the accumulation of wealth he never seemed to indulge in the trappings of it.

now days he also hates everything that is going on in F1 so he has got that going for him!

Well, I wasn't thinking of BE, but that is an interesting point. A very generous portrayal of BE would be to give him the moniker of "Benevolent Dictator". In that he had full control, but he was using his power for the betterment of all. But we all know that in general, he was probably mostly looking out for good ole #1 (himself). Even if at some level he had a good run at overall success. (Frankly, IMHO, he left the sport a total mess).

My modern supreme being doesn't exist. The closest we have is a certain Adrian Newey. He is at best only 1/2 way there. He has the smarts, but is clearly not going to give his brain away for free to some small outfit just so he can be a giant killer. He goes where someone is able to reward him appropriately (which ultimately is a money issue)

To my point above about it can't be like it was. The same goes with knowledge. I like the question of "Who was the last person to know everything?" Google tells me it was English polymath Thomas Young who died in 1829. That is approaching 200 years ago. What we know as a species has grown so much that a single individual can't know it all.

I would say the same thing has already happened with F1, but it happened within our lifetime. The inflection point is behind us. Not everyone is ready to accept this.

Even then, as smart as Newey is, clearly he can only do so much given the complexity (quantity of knowledge, not what the technical regulations impose) of modern F1 (RBR is not winning championships right now). He can't alone carry an entire team (technically) upon his back like it might have been done years ago. Today, you either need a small handful of extremely brilliant (I am talking exceedingly rare level of brilliance to the point of maybe not existing, plus also be willing to ignore the existence of their own native "value" or in other words... minimum salary requirements) to create a modern garagesta team that could kill giants.

Or you use the normal and more rational approach in which you have a slew (hundreds?) of exceedingly bright (but available) people who are capable of effectively grinding out the same content given enough time. Mercedes in this modern era anyone?

Richard

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There is a general nostalgic view submitted by a number of participants on the forum that somehow reverting to the rules of yesteryear is the solution.

Welcome to the retirement village for Formula 1 fans, AKA the tentenths.com F1 forum.

Majority of members here seem like old grumpy men with a chip on their shoulder, and no sense of humour.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Welcome to the retirement village for Formula 1 fans, AKA the tentenths.com F1 forum.

Majority of members here seem like old grumpy men with a chip on their shoulder, and no sense of humour.

Don't tell me F1Guy, you are the life and soul of it.

[Peter Mallett]

The problem may be that all people do is say it can't happen as if it's true. It isn't. If there was a willingness to get back to real competition then something would be done.

F1 doesn't have to be high tech, it does have to be a racing championship as it was when it was Formula One.

As to grumpy? People are offering opinions that basically say no change then complain that Mercedes is dominating the championship.

Clearly those who think they know best have no clue as to what they want.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Majority of members here seem like old grumpy men with a chip on their shoulder, and no sense of humour.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

The problem may be that all people do is say it can't happen as if it's true. It isn't. If there was a willingness to get back to real competition then something would be done.

F1 doesn't have to be high tech, it does have to be a racing championship as it was when it was Formula One.

As to grumpy? People are offering opinions that basically say no change then complain that Mercedes is dominating the championship.

Clearly those who think they know best have no clue as to what they want.

Peter,

I don't want you to think I am overly critical of you specifically. I also agree with much of what you say above.

I think solutions exist to move to something different. I think for most "different" is a sport in which the outcomes are not generally predictable before the first wheels turn at an event. We have some variability in the results, but not enough. So I agree with you that something is wrong (if that helps).

I also am not a fan of artificial measures to "shake up" the results. I am more about establishing a playing field in which available resources are as equal as we can make them. Then let the competition begin!

At the moment, the deck is stacked against most teams. Also the series is overly controlled by the participants in some type of deep state/behind the scenes/shadow arrangement. It needs stronger and more centralized leadership. Even if we think that BE was the ultimate control freak, he didn't have tight reigns in the correct places.

Richard

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How lovely. Relatives are they?



Too bad it's fake...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-and-the-hounds/

[wnut]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

How lovely. Relatives are they?



Too bad it's fake...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-and-the-hounds/

You had to looked that up on the internet to find out it was a fake photo???!!!

Talk about missing CR's point!

[littleman]

Summarizing the hundreds of posts submitted on this topic suggests we all retain a passion for F1, but are finding it increasingly difficult to keep the flame burning.
I think we've all accepted, no matter how reluctantly,that turning back the clock to "The Glory Days" is naive and unrealistic. I think we also agree that modern F1 cars reflect the cutting edge of today's technology, are infinitely safer to drive and represent 21st century engineering excellence.

The big problem is, an ever growing number of us don't find watching it very interesting or exciting anymore.It's predictable, processional......even boring.

The only way to cure this problem is to place contemporary F1 cars into a format that 'makes' them exciting to watch.It probably means reinventing the typical F1 weekend.We need unpredictability,maximum racing & overtaking plus the opportunity for every team to gain maximum exposure.

[littleman]

I think the "Karting"format is worth a try.

Free practice on Friday, two 12 lap heats on Saturday followed by a 3rd 12 lap heat and a 24 lap "Grand Prix" on Sunday. The heats would give every driver a starting position at the front, in the middle and at the back of the grid.The points gained in the heats would determine the grid positions for the "Grand Prix". Only the finishing position in the "Grand Prix" would secure points counting towards the WDC.

Over the course of a season I think the same drivers & teams would be battling for the title but it would be a much more entertaining process.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

At the moment, the deck is stacked against most teams.

I was listening to a podcast recently (Moral Maze - The Morality of Competition IIRC). One point that was put across was connected to providing a 'level playing field' and equal chance for all. I tend to agree with the point that the deck should be stacked against most competitors.

Every entrant into a sport comes from a different position - whether it is a financial power, engineering excellence, genetic ability or many others. The fact that all entrants have a differing chance of success is what makes the competition.

Would 20 robots all programmed identically lead to competition - or would the result then be purely down to chance?

I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to see a sport where all results were decided based on chance alone - I want to see certain traits rewarded, but an environment where others could overcome a perceived disadvantage and also have results.

But - I also wouldn't want the underdog to always be successful - this isn't a Roy of the Rovers sport. The best (whether that is ability, resource, skill) should be the most successful, just that there should be a possibility for others to improve their own position to make them the best in future...

[Hammerdown]

Originally Posted by littleman

Summarizing the hundreds of posts submitted on this topic suggests we all retain a passion for F1, but are finding it increasingly difficult to keep the flame burning.
I think we've all accepted, no matter how reluctantly,that turning back the clock to "The Glory Days" is naive and unrealistic. I think we also agree that modern F1 cars reflect the cutting edge of today's technology, are infinitely safer to drive and represent 21st century engineering excellence.

The big problem is, an ever growing number of us don't find watching it very interesting or exciting anymore.It's predictable, processional......even boring.

The only way to cure this problem is to place contemporary F1 cars into a format that 'makes' them exciting to watch.It probably means reinventing the typical F1 weekend.We need unpredictability,maximum racing & overtaking plus the opportunity for every team to gain maximum exposure.

Indeed. This would probably involve less downforce, less grip and longer braking zones. I imagine the drivers woul moan like hell at that prospect. Will be interesting to see how Indycar get on with their approach.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Indeed. This would probably involve less downforce, less grip and longer braking zones. I imagine the drivers woul moan like hell at that prospect. Will be interesting to see how Indycar get on with their approach.

I've deliberately not brought IndyCar into this one, primarily because it's all but a spec series at the moment.

However... GP St Pete was brilliant. OK, there were a few too many caution periods, which is a separate debate entirely, but seeing the cars slip & slide about and the drivers having to really work to make some fairly spectacular passes work - or not, in one or two really poor cases - was a glimpse of how top-level racing can be if everyone involved wants it.

Not only do the cars look great, but the championship coordinators, safety specialists, teams and drivers have had some input *and* they've listened to the fans. For once. It's going to be an interesting season.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by littleman

Summarizing the hundreds of posts submitted on this topic suggests we all retain a passion for F1, but are finding it increasingly difficult to keep the flame burning.
I think we've all accepted, no matter how reluctantly,that turning back the clock to "The Glory Days" is naive and unrealistic. I think we also agree that modern F1 cars reflect the cutting edge of today's technology, are infinitely safer to drive and represent 21st century engineering excellence.

The big problem is, an ever growing number of us don't find watching it very interesting or exciting anymore.It's predictable, processional......even boring.

The only way to cure this problem is to place contemporary F1 cars into a format that 'makes' them exciting to watch.It probably means reinventing the typical F1 weekend.We need unpredictability,maximum racing & overtaking plus the opportunity for every team to gain maximum exposure.

I think that's a fair synopsis of the situation. I'm not too sure about reinventing the typical F1 weekend. It follows a format used by other series and works well. F1 tried changing qualifying and no one liked that.