Discussion
paulguitar said:
Fair points there, (as usual) but there is some sense in the Bolt analogy as the other 'runners' really do currently have zero chance of competing due to their 'shoes'.
'shoes' they have designed themselves. Nobody has handicapped their shoes to give the guy at the front an advantage, they've simply designed (in comparison) crap shoes.One of the main factors in F1 is 'shoe' design, so non-driver element has totally failed in most cases.
paulguitar said:
In the past steps have been taken to even up the contest. My instincts are not in favour of that, but this is getting to be a problem. One has to wonder if Verstappen eases his way to another 30 or so unopposed victories whether there will be many people still watching, or even awake.
It's a concern but this is the cul-de-sac that F1 gets itself into with constant rule changes. What it needs to do is ride out this domination and let the other teams get their heads around it. But it'll change the rules again in 2026, another team will get it right and we will likely see another period of domination.
paulguitar said:
I was planning to go to at least one event this season but I'm leaning towards cancelling. The cars are hopeless live and the winner is already decided. What kind of sporting contest is that?
I don't blame you. I wouldn't go either. I miss F1. I've only watched the season opener and Australia in full because I simply can't get excited about the battle for minor positions....
I watch the Indycar, which at least gives exciting racing, but it's not the same.
Muzzer79 said:
I was reading through some old threads earlier and came across this, from 2020.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The number of people convinced that Mercedes would dominate for evermore is a little startling. The notion that Mercedes would be challenged even in 2021 was not out there.
So there is hope. Red Bull could get it wrong. Another team could get it right. Domination has to end at some point and it's not necessarily 2026.
Remember though that the regs were amended each year which affected the outcome. No meaningful change so far the last few years. Personally the 26 regs look set to make the sport even worse.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The number of people convinced that Mercedes would dominate for evermore is a little startling. The notion that Mercedes would be challenged even in 2021 was not out there.
So there is hope. Red Bull could get it wrong. Another team could get it right. Domination has to end at some point and it's not necessarily 2026.
I've struggled since the end of '21.
This year for the first time in 35years I haven't watched anything, or read anything.
It's been a fading light for me since 21. Some things are forgivable, some are also forgettable.
It wasn't about who won, who lost. It was that the rules were bent by those who make and implement them. Honest Racing was obliterated in order to create drama. The results was a false result, a false championship and huge amounts of effort and emotional expense by fans and a certain driver was rendered worthless at a stroke.
Hopefully this will be a low period in F1's history and brilliance will come again.
This year for the first time in 35years I haven't watched anything, or read anything.
It's been a fading light for me since 21. Some things are forgivable, some are also forgettable.
It wasn't about who won, who lost. It was that the rules were bent by those who make and implement them. Honest Racing was obliterated in order to create drama. The results was a false result, a false championship and huge amounts of effort and emotional expense by fans and a certain driver was rendered worthless at a stroke.
Hopefully this will be a low period in F1's history and brilliance will come again.
Muzzer79 said:
paulguitar said:
In the past steps have been taken to even up the contest. My instincts are not in favour of that, but this is getting to be a problem. One has to wonder if Verstappen eases his way to another 30 or so unopposed victories whether there will be many people still watching, or even awake.
It's a concern but this is the cul-de-sac that F1 gets itself into with constant rule changes. What it needs to do is ride out this domination and let the other teams get their heads around it. But it'll change the rules again in 2026, another team will get it right and we will likely see another period of domination.
Anecdotal evidence - I’m on Abu Dhabi GP’s mailing list, having been there a few times. Last year they were pretty much sold out of every ticket by May, now they’re sending out emails offering discounts on hospitality and catered tickets for this year’s event.
The event is title sponsored by Etihad Airways, and they are spending millions they want to see back in ticket sales for travellers to the season finale - but who thinks there will be much up for grabs at the last race?
The event is title sponsored by Etihad Airways, and they are spending millions they want to see back in ticket sales for travellers to the season finale - but who thinks there will be much up for grabs at the last race?
I think the better analogy isn't Usain Bolt, but instead Oscar Pistorius and others with arguably entirely unfair advantages due to prosthetic tech.
That said, recall that shoes such as the Nike Alphaflys were banned from competition precisely because they do deliver an unfair advantage. In some studies that was 3.4%. At the Chinese GP, that would be around 3 seconds a lap. What was Max's advantage in the race? Around 1-2 seconds per lap over the first non-RBR runner.
As Karun Chandhok noted, "on not a single lap of the entire Chinese GP did Max do a slower lap time than the drivers who finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th."
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
That said, recall that shoes such as the Nike Alphaflys were banned from competition precisely because they do deliver an unfair advantage. In some studies that was 3.4%. At the Chinese GP, that would be around 3 seconds a lap. What was Max's advantage in the race? Around 1-2 seconds per lap over the first non-RBR runner.
As Karun Chandhok noted, "on not a single lap of the entire Chinese GP did Max do a slower lap time than the drivers who finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th."
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
Muzzer79 said:
SoulGlo said:
Muzzer79 said:
I watch the Indycar, which at least gives exciting racing, but it's not the same.
Where can you watch Indycar without having to subscribe to Sky Sports F1?skwdenyer said:
I think the better analogy isn't Usain Bolt, but instead Oscar Pistorius and others with arguably entirely unfair advantages due to prosthetic tech.
That said, recall that shoes such as the Nike Alphaflys were banned from competition precisely because they do deliver an unfair advantage. In some studies that was 3.4%. At the Chinese GP, that would be around 3 seconds a lap. What was Max's advantage in the race? Around 1-2 seconds per lap over the first non-RBR runner.
As Karun Chandhok noted, "on not a single lap of the entire Chinese GP did Max do a slower lap time than the drivers who finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th."
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
So we handicap Max. But do we also handicap Perez or any other RB driver ?That said, recall that shoes such as the Nike Alphaflys were banned from competition precisely because they do deliver an unfair advantage. In some studies that was 3.4%. At the Chinese GP, that would be around 3 seconds a lap. What was Max's advantage in the race? Around 1-2 seconds per lap over the first non-RBR runner.
As Karun Chandhok noted, "on not a single lap of the entire Chinese GP did Max do a slower lap time than the drivers who finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th."
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
Bo_apex said:
skwdenyer said:
I think the better analogy isn't Usain Bolt, but instead Oscar Pistorius and others with arguably entirely unfair advantages due to prosthetic tech.
That said, recall that shoes such as the Nike Alphaflys were banned from competition precisely because they do deliver an unfair advantage. In some studies that was 3.4%. At the Chinese GP, that would be around 3 seconds a lap. What was Max's advantage in the race? Around 1-2 seconds per lap over the first non-RBR runner.
As Karun Chandhok noted, "on not a single lap of the entire Chinese GP did Max do a slower lap time than the drivers who finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th."
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
So we handicap Max. But do we also handicap Perez or any other RB driver ?That said, recall that shoes such as the Nike Alphaflys were banned from competition precisely because they do deliver an unfair advantage. In some studies that was 3.4%. At the Chinese GP, that would be around 3 seconds a lap. What was Max's advantage in the race? Around 1-2 seconds per lap over the first non-RBR runner.
As Karun Chandhok noted, "on not a single lap of the entire Chinese GP did Max do a slower lap time than the drivers who finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th."
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
skwdenyer said:
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
I've always been fervently against handicapping successful teams - in whatever fashion. F1 is a meritocracy.However, F1 needs to acknowledge that the current strategy of changing the rules every 5 years or-so to try and level the field doesn't work.
We just end up with one team dominating and have done so, with the odd exceptional year, for the last 15 years.
I'm still against weight penalties and reverse grids, but I'm coming around to the idea of more in-season testing based on performance.
It would give the fans more opportunities to see the cars (by selling cheap tickets for the test days) and you could stipulate that only rookie drivers can drive, thereby giving young talent an opportunity to shine which they currently don't get.
Muzzer79 said:
skwdenyer said:
To my mind (and I thought the same during the years of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance) that requires a handicapping formula (whether that's weight, in-season testing for rivals, or something else). The reason, say, Button's championship year was so exciting for many was precisely because the rivals could catch up in the technical development stakes.
I've always been fervently against handicapping successful teams - in whatever fashion. F1 is a meritocracy.However, F1 needs to acknowledge that the current strategy of changing the rules every 5 years or-so to try and level the field doesn't work.
We just end up with one team dominating and have done so, with the odd exceptional year, for the last 15 years.
I'm still against weight penalties and reverse grids, but I'm coming around to the idea of more in-season testing based on performance.
It would give the fans more opportunities to see the cars (by selling cheap tickets for the test days) and you could stipulate that only rookie drivers can drive, thereby giving young talent an opportunity to shine which they currently don't get.
deadslow said:
handicapping will make it a phoney race series. More in season testing, as suggested, for the lower teams (or staggered for all) could be a great idea.
I agree - the race itself has to be unhindered, which means no weight penalties, reverse grids, power restrictions or similar.Level it up by 'unseen' methods such as testing.
The casual viewer then wouldn't know.........until Christian Horner's epic tantrum is heard across continents.
skwdenyer said:
deadslow said:
handicapping will make it a phoney race series. More in season testing, as suggested, for the lower teams (or staggered for all) could be a great idea.
Why? Was BTCC in its heyday “phoney?” Most of us thought it rather exciting.F1 sells itself as a technological pinnacle sport (may or may not be true in every sense) with the world's best 20 drivers. This is at odds with the idea of hobbling the people who get it right/do the best job. If George Russell was racing wheel to wheel with Max, because the RB had the equivalent of Bella Emberg sitting on the rear wing, would this constitute the pinnacle of motorsport? Not for me.
BTCC is a glorified punch-up. I've always loved it.
skwdenyer said:
deadslow said:
handicapping will make it a phoney race series. More in season testing, as suggested, for the lower teams (or staggered for all) could be a great idea.
Why? Was BTCC in its heyday “phoney?” Most of us thought it rather exciting.Weight penalties did nothing for it IMO.
Race weekend handicaps wouldn't work in F1. It would kill the sport.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff