Official 2019 British Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
kambites said:
janesmith1950 said:
You don't think winning 5 consecutive driver and constructor world championships is dominance? I can't think of any other way to describe it.
Personally I'd define dominance as "continuously winning with no realistic competition" rather than just "continuously winning" so I'd say Mercedes were dominant in 14, 15, 16 and (so far) 19 but not in 17 or 18.TheDeuce said:
Teddy Lop said:
is there any point in an online petition type thing of any kind? Hustle for some social media behind it, hassle sky (yes they don't direct the feed but they handle it and they sure as hell charge us for it). I'm reading a lot of pi55ed off complaining....
Doubt it's worthwhile at all and not something I would get involved in tbh. Liberty are clearly trying a different presentation. I'm sure it wasn't a flippant decision and must be intended to contribute to where they want the impression of the sport to go overall. I'm equally sure they will be monitoring feedback and seeing what fly's and what does not.Personally I hope they take a u-turn on the mid-race location and crowd shots.. But the truth is it could be working for them in some way that we can't appreciate. I work on several TV shows, some of which the media will forever criticise for having 'weak' segments that should just be dropped. Behind the scenes sometimes a different opinion is formed and for good reason.
Whilst I'm trying to be reasonable and understanding however.. As I say, personally I don't like what they're doing
paulguitar said:
kambites said:
janesmith1950 said:
You don't think winning 5 consecutive driver and constructor world championships is dominance? I can't think of any other way to describe it.
Personally I'd define dominance as "continuously winning with no realistic competition" rather than just "continuously winning" so I'd say Mercedes were dominant in 14, 15, 16 and (so far) 19 but not in 17 or 18.If you look at the raw stats, Mercedes have a far higher win percentage over a longer period than any other team in history.
thegreenhell said:
It's not really any different to what they've been doing for years; cutting to a shot of a pensive team boss, uninterested WAG, excited team of mechanics or a clueless z-list 'celebrity' in the back of a garage in the middle of the only interesting thing that's happened on track all race. At least we can be thankful they didn't jump to a commercial break at the vital moment like ITV had a propensity for doing.
I quite like the odd random shot of an attractive young lady in the crowd when there is nothing exciting going on on track. You do wonder if they actively seek them out, or come upon them by accident (that sounds wrong ...).thegreenhell said:
So they had three years of dominance followed by two more years of merely winning, and then whatever this year is recorded as. If we have to redefine Mercedes' performance then we also need to downgrade half of Ferrari and RBR's streaks to merely winning too.
You're assuming people ever "upgraded" them in the first place. I think RBR had two years of dominance (2011 and 2013). Ferrari had three in the recent past (2001, 2002 and 2004). I suppose you could add 2007 to the Ferrari tally if you discount Mclaren entirely. Of course four years of dominance in the last six is still at very least on a par with what Ferrari achieved in the 2000s.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 17th July 13:16
That bit on TV where during the battle between bottas and hamilton the camera cut away to the crowd just standing there is seared into my memory of why I hate TV people and their idiotic obsession with showing a reaction to something. Useless mug in charge could have just shown it in the replay.
England fans chucking their beer in the air got old really fast as well a few years ago.
England fans chucking their beer in the air got old really fast as well a few years ago.
thegreenhell said:
paulguitar said:
kambites said:
janesmith1950 said:
You don't think winning 5 consecutive driver and constructor world championships is dominance? I can't think of any other way to describe it.
Personally I'd define dominance as "continuously winning with no realistic competition" rather than just "continuously winning" so I'd say Mercedes were dominant in 14, 15, 16 and (so far) 19 but not in 17 or 18.If you look at the raw stats, Mercedes have a far higher win percentage over a longer period than any other team in history.
If the race is theirs to lose, it's still dominance. If they lose a race because of mistakes, or random issues, or whatever, it's still dominance.
It's been said before but people talk up Ferrari and even RBR because otherwise it means accepting that the reality that Mercedes are pretty much unassailable and consequently its not really much of a sport. When people are talking up the battles between people who have no hope of winning the championship themselves, it speaks volumes to me.
Granted those spats are fun to watch, but if its not against a backdrop of even a possibility that they are competing for supremacy of an overall season title then what's the point? That's ultimately the point of it all, and exists in every sport. Knockouts competitions, league tables, etc. People watch crap teams in lower leagues because those crap teams have a chance, remote as it might be, to win the league or reach the playoffs. Most of the drivers in F1 have exactly zero chance of getting on the podium, short of some freak event.
Also, people like to talk about how Mercedes don't have a number 1 and 2 driver without much regard for the fact that Bottas is a journeyman F1 driver at best. He is number 2 by implication because he's not in the same league as Hamilton. He'd never admit it of course, as an F1 drivers ego is critical to success, but that's the reality of the situation, and I'd wager Hamilton knows it deep down too.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 17th July 13:31
kambites said:
Durzel said:
If the race is theirs to lose, it's still dominance. If they lose a race because of mistakes, or random issues, or whatever, it's still dominance.
One could argue that would make Ferrari dominant for the last couple of years. 
What I meant was, just because they lose some races due to reliability issues, it doesn't mean others have suddenly "caught up" or whatever.The fact Mercedes turned up the wick on Hamilton's car and he put in a fastest lap on 30 lap old tyres says it all really.
We keep coming back to this, but Senna, Prost, Hill, Mansell, Schumacher, Vettel, Andretti, Clark, etc etc etc etc all won in the best cars. It's simply part of F1.
When was the last time the WDC won in a car that did not win the WCC? I'm guessing 2008?
And who would the driver have been? Ah, yes, Hamilton.
When was the last time the WDC won in a car that did not win the WCC? I'm guessing 2008?
And who would the driver have been? Ah, yes, Hamilton.
kambites said:
Yeah, this year I don't think anyone could possibly argue against the term "dominant". Sure they haven't had the fastest car at every race, but they've been bloody close and even when they haven't had the fastest car they've still won more often than not.
They haven't had the fastest car every week. They have however been the best team almost every week.
vdn said:
You’re ignoring the fact that they also give credit where due. Brundle / Button et al, all raved about the Britain GP; Button said it was one of the best ever. They can point to F1’s issues but still enjoy a great race.
You can’t.
You conveniently ignored my first post on this thread then where I praised Silverstone for yet another great race...You can’t.
Durzel said:
thegreenhell said:
paulguitar said:
kambites said:
janesmith1950 said:
You don't think winning 5 consecutive driver and constructor world championships is dominance? I can't think of any other way to describe it.
Personally I'd define dominance as "continuously winning with no realistic competition" rather than just "continuously winning" so I'd say Mercedes were dominant in 14, 15, 16 and (so far) 19 but not in 17 or 18.If you look at the raw stats, Mercedes have a far higher win percentage over a longer period than any other team in history.
If the race is theirs to lose, it's still dominance. If they lose a race because of mistakes, or random issues, or whatever, it's still dominance.
It's been said before but people talk up Ferrari and even RBR because otherwise it means accepting that the reality that Mercedes are pretty much unassailable and consequently its not really much of a sport. When people are talking up the battles between people who have no hope of winning the championship themselves, it speaks volumes to me.
Granted those spats are fun to watch, but if its not against a backdrop of even a possibility that they are competing for supremacy of an overall season title then what's the point? That's ultimately the point of it all, and exists in every sport. Knockouts competitions, league tables, etc. People watch crap teams in lower leagues because those crap teams have a chance, remote as it might be, to win the league or reach the playoffs. Most of the drivers in F1 have exactly zero chance of getting on the podium, short of some freak event.
Also, people like to talk about how Mercedes don't have a number 1 and 2 driver without much regard for the fact that Bottas is a journeyman F1 driver at best. He is number 2 by implication because he's not in the same league as Hamilton. He'd never admit it of course, as an F1 drivers ego is critical to success, but that's the reality of the situation, and I'd wager Hamilton knows it deep down too.
The fact Mercedes turned up the wick on Hamilton's car and he put in a fastest lap on 30 lap old tyres says it all really.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 17th July 13:31
I can't believe people on here are now trying to play down the dominance. It is what it is. Mercedes are cruising
HustleRussell said:
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Mercedes' performance for the best part of the V6TH era as 'dominance'. They have been truly dominant at times but generally the margin is measured in tenths and rarely as much as half a second. What we have in my opinion is a perfect storm of;
We are still getting great races.
What we see on here in my opinion is the long-observed British disease of resentment for other people's success.
We've been watching different seasons then. Because on many occasions, the gap from Mercedes to the next best has been way more than tenths and half a second, especially in races. - Technical advantage
- Technical reliability
- Driver reliability
- Consistent execution
We are still getting great races.
What we see on here in my opinion is the long-observed British disease of resentment for other people's success.
They are a fantastically well-oiled machine in every department, no doubt. Also, remember this:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/29604927
TR... Mercedes haven’t just nailed the engine; as you say yourself... engine development was / is only one part of the puzzle. Proof is that Ferrari have matched them for a couple of years; but the team / politics / tactics and drivers let them down.
The other teams needed to do more than worry about engine dev. Wolff was also right in saying that the customer teams would have had to suddenly pay massive amounts, for this dev work and that went against the philosophy of reducing costs across the board. The likes of Horner want it one way when it suits them but will turn on a dime when it doesn’t.
Fact is that there’s always been dominant teams and cars in F1. There are spec series that some here might prefer; great racing also. I’d suggest people who find F1 a bore fest stop watching. Genuinely. And maybe come back to it when they deem things more acceptable.
For me; I’m finding the battles up and down the field to be of great entertainment. I love the perfection that Mercedes are showing; no underhand tactics or dodgy interpretations of the guidelines. Just straight up genius on every level; from the designers to the cockpit.
The other teams needed to do more than worry about engine dev. Wolff was also right in saying that the customer teams would have had to suddenly pay massive amounts, for this dev work and that went against the philosophy of reducing costs across the board. The likes of Horner want it one way when it suits them but will turn on a dime when it doesn’t.
Fact is that there’s always been dominant teams and cars in F1. There are spec series that some here might prefer; great racing also. I’d suggest people who find F1 a bore fest stop watching. Genuinely. And maybe come back to it when they deem things more acceptable.
For me; I’m finding the battles up and down the field to be of great entertainment. I love the perfection that Mercedes are showing; no underhand tactics or dodgy interpretations of the guidelines. Just straight up genius on every level; from the designers to the cockpit.
kambites said:
CustardOnChips said:
They haven't had the fastest car every week.
They have however been the best team almost every week.
There has certainly been no realistic chance of anyone else being anywhere near the head of the championship at this point in the season. They have however been the best team almost every week.
Not only do Merc have arguably the best car, but they also have the strategy sorted, this year more the before.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff