Level of interest/boringness of past seasons

[Schummy]

The general idea is this season is not going to be exactly a classic one, at least regarding the uncertainty of who is going to get the title and win races (hint: his name is not Sebastian).

So, always ready to increase the boredom about F1, I had thought in putting more numbers about it. Number, numbers, who doesn't love it?!

IM(NotSo)HO, a good indicator of the predictability in a season is the percentage of races won by the most winning driver (not always the winner of the title). Usually a season with more than half of the races won by one driver is a not very interesting season (the caveat is the word "usually").

Between MotoGP races I have time to spare, so I have calculated such a ratio for the last 50 seasons. Yes... it is right 50 seasons! That put in perspective the sad life I live.

I pretend to put here the graph showing the results. I say "pretend" because I hope it works well following the right format for adding images. Higher values imply "usually" more boring seasons... lower values mean... well, you get the idea.

Most 70s and most of 80s were great regarding unpredictability, with lost of winners in a season. But 90s, with the episodes of domination by McLaren and Williams, and beginnings of 00s, with the Ferrari-Schummy(yep!) steamroller were rather dreadful. I remember getting desperate with those Williams...


Then there was that unexpected transition period Alonso-Kimi-HamiltonI-Button, even the first Vettel title, without Titanics and Bismarcks supercars, were very interesting to follow.


But happiness is never long in this planet and the Big Money Lords came back again, first with Red Dull (sorry for the harmless joke) and then with TotoBenz. With them F1 again was so unpredictable as a summer in the Sahara desert. But of course they are not guilty, they have done a great job. Sadly, the nature of things is the great work of engineers is the downside for epic racing.


It is interesting to note that actually, the 4-year Red Bull period was not as bad as I could remember. The first year was an incomplete domination, actually interesting, and the third year was impressive, with 8 winners and Alonso, Hamilton and others doing their share of great races.


Counting as "bad" years whose with a percentage greater than 50%, 70s only gets one, 80 only gets "a half", 90s has 2 bad and 3 halves (let's say 3.5 bad years), 00s has 4 and 10s has 6 bad years!


Yes, we are (were) in the worst decade of F1 regarding uncertainty. The solution is easy: ban for one year the winning team. Or perhaps lock them in an American privately-owned jail.

[Adam43]

But the 1990s were really exciting

Every other year in the Red Bull period was good and they were run close.

Change the rules more often and with less notice is my suggestion.

[wnut]

Thanks for all the hard work Schummy, interesting graph.

Quite surprised the last couple of years are as low as they are on the graph as Lewis has been peerless.

It would be interesting to see the constructors championship probability traced on the same graph.

[Knowlesy]

Cool graph. I cannot believe you are still doing these years later.

It isn't always the case that predictability makes for a better season, of course.

I actually didn't enjoy 2010 massively despite the fairly close competition. The ending, Alonso helplessly stuck behind a driver nobody would otherwise remember, was fairly fitting.

2011 was a stinker of a season in some regards, Vettel dominating tediously, but it had much better races than 2010 IMO.

I would say 10 bad years out of the last 20 is pretty harsh. Obviously graphs and stats have no feelings, but it hasn't been that bad. 2015, 2013, 2004, 2002 are probably the only ones I would class as truly bad, and '04 and '13 did perk up at times.

[Adam43]

1982 is "best" on this chart, most wins by any driver was two and the champion has one. And Keke won, which must be considered a good thing. However, I think the world is a better place if that year had been boring instead

[S griffin]

I know 82 is such a contradiction. On the one hand the political turmoil and awful tragedies one to forget. On the other hand it was the most open season of all time with 11 different winners in 7 different cars, 5 of those first time winners and no one winning more than two races. Certainly Keke’s title against the odds meant it ended on a happy note and then skirts were banned for good thankfully

[Knowlesy]

I got hold of a full year of Autosports from 1982 several years ago and reading through them was grim. It was 2007/08-esque with the politics. Then with added death and mutilation.

The drivers were constantly complaining too which I was led to believe only happens now.

[S griffin]

At least drivers were more outspoken then. No PR stuff in those days, just straight talking from the drivers

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by S griffin

At least drivers were more outspoken then. No PR stuff in those days, just straight talking from the drivers

Huh, and yet when drivers are outspoken these days like hamilton, they are accused of complaining or being too political....

[Adam43]

The fans leave the drivers standing when it comes to complaining.

[S griffin]

At some point they’ll start complaining they have nothing to complain about

[Aysedasi]

You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

At some point they’ll start complaining they have nothing to complain about

[Tanker62M]

Glad to see that it's not just the nostalgia goggles that make the F1 scene of the 90s look more interesting than the 2010s one to me! I thought it was due to the enthusiasm of being a newcomer to that field, but it's true that there were more unexpected events, more new faces and teams...

[S griffin]

I grew up in the 90s too and it was good fun, but looking back at any post 93 race nostalgia fails to see through how bad refuelling was for racing

[chillibowl]

to each their own of course, but i liked refueling. maybe more the notion of short stints on low fuel and fresh rubber. i find an unnecessary disconnect between Q2 quali times and fastest laps of a race and i also like the strategy implications of long vs shorts runs and think it would be even more interesting given the various tire compounds now also in play.

of course there were safety and cost concerns regarding the refueling rigs, but i feel that less esoteric fuels and less bespoke equipment could perhaps bring the safety towards an acceptable level.

but teams often messed up their refueling, either took too long or just got the real time strategy choices wrong, and this affected races in unpredictable ways. no doubt the teams dont like anything that increases the potential for mistakes though.

of course it didnt happen every race but on occasion we were treated to a special combination of race strategy and driver skill...Schumi in 2004 at France being the classic example of this.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...EyBC401ET.html

[wnut]

At least with refueling we saw proper high speed racing laps, and not just touring around saving the tyres.
Now all we have is tyre conservation with the occasional DRS driveby.

Certainly refueling really opens up the strategy options.

[Anyopenroad]

Is the aim of rules tinkering to provide more drama in the races or to level the playing field to make it more competitive?

If it's the former then the same team(s) will win, it'll just feel more exciting. Maybe. I'm sceptical personally. Most of the rules now being complained about (like high degradation tires) were brought in precisely to spice things up.

If the aim is to make the racing more competitive then it's a hopeless task. The reason the races are a procession is not the rules, it's because Mercedes are simply better than everyone else at every single aspect of designing and racing an F1 car. There is absolutely nothing stopping Red Bull or Ferrari from designing a car as good as the Merc, nor anything stopping the other engine makers producing an engine as good. Merc are just better. They build a better engine and a better car and they are better at racing.

Personally I think that level of relentless brilliance is something to be admired and celebrated. To me it's about as dull as watching Usain Bolt win all the time - ie, not dull at all, but rather a privilege.

Such periods of dominance are entirely typical of F1 and entirely to be expected in a constructor championship. If we don't want this, the answer is spec parts and BOP. Either you accept artificial balancing or you accept that for every ruleset someone will simply build a better car.

[bjohnsonsmith]

There's quite an interesting article from BBC Sport on refueling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48971037

[Anyopenroad]

Horner's comments in that article are revealing. Refueling is one of several things suggested as a way to mix up strategies. But what happens is that everyone runs the alternatives through the simulator and one optimum strategy emerges.

Much like teams choosing to run slowly on high-degradation types because that's better than the multiple pit-stop strategies envisaged when the tires were introduced.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Horner's comments in that article are revealing. Refueling is one of several things suggested as a way to mix up strategies. But what happens is that everyone runs the alternatives through the simulator and one optimum strategy emerges.

Much like teams choosing to run slowly on high-degradation types because that's better than the multiple pit-stop strategies envisaged when the tires were introduced.

Watch an IndyCar race, which has both refueling and a mandatory tyre stop and you will see teams using different strategies.

[S griffin]

Indycar races though are more often than not influenced by FCY. So you are going to get varying strategies there. And at the same time it doesn’t detract from the on track action. Indycar always provides close competitive racing compared to F1

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Indycar races though are more often than not influenced by FCY. So you are going to get varying strategies there. And at the same time it doesn’t detract from the on track action. Indycar always provides close competitive racing compared to F1

They can be influenced by FCYs but I wouldn't say more often than not. One would need some stats to back that up. It would be interesting to found out, so I've nominated you for that task.

I've seen many a race where teams have adopted different strategies, prior to the green flag.

[S griffin]

Aha, I would need more time for that. Maybe I exaggerated a bit when I said more often than

Of course another main difference with F1 is Indycar uses ovals, so there’s another way in which pit strategies are going to be done differently

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Aha, I would need more time for that. Maybe I exaggerated a bit when I said more often than

Of course another main difference with F1 is Indycar uses ovals, so there’s another way in which pit strategies are going to be done differently

I'm sure you have plenty of time, what with the coronavirus impinging on everyone's lives.

Race strategy is based on tyre choice/degradation and fuel consumption, irregardless of whether the race takes place on an oval, or a road/street course.