F1 These Days

[steveaki13]

Now I have thought about this a bit over the last few days since Seb won his title.

I have a question which has bugged me a bit lately.

F1 has been so much more competitive in the last 10 years or so. I mean this in terms of field spread and so on. I can only look back to late 80s and early 90s, but others may have a more long term view on this.

So in the early 90s the fastest cars were +.5-1.0 seconds faster than say 5th and 6th on the grid and the whole field was spread by 5,6 upto 8 seconds at times and now the field can be spread by only 3 seconds and if you take out Marussia and Caterham maybe only 1.5 seconds from 1st to 18th.

This being the case my question is this, why in the last 15 years have we seen two drivers and teams combo's dominate and win 5 titles in a row for Schumi and 4 now for Seb.

When you look how fast the Williams were in the early 90s you could have expected the team to win 4 or 5 in a row. McLaren were dominant from 88-91 and Maybe there are others going back further.

But why in this age of closer grids have we seen two of the most dominant combo's in F1 history?

Obviously it helps that both Ferrari and Red Bull found two quality drivers at the right time who would stay for the long term where as at McLaren Prost left after fighting Senna and Mansell left when Prost was to arrive at Williams.
I suppose Seb & Schumi were never challenged from within. Also I would add reliability must be a factor. I.e in the old days so many cars retired it had quite an effect on a seasons results. Now a days the cars are not stressed as much and so don't retire as often.

Anyone else got any other idea's? Thought it was an interesting subject and some of you must have more knowledge

[jens]

For domination to happen, everything must come together and it must have continuity. Team, driver(s), resources, management, engineers - all at their peaks. Current Red Bull and former Ferrari managed it. But what about the Williams and McLaren examples you provided?

Williams didn't win 7 consecutive titles in 91-97, because at least one link was missing - they often didn't have the best or joint best driver. Other issue was they didn't have the driver continuity like the Fer-Msc or Rbr-Vet examples. So it was 92 Mansell, 93 Prost, 94-96 their main challenger was Hill (but two titles lost to superior Schumacher), 97 Villeneuve.

Of course the loss of Senna in 94 is one more nuance. Imagine if for whatever reason Vettel can't participate in a season with RBR and they are forced to make Webber as No1. In this case Red Bull would indeed start supporting Webber, but I don't think they would have the confidence he could really pull the title off even regardless of knowing the depth of RBR's engineering talent. However, this is what basically happened with Williams in 1994 and probably influenced their 1995 too.

McLaren-Honda: Senna could have won 4 in a row though if the didn't have appalling reliability in 1989.

Even if in the faraway past there were bigger gaps in a given moment and we got some sparks of geniuses here and there, teams didn't gel together for a long period of time and this is what ultimately matters. We had some more instability - engine manufacturers coming and going (powerful Williams-Hondas in 85-87, but then Honda switched to McLaren and made them dominant).

Engine competition was quite different in the turbo era - almost each year a different engine could come to the fore, first Renault, then BMW. Suddenly in 1984 McLaren-TAG with two top drivers hit the front of the field, but TAG-Porsche quickly lost ground to others again. Also chassis - going further back Chapman could come out with an innovative design (1978), but it quickly got old for the next season (1979) and they lost a lot of ground.

I think there were several competitive teams, but nobody managed to put together a true dream team that really was above others and stayed together. Due to various reasons there was a fair amount of inconsistency.

And even though nowadays as you say there is a lot more professionalism, maybe this is exactly the reason, why there was no long-term domination back in the day. Because due to lesser level of professionalism newcomers could come in and quickly raise the levels of what was possible. Almost every year someone could innovate and move ahead of others. Like in athletics - once world records improved at a much faster rate than nowadays.

However, nowadays firstly Ferrari and now Red Bull have pushed the level of professionalism so damn high that you just can't come in, innovate and then hope you can beat them. They are now so good at it that they can counterattack and respond to all other innovators, in fact they head the tables consistently by themselves. Not to mention the salaries are higher in modern F1 (as F1 generates much more money with the help of media, compared to old days), especially top teams, which means top teams can easily hire all the best engineering talent. They even groom drivers in junior driver programmes. While back in the day it was more likely for a talented driver or engineer to just "appear" in some team and make them competitive. Also teams were much smaller back in the day, so perhaps there was more value and also chance for a talented engineer to shine through even in an underdog team. Now there are big corporations and teams with hundreds and hundreds of workforce and in order to succeed, it would be easier to gel with them.

[steveaki13]

Fantastic Post Jens. Some great examples and points.

So due to the incredible level of professionalism now a days. Do you think F1 will become ever more static and predictable?

Will the closed gaps and increased reliability lead to damaging the sport, as say Vettel who is 23/24 could potentially win the next 3 or 4 championships or more.

He could win 7 or 8 on the spin. Unlikely admittedly but with all the points you raise about no team being able to better Red Bull. Who knows.

The increased competitiveness of the whole field could lead to a more and more predictable sport and perversely make it less interesting to the masses.

[rjbetty]

Eeeee it's that reliability thing is what it is.

They joost don't make 'em cars like they used to in the old days, what with cars fallin apart and stoof. Nowadays they just go on forever like. So there's like less variation in the results innit? No more can a Minardi get in the points when others fall away. Heck, Caterham and Marussia are STILL NOWHERE near a top-10 finish after 4 years. In a 24 car field, it's considered a race of attrition if 19 finish! :eek: Makes it really predictable like innit? Even in a dominant season like 1996, which wasn't really a classic, still there was room for the unexpected when Panis won.

Yup it's all cos of that professionalism it is. This has evolved to ever-increasing standards since the old days of 1950. I believe the level Williams were operating at while dominating the 90s is nowhere near the level Red Bull are at now. I think if Toro Rosso as they are now were in the mid-90s, they'd be getting podiums and challenging for 4th in the WCC.

[555-04Q2]

Cars are a lot closer now due to the regulation limits. Back in the day there were far fewer restrictions and more options for teams to really come up far superior design or a downright crap one. Reliability was also a lot worse back then. Often we were lucky if 10 cars finished, let alone all starters like we get now.

But I preferred the old days when cars were powerful, TC meant turbo-charged not traction control, cars took longer to slow down, aero was second to mechanical grip etc. It was just more....fun back then! Plus the drivers had a bit more character than the clean cut corporate looking boys we have now!

[zako85]

I think it's the tighter regulations too. There were too many difference between what cars could use in the 90s and 80s. All those different engine configurations (V8, V10, V12). At different times there were cars with and without paddle shifters, with and without active suspension, etc racing against each other. However, no matter how tight the regulations are, the best run, best funded teams will tend to be on the top. After all, they still get to hire the best managers, drivers, mechanics, etc. Just look at IndyCar. Even with the spec chassis, Andretti, Penske and Chip Ganassi win the most races and all the championships.

The big thing that changed in the last 30 years is that privateers now have little chance to beat the corporate or manufacturer's teams. That's why I think that the only way for Williams to improve and be a top team again is to sell a major stake to a major corporate sponsor or a car manufacturer.

[henners88]

Tighter regulations, budget caps, limits on testing, better reliability helped by an engine freeze have all helped close the field IMO.
Back in the 80's and 90's teams could spend silly amount of money and test everyday if they wished. Ferrari had their own track and mammoth budgets and finally got their act together in 2000. Teams are now designing cars that are more balanced for endurance to reach the end of the race rather than for outright speed too. They have to be fast but reliable. Engines have to last several races unlike back in the 80's when teams like McLaren and Williams had qualifying engines. The engines have been developed over a number of years so reliability has hit an all time high. Engines used to be different from season to season and were relatively untested. There is also so much more technology at the teams disposal these days so flaws can be ironed out so quickly.

The likes of Red Bull have shown what a new team can do if they have money. Established historical teams like McLaren, Williams and Ferrari have been left in the shade in recent years. Money, the right people hired, and a world class driver will pay dividends which is why we have an era now of a relatively new team dominating over its more experienced rivals. If you look at the 80's it was McLaren who were the dominant force. 50% of the championships were won by this team! A similar statistic to Ferrari of the last decade. Things are just a lot more professional these days.

[jens]

Do you think F1 will become ever more static and predictable?


I think over time greater amount of consistency has emerged in results indeed. One reason is higher reliability, secondly competition consistency (racing days started, when we had wild-card entries, local drivers and entry lists actually varied from race-to-race! Now they are the same), thirdly organization consistency. Which means that it is much harder to build up a team from zero and make it competitive, compared to what we had decades ago. This means that those very professional outfits are very-well established and hard to challenge. Even if ownerships change, the base still remains the same, be it Milton Keynes, Enstone, or whatever. Meaning the base is consistent, which is what I meant.

I don't know if it becomes even more static and predictable than that. I think F1 has been pretty similar the last 20+ years and continues to remain so. By this I mean that we have two drivers in a team, fairly consistent line-ups and team structures, a handful of top teams performing above others at a time. Due to already discussed reasons Williams didn't quite manage the same run in the 90s as Ferrari did in the 00s or RBR in the 10s, but they had similar potential.

The period of 2006-2010, when we had five different drivers/teams winning a title each year, was really a luxury of unpredictability. :p It was what could be called a "transition phase", when one superior team sort of disassembled and another one hadn't got its act together. Also we had rule changes, emergence of new top drivers/teams, which blurred the picture. Like 1998 McLaren came to the fore and Williams faded.

Maybe if the dream team of Red Bull falls apart, we can again get several sort of unpredictable years, but then we could see the emergence of another force, who can do just a little bit better than others. Who knows, if Mercedes turbocharged engines are superior to others as rumoured, they might start their winning streak.

The gaps may be closer, but in the end it doesn't matter if it is 0.1s or 1s, a win is a win. Likewise Vettel won with 4 and 3 point advantages in two of his championship-winning seasons.

[Zico]

In addition to the excellent points mentioned above...

It's tighter now because F1 has now become a form of endurance racing, thanks mainly to the fragile tyres. This negates the value of the very quickest drivers hired by the richest teams by making their potential extra few tenths advantage much less valuable on race day... and this levels the playing field.

[henners88]

In addition to the excellent points mentioned above...

It's tighter now because F1 has now become a form of endurance racing, thanks mainly to the fragile tyres.
I did say that too :p

Teams are now designing cars that are more balanced for endurance to reach the end of the race rather than for outright speed too.
:)

[555-04Q2]

In addition to the excellent points mentioned above...

It's tighter now because F1 has now become a form of endurance racing, thanks mainly to the fragile tyres.
I did say that too :p

Teams are now designing cars that are more balanced for endurance to reach the end of the race rather than for outright speed too.
:)

The engine freeze and no more fuel stops has greatly contributed to this problem!

[Zico]

In addition to the excellent points mentioned above...

It's tighter now because F1 has now become a form of endurance racing, thanks mainly to the fragile tyres.
I did say that too :p

Teams are now designing cars that are more balanced for endurance to reach the end of the race rather than for outright speed too.
:)

Yep, I suppose you did, sorry bud. :)


I reckon the reason the FIA have specified such fragile tyres is to stop 'pure pace' battles and make it much more endurance and strategy biased therefore increasing safety. Understandable from a safety perspective but very sad from a viewers perspective.. well mine at least. :( ... and I bet every single driver in F1 despises them with a passion!

[zako85]

Of course the loss of Senna in 94 is one more nuance. Imagine if for whatever reason Vettel can't participate in a season with RBR and they are forced to make Webber as No1. In this case Red Bull would indeed start supporting Webber, but I don't think they would have the confidence he could really pull the title off even regardless of knowing the depth of RBR's engineering talent. However, this is what basically happened with Williams in 1994 and probably influenced their 1995 too.



Too much crazy stuff happened in 1994 to even possibly blame Hill for losing the title battle then. There were major changes in regulations resulting in Benetton being apparently quite a balanced car in the beginning of season. In 1993 Damon Hill, won 3 races against more experienced (by one year) Schumacher's 1 win, even though Hill was the number 2 driver after Prost. Clearly, Benetton car improved a lot by 1994. Next is the issue of confidence. The week after Senna's death, Hill and others in Williams headquarters viewed the crash videos many times over trying to find out the cause of the crash. While their official line was that Senna made an error, you can imagine somewhere in the back of Hill's mind there was a thought lingering that the car may have been at fault in this crash. Finally, there is the issue of alleged cheating at Benetton involving refueling valves, engine maps, and launch control. No one will know the full extent of points advantage reaped by Schumacher because of this. Granted, later in season he was also punished quite harshly for other things. In my opinion, making him score 0 points in 3 races was indeed the punishment for the cheating at Benetton. FIA just didn't want to make a big scandal in the year when Senna died. Despite all that Hill managed to keep the championship alive till the last race.

Later in 1995 Schumacher beat Hill, but Hill beat Schumacher in 1993 and 1996. All in all, they were pretty evenly matched back then IMHO. Of course, Schumacher's career overall was a lot more successful than Hill's. Hill started racing too late in his life to even have a chance to get close to Schumacher's achievements.

[Mia 01]

I have followed it for many years, F1 evolves, I have nothing to complain.

[steveaki13]

I reckon the reason the FIA have specified such fragile tyres is to stop 'pure pace' battles and make it much more endurance and strategy biased therefore increasing safety. Understandable from a safety perspective but very sad from a viewers perspective.. well mine at least. :( ... and I bet every single driver in F1 despises them with a passion!

And mine. F1 should above all be about pushing the drivers and cars to the limit.

With all the safety improvements in and around the circuits these days I personally don't see a need to lower speeds and make it endurance based.

Endurance racing is what it is. F1 should be a sprint race. If this is the case then F1 is continuing to plummet in my estimations.

[Koz]

Also I would add reliability must be a factor. I.e in the old days so many cars retired it had quite an effect on a seasons results. Now a days the cars are not stressed as much and so don't retire as often.

Reliability is still a massive factor these days, too.

Last year it was happening to Lewis, retiring from the lead. 2010 was close because Vettel also had failure.

Retiring from two races while leading isn't just losing 50, because the other guy scores it could be 100 points deficit. It isn't something very easy to make up unless.

IMO, they still could decide championships.

[Koz]

I reckon the reason the FIA have specified such fragile tyres is to stop 'pure pace' battles and make it much more endurance and strategy biased therefore increasing safety. Understandable from a safety perspective but very sad from a viewers perspective.. well mine at least. :( ... and I bet every single driver in F1 despises them with a passion!

But when did we have pure pace battles??

Before refueling was banned did we have as much racing as we do today?
Wasn't the majority of action decided by pit stop strategy?

[Zico]

But when did we have pure pace battles??

Before refueling was banned did we have as much racing as we do today?
Wasn't the majority of action decided by pit stop strategy?

Fair point, I should perhaps have said reduce.

For me, the fragile tyres of recent have swung the balance past the point we were at... even more towards endurance, tyre conservation and strategy.

I'd like to see more value placed on a drivers outright pace than who can conserve tyres the best. A comparison someone made on here recently sums it up for me pretty well.. 'Who wants to watch the worlds top sprinters run a 100 metre sprint at only 70-80% in case their running shoes disintegrate? ' :crazy:

[Koz]

Fair point, I should perhaps have said reduce.

For me, the fragile tyres of recent have swung the balance past the point we were at... even more towards endurance, tyre conservation and strategy.

I'd like to see more value placed on a drivers outright pace than who can conserve tyres the best. A comparison someone made on here recently sums it up for me pretty well.. 'Who wants to watch the worlds top sprinters run a 100 metre sprint at only 70-80% in case their running shoes disintegrate? ' :crazy:

But that brings in another issue. This year we can all agree that the tyres are worthless.
But last year most people were happy with the tyres. In 2011, almost everyone was happy.

We had plenty of people bringing in statics showing how overtaking has had grown exponentially since we've had Pirelli.

The same people complained that Michelins lasted forever and that there was no difference in between primes and options.

Clearly manufacturers, IMO regardless of brand, can't produce sets of tyres that degrade evenly and have consistency over several circuits. After all that is why we have 3 compounds. Maybe there should be 5 or 6? But that's another can of worms.

Look at qualifying pace, times are getting closer and closer. 2 seconds between all the cars.
The fact that one or two teams can make the tyres work for 15 laps and another only 2 - then I say there is an issue with some cars. They have to look at what they are doing wrong.

The issue is the same for everyone. If Vettel can pull out 2.5 seconds in the first lap or two, what does that really say?
Does he have different tyres? It simply means that he and RBR are doing something right.

Tyres aren't a variable, they are a constant.
Strategies for most front runners remain almost the same. They all pit within 1-3 laps within one another, except for the minority who try to pull the rabbit out of the hat because they are nowhere close when it comes to pace anyway.

[Koz]

But then again, we aren't in a sprint, are we?
That is what we have qualifying for and there is almost no margin there.

Someone is doing something wrong.

[journeyman racer]

The homogenisation of F1 over the last 20 years - same type of cars, same type of engines, same tyres, same type of tracks, same type of tactics - means you get...The same type of results! The biggest variation are small gains in aero, an area of the car that has an exaggerated importance of influencing performance. Homogenisation is RBs biggest friend.

I don't know what'll happen as far as the order goes, but I expect F1 to be similar to what it has been, in 2015 and onwards, once the teams have built cars to suit the rules of next year's regs. There are not enough "elements of doubt" in F1. Nothing will change til the FIA introduce rules that do.

[journeyman racer]

For domination to happen, everything must come together and it must have continuity. Team, driver(s), resources, management, engineers - all at their peaks. Current Red Bull and former Ferrari managed it. But what about the Williams and McLaren examples you provided?Ahem...Bridgestone managed it.


Williams didn't win 7 consecutive titles in 91-97, because at least one link was missing - they often didn't have the best or joint best driver. Other issue was they didn't have the driver continuity like the Fer-Msc or Rbr-Vet examples. So it was 92 Mansell, 93 Prost, 94-96 their main challenger was Hill (but two titles lost to superior Schumacher), 97 Villeneuve.Williams didn't win 7 consecutive titles because the FIA introduced rules for 94 that completely negated their advantage over the rest of the field, rendering their active suspension useless. No team was ever going to usurp that. If the regs had been kept the same, Williams would've won their 22 consecutive title this year!


Endurance racing is what it is. F1 should be a sprint race. If this is the case then F1 is continuing to plummet in my estimations.There is nothing "endurance" about F1. Would you be satisfied with a 100km, 1/2 hour GP?

[zako85]

Endurance racing is what it is. F1 should be a sprint race. If this is the case then F1 is continuing to plummet in my estimations.There is nothing "endurance" about F1. Would you be satisfied with a 100km, 1/2 hour GP?

For some time I have been thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to split some GPs into two one hour sprint races, with one mandatory tire change per race, and with a one hour break between races. The starting grid for the second race to be determined by the second best qualifying lap. I think this would shuffle up the starting grid a bit for the second race and also add some needed excitement. Maybe this could be tried at one of the non-traditional venues, like Abu Dhabi.

[TheFamousEccles]

@ Zako85

I agree in the main, the current regime needs to be shaken up a little. Two sprint races with a tyre change in each (open supplier, tyre compound/construction nominated on friday - no changes after then) and the teams can tweak suspension only in between races. Though I would only allow half an hour between races, and all changes must be done from the grid, and grid positions are determined by placing in the first heat.

And if they're gonna persist with the DRS thingo, then no restrictions on usage, that should sort out the brave from the opportunistic ;)

[journeyman racer]

Did my previous post get deleted, or did I not submit it when I thought I did?


For some time I have been thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to split some GPs into two one hour sprint races, with one mandatory tire change per race, and with a one hour break between races. The starting grid for the second race to be determined by the second best qualifying lap. I think this would shuffle up the starting grid a bit for the second race and also add some needed excitement. Maybe this could be tried at one of the non-traditional venues, like Abu Dhabi.Ok, I'll rephrase my question. Would you be satisfied with a single, 1 hour GP?

[Doc Austin]

I'de like to see the rules change so you only have one type of tire, and then have Pirelli come up with something that would last 90% of the distance when pushed hard. Give them a good tire and set the pit lane speed limit at 30 mph. That would sure discourage stopping for tires. Like this, all the action would be on the track and drivers would have to take care of the car so they would have enough left to race with at the end and avoid stopping for new tires.