Brazilian Grand Prix 2015, São Paulo - Race 18/19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Soldato
The potential was there for the FIA to redefine the aero rules to solve a lot of the problem with F1. They started the conversation and we all got excited.
There was talk of fat rear tyres, heavily reduced aero, wider (more draggy) cars, a removal of the flat floor rule (so ground effect would be allowed), heavily simplified front wings, revised nose rules, active suspension, and all sorts of other cool stuff. So something like a modern interpretation of this:
But... as talks have progressed and the FIA has realized it doesn't actually hold the power in its own sport, and the teams are all out for themselves and no one else, it now sounds like what were going to get is the same width cars, narrower but more complex front wings, additional aero on body, lower and wider rear wings, not much change in tyres, refueling, and no or reduced ERS systems. So basically.... this:
Progress, ey....
Well that's just silly.
Soldato
There have been a few really, really epic battles in F1 historically. I think the racing was more exciting years ago, but not for the reasons that people seem to come back to again and again when these things come up.
When was the last time you saw something like Mansell vs Senna, Monaco 1992? Probably Monaco1992. But why? Mansell was massively faster than Senna, but the combination of Senna's brilliance and the notorious inability to overtake around there and you can see why he got stuck behind and the battle ensued. Unusual circumstances generate exciting racing far more than the regulations of the time do.
Would anything suggested in this discussion so far recreate that sort of action? I don't think so. Mansell would have disappeared into the sunset had he not suffered the puncture/wheel nut failure. While it gave us one of the most exciting finishes to a race ever, lets not forget that the Williams was completely and utterly dominant and by a HUGE margin.
I think there's probably only been maybe 10-20 truly magnificent races in F1 history and the rest is "boring". I think it is far too easy to say that historical F1 is more exciting because that tends to be the brain cherry-picking all the epics and then blending them into one season rather than being objective about it all. F1 has ironed out a lot of the things that caused the mixed up situations that lead to the epic battles in the name of reliability, cost control, better understanding of the physics and so on. We've seen all sorts of great action when someone starts well out of place (for example from the pit lane) but this isn't really something that happens as often as it used to do...
Last edited:
Soldato
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Win as slow as possible is as old as motor racing. Nothing changed there.
People need to realise that sport moves on. Donkeys years ago people put a huge what 20-30 inch fan for aero because frankly they hadn't tried it. 20-30 years later most aero things have been tried. There will always be more knowledge every year in any sport, which means people make better cars. Previous rule sets would work entirely different with current knowledge.
The thing that keeps F1 somewhat interesting is giving everyone new rules every 4-5 years, it gives people a chance to come up with a slightly better idea than others and have an advantage. Generally speaking cars dominate for regulation periods. We get new regulations to shake things up, you get whoever cracks the new regulations best and then the team who develops under the regulations best, hopefully two different teams but this has really always been the case.
Under the same cars, the same regulations you can get 2 dramatically different races. Hamilton has a failure in qualifying in Germany he starts from the back and makes one exciting overtake after another getting back up to the front. If he starts first you end up with a procession with no one coming through the field. Zero rule changes, just different circumstances. WHat if Hamilton had a qualifying failure in Monaco and starts from the back, anyone think he'd make one exciting overtake after another? No chance.
Some tracks suck for overtaking, it's not really aero or anything else, some tracks just aren't conducive to it, even those tracks where overtaking is more than possible if you have the cars qualifying in a certain way you'll still see no action on track. That has been true of F1 since it started.
Another huge part of it is even more simple and completely ignored. When you first start watching motorsport, it's new and exciting. 20 years later watching another race at the same track you might get exactly the same type of racing, lack of passing, but those 5 overtakes that seemed ultra exciting the first Brazil race you watched now seems boring. You can't easily watch the same tracks over and over again and expect to frankly have the same level of excitement. IS a film as good the 20th time you've watched it?
What is funny is, the thing that would make races more different would be a constantly changing format, one year have reverse grids, another have a different qualifying format, another have a sprint race with points with results making up the grid on Sunday.
The more things stay the same... the more bored everyone will be. People whine and moan about change, but whine and moan about watching the same predictable race over and over again.
If the fastest guys qualify upfront why does anyone expect loads of overtaking. What F1 really lacks is the balls out pace. In qualifying they make mistakes, go off track, they are closer to the edge. In races they are 4-5 seconds off the pace and make far fewer mistakes.... but people don't want refuelling back which would put them on the edge of the top pace throughout the race.
People need to realise that sport moves on. Donkeys years ago people put a huge what 20-30 inch fan for aero because frankly they hadn't tried it. 20-30 years later most aero things have been tried. There will always be more knowledge every year in any sport, which means people make better cars. Previous rule sets would work entirely different with current knowledge.
The thing that keeps F1 somewhat interesting is giving everyone new rules every 4-5 years, it gives people a chance to come up with a slightly better idea than others and have an advantage. Generally speaking cars dominate for regulation periods. We get new regulations to shake things up, you get whoever cracks the new regulations best and then the team who develops under the regulations best, hopefully two different teams but this has really always been the case.
Under the same cars, the same regulations you can get 2 dramatically different races. Hamilton has a failure in qualifying in Germany he starts from the back and makes one exciting overtake after another getting back up to the front. If he starts first you end up with a procession with no one coming through the field. Zero rule changes, just different circumstances. WHat if Hamilton had a qualifying failure in Monaco and starts from the back, anyone think he'd make one exciting overtake after another? No chance.
Some tracks suck for overtaking, it's not really aero or anything else, some tracks just aren't conducive to it, even those tracks where overtaking is more than possible if you have the cars qualifying in a certain way you'll still see no action on track. That has been true of F1 since it started.
Another huge part of it is even more simple and completely ignored. When you first start watching motorsport, it's new and exciting. 20 years later watching another race at the same track you might get exactly the same type of racing, lack of passing, but those 5 overtakes that seemed ultra exciting the first Brazil race you watched now seems boring. You can't easily watch the same tracks over and over again and expect to frankly have the same level of excitement. IS a film as good the 20th time you've watched it?
What is funny is, the thing that would make races more different would be a constantly changing format, one year have reverse grids, another have a different qualifying format, another have a sprint race with points with results making up the grid on Sunday.
The more things stay the same... the more bored everyone will be. People whine and moan about change, but whine and moan about watching the same predictable race over and over again.
If the fastest guys qualify upfront why does anyone expect loads of overtaking. What F1 really lacks is the balls out pace. In qualifying they make mistakes, go off track, they are closer to the edge. In races they are 4-5 seconds off the pace and make far fewer mistakes.... but people don't want refuelling back which would put them on the edge of the top pace throughout the race.
Soldato
Just saying that this season and the 2013 season have been some of the most boring in recent memory.
Don't know why but the races have been pretty flat.
All I know is, that I started watching F1 in 1985, religiously so in '86. I don't recall missing a live televised race ever in that time, same for the highlights.
This year however, I gave up after the halfway point. I shall watch a couple of races next year to see if it's any better. If not I'll give it one last go in 2017.
When I started watching, it wasn't just the racing, it's was the hope that Mansell's Williams would make it to the end of the race.
It was praying the back markers would get out of the way. If it was Grouillard there was little chance. But would he be punished for it? No. That was part of racing, making your way though the tail enders, Senna excelled at this.
It was wondering which of the lower teams would qualify for the race and which ones would miss out. 20 car field? Nah let's have 30-40 cars battling it out for one of the 26 places on the grid.
It was hoping my favourite driver wouldn't end up in the gravel trap which would finish his race. Not like today, where it's just tarmac runoff. They can make as many mistakes as they like and just carry on, often without even losing time.
It was wondering whether they'd chosen the right tires for the race and how many stops they'd make, or even if they'd make any. Would he make up that 30 second gap before the end of the race with a last desperate pit stop for 'C' compound tires?
It was the thrill of the circuit meandering through fantastic undulating scenery. I could come up with better circuits by sticking cones in a Tesco's car park for today's F1.
It was screaming engines, on the edge of destruction. Battered tires doing just one more lap, drivers pushing all the way to the end, exhausted as they climbed from the cockpit.
Still at the beginning of every season, that glimmer of hope is there. But deep down I know it's gone, and will never come back.
Oh, and Murray Walker.
This year however, I gave up after the halfway point. I shall watch a couple of races next year to see if it's any better. If not I'll give it one last go in 2017.
When I started watching, it wasn't just the racing, it's was the hope that Mansell's Williams would make it to the end of the race.
It was praying the back markers would get out of the way. If it was Grouillard there was little chance. But would he be punished for it? No. That was part of racing, making your way though the tail enders, Senna excelled at this.
It was wondering which of the lower teams would qualify for the race and which ones would miss out. 20 car field? Nah let's have 30-40 cars battling it out for one of the 26 places on the grid.
It was hoping my favourite driver wouldn't end up in the gravel trap which would finish his race. Not like today, where it's just tarmac runoff. They can make as many mistakes as they like and just carry on, often without even losing time.
It was wondering whether they'd chosen the right tires for the race and how many stops they'd make, or even if they'd make any. Would he make up that 30 second gap before the end of the race with a last desperate pit stop for 'C' compound tires?
It was the thrill of the circuit meandering through fantastic undulating scenery. I could come up with better circuits by sticking cones in a Tesco's car park for today's F1.
It was screaming engines, on the edge of destruction. Battered tires doing just one more lap, drivers pushing all the way to the end, exhausted as they climbed from the cockpit.
Still at the beginning of every season, that glimmer of hope is there. But deep down I know it's gone, and will never come back.
Oh, and Murray Walker.
My vision is quite clear.
If there was no problem, they wouldn't be constantly tweaking the rules. They wouldn't have felt the need for DRS or to enforce multiple pit stops. The changes they're proposing for 2017, wouldn't be necessary. They're lost, they're clutching at straws blindfolded.
The point I was trying to make was that overtaking is not the only type of action that makes racing exciting. Close finishes don't necessarily mean it's been a good race. Very often it means it's been a well managed race. Where's the unpredictability? It feels almost predetermined sometimes.
Mistakes very often meant the end of the race for a driver, pit stops were a gamble, back markers a lottery. It's all so finely tuned now. Everything is so well done and organised. It's to be admired, it really is, but is it exciting to watch? To you I guess it is, to me, not so much. But that's opinions for you.
Anyway, I'm off to enjoy the rest of my day with my kids. Now, where did I put those glasses? I think I'll be needing them somehow.
Any post that states F1 used to be full of drivers pushing flat out all race is subject to rose-tinted-glasses-itus.
Modern F1 is broke, but older F1 isn't the holy grail people seem to claim they remember it as either.
The noises coming from the FIA certainly don't inspire confidence though
.
Modern F1 is broke, but older F1 isn't the holy grail people seem to claim they remember it as either.
The noises coming from the FIA certainly don't inspire confidence though
.
Same here.
I started watching in the 2nd half of 1991 season. Religiously.
I was losing interest during the RBR domination (that year when Vettel won 9 in a row, was it...I lost count).
Last year was mildly entertaining as it was a new team dominating, but this year I completely lost interest. There are times where I feel that the Merc can go 2s/lap faster than the rest of the field.
At least during the RBR domination, Ferrari/Alonso was able to get close to competing for the title with Vettel, but with Merc, nobody can get close. It almost seems pointless.
And the FIA, for whatever reason, have arranged it so that rival team/engine makers can't even catch-up with Merc.
Its like watching a game of football, 8 players vs 11 and the ref is not allowing the lesser team to bring on 3 players, to even up the match.
FWIW though, if you are die-hard Hamilton fan - good times.
1997 the FIA hauled Villeneuve across the coals and did their best to upset him when he was open in describing the FIAs vision for the future as idiotic. Narrower cars reliant on aero.
There have been decent seasons but he was largely right in his prediction of what it would become. Almost 20 years later and people on here still right the same lists of what they want as what he described. I have long given up writing a wish list.
Some of what he said I have agreed with, this for me was the least I have watched a season since that horrible French **** had by far the best car on the grid and team mate that made Rosberg look like senna.
I have all but given up. Sky will be getting my notice on Dec 1st.
Yep all the ones I know, both of them are taking little satisfaction in this season. Lewis in a mega car kind of defeats the whole purpose of such a gifted wheel to wheel driver.
Any post that states F1 used to be full of drivers pushing flat out all race is subject to rose-tinted-glasses-itus.
Modern F1 is broke, but older F1 isn't the holy grail people seem to claim they remember it as either.
The noises coming from the FIA certainly don't inspire confidence though
Perhaps they weren't flat out all the time but it was less managed than it is now. Cars used to break frequently back then, which suggests they were pushed harder, either by the driver or by the engineers. Perhaps if they'd been run as conservatively as they are now it would have been different.
There were other statements in my original post, that in my opinion led to F1 being a better spectacle than it is now. How do you feel about those?
I was trying to point out the unpredictability of F1 from times past. If a driver had a 30 second lead with 10 laps to go, there was a massively greater chance of that lead changing hands than there is now, due to some of the things mentioned in the post above.
Modern F1 is all about "Save fuel, save tires, save engines, save gearboxes". They sort themselves into order after the pitstops and that's pretty much it. Barely anyone retires due to mechanical problems (well, Button and Alonso maybe). Once Maldonado has had his customary accident that's pretty much it. A driver pushes too hard and goes off track? No problem just use the acre of tarmac runoff and carry on. Back markers have to dive out of the way, 25 years ago they could be a major player in the outcome as race leaders had to fight their way through. Ken Tyrrell used to say "if a leader wants to pass us, let him find his own way round, my drivers have their own race to run".
Just out of interest, how long have you been watching F1?
I only ask as I wonder if it's a generation thing. I'm 44 and have been watching nearly 30 years. In my (admittedly small) circle of F1 following friends, 3 of them started watching at around the same time. My wife started around 1994. Out of all of us, only 1 still watches religiously, although he doesn't think it's a good as it was. My wife got bored of it around 7 years ago along with my oldest friend. Myself and my other friend have pretty much given up with it over the last 2 years.
Perhaps it's like all things as you get older. Nothing's as good as it used to be.
Man of Honour
Even the current processions and zero overtakes could be made exciting by Murray Walker. I'd be all for this
I disagree. Arguably things were more managed back then, as reliability was so much lower. Not only were the drivers managing fuel and tyres as they are now, they were also managing engines and gearboxes that frequently went pop.
They didn't break more because they were pushed harder back then, they broke more because they weren't built as well as they are now. If they wanted Mercedes could run their engines on full for a whole race without any fear of it blowing up. If you ran one of the 80's turbos on full it would expire after about 3 laps.
The rest of your points make it sound like you'd rather F1 was decided by luck, rather than skill? If a guy has a 30 second lead with 10 laps to go he's earnt it, having it taken away from him due to a mechanical failure is not "exciting", its unlucky. Just look at the backlash against Rosberg last year when it looked like he could win the Championship purely through havign less bad luck than Hamilton. It would not have bene a popular title if he did.
I'm 29, my earliest memories of F1 are of yellow and green Benetons and blue and yellow Williams. I can remember watching Sennas crash on TV, and probably got properly into F1 around 95/96 as I remember watching Hill's season. That means the core of my F1 watching history was the manufacturer and refueling strategy dominated 00's, which was awful. The racing we have had over the last few years has been far superior to anything in the preceeding 15 years. I keep banging on about it, but the stats don't lie. In the 00's drivers averaged less than 1 overtake per race. That was not exciting racing, it was dire. Races where the teams openly called off the rae after the last pit stiop and everyone cruised home, having done no overtaking all race anyway. The introduction of Pirelli tyres and removal of refueling doubled overtaking over night, and DRS doubled it again.
Even during the so called 'boring' years of RBR dominance, they were only about 0.5 seconds ahead of their rivals. Back in the day the McLarens of the late 80's and Williams of the early 90's would have an advantage over the whole field measured using a calendar! A lot of recent seasons have gone to the final race for a decider, there have been battles throughout the whole field, and apart from a few first race blips with HRT, everyone on the grid has been within 107%.
F1 now is not perfect, its actually very very broken. But its better in terms of racing than anything from about 98-2010. And anything prior to that is far enough back that its such a different formula its almost incomparable.
I agree F1 is less unpredictable than it used to be back then, but I don't think that always translates to back then being 'better'. However, there are lots of lessons that F1 can learn by looking back at that era and seeing what worked.
Last edited:
Soldato
Largely the same here. I started in 1989 aged 9 (thanks to a JPS Lotus model my dad had) and watched every race live from 1990 through to 2004 I think it was (whenever the first Chinese GP was, as I was at Donington Park).
What's changed for me is nerves. I remember shaking with tension and excitement at the start of a GP, knowing there was a large chance of a first corner crash that could wipe out a favourite or completely change the complexion of a race. Every year until about 2001 I was jumping about throughout the Monza and Hockenheim weekends from the pure speed, as you could see as the cars bouncing and darting over bumps. I think half the problem is that you don't see that now. A car doing 170mph doesn't look any different to a car doing 220mph, so the sense of speed has gone - that's why I like Monaco and Singapore so much - the cars still look fast there and you know it's challenging the drivers - irrespective of how boring the race itself may be. I guess that's why they reintroduced the titanium skid blocks, to try to give back a sense of speed.
F1's been through some shocking times. It's easy to think the mid-2000s were good with races like Suzuka 2005 and Silverstone 2003, but the reality is there were races with few overtakes - in one instance there was a race with zero overtakes. Yeah, the championship was sometimes incredibly close - even during Schumacher's dominant years - but it was still incredibly dull for the most part.
A championship doesn't make F1 for me - I think it's a moderately recent thing where championships mattered as much as they do - heck in the 50s we had drivers handing the title to a rival because they thought they deserved it more. No, what makes F1 were the cars and tracks. I'm not really a true fan of a driver and in truth I think I've only ever been a fan of two in my lifetime (Mansell & Alesi), but the peak of modern F1 for me (1995 through to 1999) I wasn't really supporting anyone (Mansell had gone and most of Alesi's spark had gone with him).
I think that's why LMS's popularity is soaring at the moment - less focus on the championship and drivers and more focus on what's happening on the track each weekend. Perhaps that's where F1 has lost it's identity - it's sport so obsessed with its winners and image that it's losing its own.
Last edited:
The worst culprit for this are the fans though, dismissing entire races or even entire seasons as boring or a walk over based solely on the name at the top of the score sheet.
Soldato
Oh I'm not apportioning blame - it was always going to end up here, be it from the regulators, promoters, media or fans. They all want different things and more of them.