The F1 thread

What's Hot
1320321323325326813

Comments

  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Wis for @Boromedic ;

    F1 has always been unequal, and it always will be unless it turns into a spec series.

    What I do miss is the days when reliability was lower so you never knew who would be on the podium. between say 1998 to 2001 or so, you knew that it would be some combination of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Schumacher and Irvine/Barrichello if they all finished, but they didn't always, which left space for drivers from Williams, Jordan, Stewart/Jaguar, Benetton, BAR and even Prost (once!) to get podiums.

    Now we have Red Bull having a good shot, and occasionally Perez nicks one, or you get a batshit race and Stroll is somehow up there by the last lap. But the others have no chance. I miss that element greatly - how many times has Hulkenberg finished well clear of the rest of the midfield but behind the top 3 teams because they're bulletproof and simply faster? In "the old days" he would have had at least some podiums by now, if not wins
    But in the old days you had unpredictability as cars were so unreliable. We now have very reliable cars - OK Mercedes had a problem at the previous race. Had Hamilton got a good start and not spun his wheels then he would probably of cruised to victory in a snorefest. The excitement is generated from driver error (it always was to some degree) rather than wheel to wheel racing.

    The gulf can be seen when Williams with a Mercedes engine lapped twice by the works Mercedes car ... it's obviously a crap car.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    Wis for @Boromedic ;;

    F1 has always been unequal, and it always will be unless it turns into a spec series.

    What I do miss is the days when reliability was lower so you never knew who would be on the podium. between say 1998 to 2001 or so, you knew that it would be some combination of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Schumacher and Irvine/Barrichello if they all finished, but they didn't always, which left space for drivers from Williams, Jordan, Stewart/Jaguar, Benetton, BAR and even Prost (once!) to get podiums.

    And there is the major difference. Unreliability caused unexpected results. Now that unreliability has been greatly reduced, the surprise results have gone away. 

    Obviously we had dominance in the past. The 1988 season with McLaren winning all but one race comes to mind.

    As Fret says, cars getting lapped twice by cars with the same engine means there's a problem. Aero development is everything. Currently next year's Audi R8 LMS is getting tested: new aero keeps a fairly venerable car going. If your aero is shit you have no chance. A team that both builds it's own engine and has the money for serious aero research and development is way ahead of the pack, and this is what we have seen with Mercedes and Ferrari this year. Safety car interventions have done for more to jiggle up the grid than overtaking has this year.  



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • sinbaadisinbaadi Frets: 1297
    I think races being decided by failures is worse than DRS or any level of domination by a single manufacturer.

    You might as well bring the big hand from the national lottery back and just use it to select a driver to DNF.  That would be as entertaining.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    sinbaadi said:
    I think races being decided by failures is worse than DRS or any level of domination by a single manufacturer.

    You might as well bring the big hand from the national lottery back and just use it to select a driver to DNF.  That would be as entertaining.

    When Toyota came within a lap of winning Le Mans in 2016 before a turbo malfunction scuppered them, that was truly dramatic. Mansell's blown tyre at Adelaide. Carlos Sainz losing a rally world Championship 500 metres from the line when his Toyota expired. 

    Nobody is saying that we need to make cars more unreliable. It's unarguable though that issues with reliability meant more jumbled up results than we have now (try the 1982 season with 11 winners for instance). 

    In this case, the issue is seeing how easily Hamilton passed over half the field. They didn't fight him despite him trying to pass for position. Pretty much everyone gave up and let him though. When that includes a driver like Alonso, that's a sad statement on the lack of competition in F1 right now. 

    If three teams dominate, and two of those are several horsepower quicker than the third team, then it makes for tight racing over a very narrow field. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    sinbaadi said:
    I think races being decided by failures is worse than DRS or any level of domination by a single manufacturer.

    You might as well bring the big hand from the national lottery back and just use it to select a driver to DNF.  That would be as entertaining.

    When Toyota came within a lap of winning Le Mans in 2016 before a turbo malfunction scuppered them, that was truly dramatic. Mansell's blown tyre at Adelaide. Carlos Sainz losing a rally world Championship 500 metres from the line when his Toyota expired. 

    Nobody is saying that we need to make cars more unreliable. It's unarguable though that issues with reliability meant more jumbled up results than we have now (try the 1982 season with 11 winners for instance). 

    In this case, the issue is seeing how easily Hamilton passed over half the field. They didn't fight him despite him trying to pass for position. Pretty much everyone gave up and let him though. When that includes a driver like Alonso, that's a sad statement on the lack of competition in F1 right now. 

    If three teams dominate, and two of those are several horsepower quicker than the third team, then it makes for tight racing over a very narrow field. 
    F1 has always been like this. Witness Alonso and Raikkonen pissing past people in Suzuka 2005 for example.

    There has always been a gulf in performance between the top three and the mid field, hell there's been seasons where there has been a gulf between the top two and the rest or even a single team:

    2018- Ferrari/MercRBR
    2017- Ferrari/Merc
    2016- Merc/Ferrari
    2015- Merc
    2014- Merc
    2013- RBR
    2012- RBR/Ferrari/Mclaren
    2011- RBR
    2010- RBR/Mclaren/Ferrari
    2009- Brawn/RBR
    2008- Ferrari/Mclaren/BMW
    2007- Ferrari/Mclaren
    2006- Renault/Mclaren/Ferrari
    2005- Renault/Mclaren
    2004- Ferrari
    2003- Ferrari/Mclaren
    2002- Ferrari
    2001- Ferrari/Williams/Mclaren
    2000- Ferrari/Mclaren
    1999- Ferrari/Mclaren
    1998- Mclaren
    1997- Williams/Mclaren/Ferrari
    1996- Williams
    1995- Benetton/Williams
    1994- Williams
    1993- Williams
    1992- Williams
    1991- Mclaren/Williams
    1990- Mclaren/Ferrari
    1989 Mclaren/Ferrari
    1988- Mclaren
    1987- Williams
    1986- Williams
    1985- Mclaren/Williams

    The further back you go, the bigger the gaps between teams get.





    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    I think my point isn't that we should try and bring back the levels of random engine blowups of old, but that element of "will my guy get a surprise result" has been lost. 

    On any given match day in the premier league there are 20 teams playing 10 matches, and even the likes of Southampton or West Ham have a chance of beating a Man City or Chelsea, and certainly have a chance of scoring goals even if they don't win. Obviously we all know it's unlikely, but you don't know for sure that the better team will always win.  

    We've lost that in F1 - we know that every race this year will likely be won by one of 3 teams, and no midfield cars will be above 5th place. And for each given track we usually know by the end of Friday which single team is most likely to take the win, and which of the other 2 stands any chance of beating them. But we know Force India won't win. And Renault won't win. And it's absolutely certain that McLaren and Williams won't win, whether they're fielding a couple of pay drivers or possibly the best driver in the history of the sport.
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • sinbaadisinbaadi Frets: 1297
    F1 is all about the cars.  Cars don't change often enough for variation of any significance on a race by race basis to make any difference, so what you get at the start of the season usually is maintained throughout. 

    The season is one long test to see who had built the best car this year.  Nothing more.

    Why we expect anything more from it I have no idea, but we love the idea of parity in a sport whose signature is technical development and disparity.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    I think my point isn't that we should try and bring back the levels of random engine blowups of old, but that element of "will my guy get a surprise result" has been lost. 

    On any given match day in the premier league there are 20 teams playing 10 matches, and even the likes of Southampton or West Ham have a chance of beating a Man City or Chelsea, and certainly have a chance of scoring goals even if they don't win. Obviously we all know it's unlikely, but you don't know for sure that the better team will always win.  

    We've lost that in F1 - we know that every race this year will likely be won by one of 3 teams, and no midfield cars will be above 5th place. And for each given track we usually know by the end of Friday which single team is most likely to take the win, and which of the other 2 stands any chance of beating them. But we know Force India won't win. And Renault won't win. And it's absolutely certain that McLaren and Williams won't win, whether they're fielding a couple of pay drivers or possibly the best driver in the history of the sport.
    It's been like this since the mid 1980s.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    Garthy said:
    F1 has always been like this. Witness Alonso and Raikkonen pissing past people in Suzuka 2005 for example.

    There has always been a gulf in performance between the top three and the mid field, hell there's been seasons where there has been a gulf between the top two and the rest or even a single team:




    I know the gulf has been there. Generally in the BTCC in the 1990's you'd get one team that walked away with it but the racing behind was very good. F1 doesn't really have that. 


    sinbaadi said:
    F1 is all about the cars.  Cars don't change often enough for variation of any significance on a race by race basis to make any difference, so what you get at the start of the season usually is maintained throughout. 

    The season is one long test to see who had built the best car this year.  Nothing more.

    Why we expect anything more from it I have no idea, but we love the idea of parity in a sport whose signature is technical development and disparity.


    Yeah, I get that. I freely admit it's just me and F1. We don't really jive at the minute. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    Garthy said:
    I think my point isn't that we should try and bring back the levels of random engine blowups of old, but that element of "will my guy get a surprise result" has been lost. 

    On any given match day in the premier league there are 20 teams playing 10 matches, and even the likes of Southampton or West Ham have a chance of beating a Man City or Chelsea, and certainly have a chance of scoring goals even if they don't win. Obviously we all know it's unlikely, but you don't know for sure that the better team will always win.  

    We've lost that in F1 - we know that every race this year will likely be won by one of 3 teams, and no midfield cars will be above 5th place. And for each given track we usually know by the end of Friday which single team is most likely to take the win, and which of the other 2 stands any chance of beating them. But we know Force India won't win. And Renault won't win. And it's absolutely certain that McLaren and Williams won't win, whether they're fielding a couple of pay drivers or possibly the best driver in the history of the sport.
    It's been like this since the mid 1980s.
    Yeah.. not really. It's only in the last 15 years or so that the reliability thing has been such a massive part of winning. Before Schumacher's 5-year run at Ferrari it was far more common to see engines blowing up, and hence a load more drivers and teams having a shot at the podium over a season. 

    The most extreme was probably 1982 - you had 11 different winners over only 16 races. And 18 (EIGHTEEN!) drivers from 10 teams shared the podium spots. Sure in a year like '88 you had ridiculous domination by McLaren, at the very front, but still 10 guys from 8 teams getting podiums in your 16 races.

    This year we're roughly halfway through our 21 races, have so far had 4 winners, and a total of 7 guys from 4 teams on the podium. At most we might hit 8 drivers from 5 teams by the end of the year if Sainz or Hulkenberg finally get a proper result for Renault.

    I know that pace has always tended to lead to 2-by-2 results when cars aren't breaking down, but at least in the past you knew something *might* happen to get one of the midfield a great result and give us an underdog with a fighting chance.
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    edited July 2018
    As I've said before:

    http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/809811/#Comment_809811

    2014   3 winners
    2015   3 winners
    2016   4 winners
    2017   5 winners
    2018   4 winners so far

    So an average of 3.8 different winners per season. 2014 to 2017 is 3.75. 

    1982 to 2013 was 5.44. 2003 to 2013 (Red Bull dominance and the current point scoring system) = 5.45. 

    1988 (McLaren dominance) had 3 winners, Ferrari dominance in 2001 and 2002 had five and four winners respectively. 

    Going with the number of drivers who scored podiums: I shall focus on 2003-2013.

    Number of drivers who scored podium positions: 

    2003           10
    2004           9
    2005           13
    2006            12
    2007            8
    2008            13
    2009            13
    2010            8
    2011             7
    2012            12
    2013            8

    113/11 = 10.27

    2014            10
    2015            10
    2016             9
    2017             7
    2018*           7

    =8.6 over all these years, 2014-2017 = 9

    I use 1988 as my yardstick for one team domination (Senna and Prost in the McLaren Honda) = 10 drivers ended on the podium. For those curious about the mad 1982 season with 11 winners, you had 18 different drivers on the podium in 16 races. 

    No real waffle to add, just curious about numbers  it feeds the dormant autistic side of me. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    I'm an analyst who's had a slow work week so have done more numbers....

    # drivers & teams winning, per year, since 1980: 


    Not much to speak of here. Small reduction, but if you take away the hybrid era there is only a very slight downward trend - we've regularly had seasons with only 4 driver and 2 or 3 teams since the mid-1990s and that's natural in any season where there are only 2 or 3 cars capable of winning.  

    # drivers & teams getting podiums, per year, since 1980: 



    This looks a bit worse. We've had the odd shit season since the early 90's, but there's definitely a downward trend. Likewise with teams, because with increased reliability your top 2 or 3 team are sharing the podiums places far more often. 


    But you also have to consider the number of races. In 1980 there were only 14 races meaning a total of 42 podium spots available in a season. These days we have north of 60 podium places per year. So let's divide by the # of races...

    # drivers and teams on podium, per year, since 1980 - normalised by # of races



    A bit steeper decline now but it looks like we're already at the lower limit in terms of the team figures, and at least now we're well above the lowest points of 2014/2015.

    But then you have the podium figures, and everything is much worse: 



    Clearly there is a massive decline in # team AND drivers reaching the podium over a season. You still have the odd batshit season like 2012, but generally it's pretty shitty. I really think this is the major factor they can try and change with the new regs - and particuarly the cost-cutting stuff, which will hopefully allow the midfield to get closer to the frontrunners, giving more opportunities to capitalise when there's an outside factor (safety car, rain, etc) that affects the race.
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    That's really interesting seeing it plotted out like that, particularly taking into account the increased number of races. 





    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    That's really interesting seeing it plotted out like that, particularly taking into account the increased number of races. 


    Yeah, I thought so. I didn't know for sure how it would look so glad my hunch was right! 

    You could argue that the higher number of drivers & teams in the past would also make it harder for any single driver or team to get a win/podium, but I think given the "extra" teams were generally backmarkers I haven't looked at the impact of that at all. 

    What I do know is I'd love to see what sort of analysis Liberty are doing - I bet Brawn & Symonds have got immense quantities of data at their disposal AND the brains to know when useful conclusions can be drawn
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • sinbaadisinbaadi Frets: 1297
    Someone made an analogy to football earlier, which is fair except it would have to be robot football.  No dips in form, either it works or it does not, and whoever created the best team of football robots would win the championship.

    The drivers are machine operators.  Talented, yes, but they are mostly all capable of putting any of those cars in the grid position of which it is capable compared with the others.

    You are only seeing the difference between driver a and driver b in any team.

    Keep the reliability and in my opinion, kill the technical performance disparity.  It's the only way for there to be good racing, consistently, in formula one.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    @sinbaadi "Kill the technical performance disparity" - so would you go for something equivalent to Balance of Performance in WEC? 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    What’s the trend like without 1982 which is clearly an anomaly?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • sinbaadisinbaadi Frets: 1297
    @sinbaadi "Kill the technical performance disparity" - so would you go for something equivalent to Balance of Performance in WEC? 
    No I'd use spec parts or even a claiming rule with a budget cap so it simply wasn't worth the investment in development to find the final few tenths.  I'd prefer the former because, like any performance adjuster, you encourage tactical sandbagging which is farcical.  

    As interesting as it might occasionally be to see the new cars for the new season and analyse the differences, I don't give a toss about that stuff on a Sunday afternoon.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    edited July 2018
    Garthy said:
    What’s the trend like without 1982 which is clearly an anomaly?
    All shift down slightly but the gradients hardly change. '82 was certainly an anomaly in terms of drivers on the podium, but actually not for number of driver winners (8 - same as '83 and '85), or for teams (81, 83 also had 6 winning teams, and 89 had 10 teams reaching the podium, with 81, 97 and even 2008 having 9 teams doing the same).

    TBH 82 was really only exceptional for driver stats because 3 of the top guys all stopped during the season - Villeneuve & Pironi died, and Carlos Reutemann retired to go rallying - it's possible that all of these may have taken more wins & podiums from the other guys had they all raced right through the season - certainly Tambay at the very least, as he took Villeneuve's slot at Ferrari.




    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    There were also boycotts too.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.