Level of interest/boringness of past seasons

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

Does not seem to work too well in practice though:


Change RBR domination
Change Brawn domination
Change Mercedes domination

As Richard pointed out, that that my point (or half of it)! The change brought change. The keep things the same brought consistency and led to the domination.

The other half of it is the lateness of the announcement is a thing that helps too. I am sure that a team will come up with a better solution than others, but it will be further from the ideal solution, so a chance that others will find a better way over time. And people will be learning as they race.

Of course the better funded teams have more opportunity to get it right, but there is more uncertainty. Now with stability the other teams get really really close, but there is consistency and hence so much certainty.

More chance of the the Brawn example happening - a team came up with something got a jump on the others (brief superiority not domination) but then another team got the jump on them and, because then there were minor changes after that, it led to domination.

Great examples, thank you.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The other half of it is the lateness of the announcement is a thing that helps too. I am sure that a team will come up with a better solution than others, but it will be further from the ideal solution, so a chance that others will find a better way over time. And people will be learning as they race.

actually like the idea of shortening the lead time more than frequently changing the rules. the teams themselves are quite a bit more sophisticated relative to teams in the past, have better technology, bigger budgets, more staff, more processing and computational power etc etc.

taking away time might be an equalizer. perhaps even the smaller teams, with less departments and committees to consult, can react in the shorter time frame more efficiently?

the end goal being a more challenging process may translate to a greater challenge on track.

[Adam43]

The bigger teams always have an advantage. At the moment that advantage shows itself in consistency and continuity. Yawn (see comments in this forum). This idea tries to introduce a variability into the model. A bigger team is more likely to get it right first time, but there is a chance the order is shaken up and then we see the bigger team develop to catch up - variation.

As people don’t understand their cars as well As they do now we may get some variation in the races too.

F1, and sport generally, rarely gets it’s excitement from excellence. It gets excitement from fallibility of the players. From mistakes and recovery from mistakes.

[S griffin]

Which is why a bit of unreliability would add a bit of unpredictability. But it’s hard when things are so perfect, although cars far from bullet proof in the Austrian GP were they?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Which is why a bit of unreliability would add a bit of unpredictability. But it’s hard when things are so perfect, although cars far from bullet proof in the Austrian GP were they?

The cars are only reliable because the rules force them to operate within strict parameters, rev limits fuel burn limits and a forced number o races for the PU.
The PU's are thus relatively unstressed in absolute terms, and any fault that is developing is taken care of between races by substituting a ailing part and taking a penalty if necessary. This results in the generally good reliability during a race.

[Adam43]

That isn’t the only reason they are reliable. The teams are also brilliant.

The stresses in components are so well know nowadays. This knowledge has moved on tremendously.

And the quality control is amazing. Mercedes, for instance, when they build their engines measure the torque of every bolt. They have two people around when they tighten each one. This is recorded, the time, the person, maybe even the weather at the time and what the mechanic had for breakfast. When they then have a problem they know.

In the car factory they check every component after races (and each has a life). Some are tested to destruction to see how they lasted, others are non-destructive and then used again.

They aren’t brilliant because they have it easy. They are brilliant mainly because they are and they put the effort in.

Sexy it ain’t, impressive it is.

Give them less time and maybe some corners have to be cut...

[coppice]

Perfection is admirable , but achingly dull . Give me the spectacle of a BMW four , boosted to oblivion and self destructing in a cloud of smoke half way round Piquet's bid for pole lap. Beats some guy in safety specs and a white coat tightening a bloody nut .

[S griffin]

We would also see more surprise results, something F1 has been lacking the last few seasons

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by coppice

Perfection is admirable , but achingly dull.

Yes, sport is about the mistakes as much as it about brilliance.

Give me the spectacle of a BMW four , boosted to oblivion and self destructing in a cloud of smoke half way round Piquet's bid for pole lap. Beats some guy in safety specs and a white coat tightening a bloody nut .

Yep - that is partly my point. That and a suggestion that the teams are great is because they have it easy is way off the mark.

Helps us understand why F1 is so boring. And has been like that since the ‘90s. It’s because the teams and the drivers are too good. More resources, more knowledge, more dedication, more training.

How you unlearn this I don’t know. But you can change things often to give new challenges and introduce more uncertainty.

[S griffin]

I feel longer life parts that started coming in in the mid 00s, so the pursuit of reliability has been more important than ever, which does not help if you want to see cars pushed to their limits

[Anyopenroad]

Stability of rules and the push for durable components (plus reductions in testing) were brought in to keep costs down, which was in turn intended to help smaller teams narrow the gap and thus...improve the quality of the racing.

So now we're suggesting doing the opposite in order to allow smaller teams to close the gap and thus...improve the quality of the racing.

I'm afraid I have little time for complaints that the teams are too good. The sport has spent 70 years learning how to make cars go fast. What we see now is the accumulation of all that knowledge, combined with computer technology unimaginable to the garagistas. There is no way to unlearn all that, nor would it be desirable to do so. It's awesome.

What we are seeing may well be the dying gasps of formula/constructor racing. It's too expensive, too complicated and too perfected.

The answer to the concerns about the quality of the racing is not more endless tinkering with the rules, it's BOP. That may well horrify you, in which case there's an alternative: spec cars. Every successful motor racing series in the world either uses BOP or is (at least largely) spec. F1 is the anomaly.

[S griffin]

F1 should remain a meritocracy, it still should be down to the best drivers and teams to build the best cars and do the best job for them. Let’s leave BoP to sportscars. And let’s not have it a spec series either. Just, as I said earlier, have things pushed to the edge a bit more and you’ll see less perfection and the cream will still rise to the top

[Greem]

But F1 isn't really a meritocracy; if anything it's a money-ocracy. The teams that do best attract the most money; the money enables them to keep the best engineers, equipment, workshops, drivers etc which means they win more, meaning that they become even better; that then attracts more money and the cycle continues. That's why so many small teams have come and gone - the money isn't there for them.

It's illustrated by the developments leading up to 2009 - when someone in a small team (Super Aguri) comes up with a brilliant idea (the double-deck diffuser) but doesn't have the money to develop it, team folds, idea passes to team with rather more money (Honda) who also fold but pass on their multi-million pound budget to Brawn, who develop the idea and blow everyone into the weeds for the first half of the season. If F1 was a true meritocracy, Super Aguri would have won the WCC and Takuma Sato would have been WDC instead of a two-time Indy 500 winner

The obvious outlier to this theory though is Ferrari, who despite having an eleventy-billion Gadzooks budget every year manage to repeatedly turn that budget into a set of donkeys. Fast donkeys, sure, but not quite fast enough.

[S griffin]

I think Ferrari are proof money can’t buy success. As Gilles Villeneuve said ‘with the facilities and budget we have, we should win every race’. It’s down to the best brains to decide where best to spend the money. Look at Toyota. Deepest pockets in the paddock, yet never won a race in their existence

[wnut]

The team that seems to regularly outperform its budget is Force India / Racing Point, perhaps we should just be less critical of copies as they provide the baseline for the teams to add something innovative to.
The racing this year is much more interesting with Racing Point out performing their lowly status with the Pink Mercedes.

[Adam43]

I’m a bit worried you’ve missed the underlying points made. Don’t disagree with most of what you say, just don’t see it as a counter to the premise. Of course you may not have been responding to me comedy suggestion.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Stability of rules and the push for durable components (plus reductions in testing) were brought in to keep costs down, which was in turn intended to help smaller teams narrow the gap and thus...improve the quality of the racing.

Yes, we know the reason. And it has worked in that the gap is really close. But we are told that it is boring. As pointed out that this same thing also leads to consistent gaps.

So now we're suggesting doing the opposite in order to allow smaller teams to close the gap and thus...improve the quality of the racing.

No, not close the gap. Have the opportunity to come up with a better solution because everyone will be trying something new. See the bit about the bigger teams will still have the best chance.

Yes we are exploring going something else.

How can I get the concept across. Think probability.

Teams draw a random number. In the consistent stable world it draws 1s or 2s, very unlikely to ever draw a 3 or higher. Renault always draws 4 or 5. Very unlikely to draw lower than a 4 or higher than a 5.

In the world where we’ve tried to mix it up Renault is still most likely to draw a 4 or 5 and Merc 1 or 2, but we’ve now got an increased chance of Merc drawing a 3 or 4 because in the limited time get the best solution to the regs they don’t do so well. Renault have a better probability of drawing a 1 now. We’ve inserted some uncertainty. Over time it is likely Merc get back to there 1, 2 certainty, but we get to see them do that over time.

I'm afraid I have little time for complaints that the teams are too good. The sport has spent 70 years learning how to make cars go fast. What we see now is the accumulation of all that knowledge, combined with computer technology unimaginable to the garagistas. There is no way to unlearn all that, nor would it be desirable to do so. It's awesome.

Who’s complaining. Not me I was just pointing out they are brilliant.

I did point out that in sport often excitement is from mistakes. So brilliance goes against that. And check out the rate the race threads. Oh no another Merc win! Moan moan moan. I’m addressing this need for excitement.

Personally I think the primary point of the exercise is to find the best. Entertainment is important, but not the primary purpose.

The brilliance of them leads to the consistency. Let’s test that brilliance more by mixing it up.

What we are seeing may well be the dying gasps of formula/constructor racing. It's too expensive, too complicated and too perfected.

Possibly. That is sad

The answer to the concerns about the quality of the racing is not more endless tinkering with the rules, it's BOP. That may well horrify you, in which case there's an alternative: spec cars. Every successful motor racing series in the world either uses BOP or is (at least largely) spec. F1 is the anomaly.

Yep. I hope it stays the anomaly. And if we want that let’s explore some other solutions.

[codename_47]

Originally Posted by wnut

The team that seems to regularly outperform its budget is Force India / Racing Point, perhaps we should just be less critical of copies as they provide the baseline for the teams to add something innovative to.
The racing this year is much more interesting with Racing Point out performing their lowly status with the Pink Mercedes.

I think you need to check into their ownership......


When it comes to exciting seasons, this year might not be stellar but nothing for me will match the early 2000s for the nadir of the sport.

There was so much against the racing back then. Grooved tyres, traction control, launch control, team orders, higher levels of downforce and the dreaded refueling meant races were just a race to the first corner, then a conservation, fuel saving run until the pit stops because no-one can get close to each other on track. When your rival pitted, you had saved enough fuel for a 1/2 lap blast at full beans, then boom, you either got by or shut it all down again for the next pit stop run
When the pit stops were over, it was just a run to the flag and it was rare to see a position change.
Unless it rained or there was a strategy confusing random safety car period, each race was formulaic and processional

I see lots of comments on forums and youtube clips about how great the "v8 era" was and I just know it was from people who didn't live through it
Sure, the engines were louder, but the racing wasn't great at all

Other periods of domination at least had 3rd place on back being scrapped over.
And the early period of the Mercedes dominance had Lewis and Nico going at it tooth and nail and everyone else fighting hard for 3rd, one of the eras I look back to fondly, if the 2014 rules didn't make the cars look so ugly.

Then the 2017 rule changed happened and I think we can all agree that they were a mistake. Any time you add a heap of downforce to racing cars, the racing gets worse. There was just no need to go chasing laptime over a single lap when it sacrificed so much action on a Sunday.

Just give me whatever made 2012 so good. The greatest season of the sport I've watched and I'd give anything for the sport to be that good again.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think Ferrari are proof money can’t buy success. As Gilles Villeneuve said ‘with the facilities and budget we have, we should win every race’. It’s down to the best brains to decide where best to spend the money. Look at Toyota. Deepest pockets in the paddock, yet never won a race in their existence

Well along those lines there is another saying that equally applies:

"The harder I practice, the luckier I get."

Money doesn't "guarantee" success, but it sure helps. I would go as far as saying that while an underfunded team can occasionally (rarely) steal a march on the better funded teams, their advantage is short lived and then its back to living the life of the poor. Not having a very good budget and leading the pack is very much the exception and not the rule.

F1 as a Meritocracy is achievable. However it would not be considered as "entertaining" by the vast bulk of the fans (a few here and there will appreciate and love the "purity", but not many). It is almost assured to produce poor "racing" by the definition we commonly use and the participants would feel just as negative. This makes it completely unsuitable as an ongoing business concern (F1 has existed for decades primarily as "commercial" entertainment).

Not to mention that part of keeping F1 as the pinnacle of racing is that the (searching for correct word here...) allure or glamor of mixing it up with the big boys. Competitor want (need from an advertising perspective) to be competing with those who already reside on Mt Olympus (i.e. Ferrari as one example).

But if the "sport" is viewed as too unpredictable, then its viewed as a bad PR spend. So the big boys pack up and go home (as we have seen in F1 and other top series). That leaves the remaining Olympians competing against who? Hangers-on who do it for the love, but are clear there wrong class of competitors. Beating a brand nobody but a small community recognizes means little to the masses. Frankly, this is EXACTLY why Ferrari gets a bonus for just showing up.

Now just "winning " without talking about who you have beaten does work as long as the series continues to have the perception of value and prestige. But perception will lag reality. F1 is slowly eating away at that delta between perception and the reality. While it is debatable, I tend to wonder if the emperor is wearing no clothes. More may ask the same question.

That is why change is needed. And trying to run this in a pure, and non viable (from a commercial perspective) way makes no sense. Or if you do, it shrinks by orders of magnitudes, drops out of public view and services the desires of a very small hard core group of fans with the participants being pulled from that same category (bring back the garagistas)! Frankly, I am fine with that option, but it would be the death of F1 as we or anyone has known it.

Sorry for the rant. I got on a bit of a roll.

Richard

[Schummy]

For me one of the worst parts of current F1, if not the worst, are the technical crew interfering constantly with the development of races. That constant nursing on radio, that "horrendous" sight of half a dozen people with thick glasses looking to computer screens in a side room checking cars and strategies, ...

Formula One currently is not the same as what we know as "car racing". There is no epic performances, no cunning readings of the race, no risky gambles about strategies. The last races' radio interchanges between Verstappen and his "engineers" are a perfect illustration about what I mean.

Other sports are having it better, IMO. For example, bike racing or cycling severely limit the communication from teams to rider.

In more general terms I think high tech is almost always detrimental to sports. It tends to remove the personal struggle and skill needed to be a champion. Racing cars not need to be the most advanced cars in the world, what we need is racing drivers being the best drivers in the world.

There is a level of tech positive for sporting competition, above it, it begins to be counterproductive.

[Paradise City]

The remarkably simple thing of cutting off team to car radio would do alot for this sport. But they just won't do it though.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

The remarkably simple thing of cutting off team to car radio would do alot for this sport. But they just won't do it though.

Bring back the pit board.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

The remarkably simple thing of cutting off team to car radio would do alot for this sport. But they just won't do it though.

I agree, it would be fun.

A consequence would be to lose some of the chatter, which may be felt makes good telly? After all there aren’t many sports where you get to hear the participants reaction during the event.

Although a lot of comments say this reflects badly on the driver. Which I suppose it is a good thing - great to see that fans see this as bad and I infer that they themselves never react or moan negatively in the moment during their lives. Maybe they never have moments.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

A consequence would be to lose some of the chatter, which may be felt makes good telly? After all there aren’t many sports where you get to hear the participants reaction during the event.

Let the drivers talk to ONLY each other. Not just teammates, but the entire field. That should be entertaining!

Richard

[Adam43]

Love it

[chunterer]

Ha ha just imagine Carlos and Lando egging each other on.
Or Lando, Alex and George taking the mickey out if each other all race long!