Poll: Italian Grand Prix 2016, Monza - Race 14/21

Rate the 2016 Italian Grand Prix out of ten

  • 1

    Votes: 9 8.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 13 11.6%
  • 3

    Votes: 23 20.5%
  • 4

    Votes: 18 16.1%
  • 5

    Votes: 18 16.1%
  • 6

    Votes: 15 13.4%
  • 7

    Votes: 10 8.9%
  • 8

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • 9

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • 10

    Votes: 4 3.6%

  • Total voters
    112
  • Poll closed .
What, like the best team winning? Like Mercedes are doing now, like Red Bull did before that, Renault then Ferrari before...

That's the problem, one team at a time for a long period of time. Its more of an engineering championship than a drivers championship. The only short term way to make F1 more appealing to race fans is fill the grid with the current most dominant car, that would be the Mercedes. 22 Mercs please and may the best driver win.
 
That's the problem, one team at a time for a long period of time. Its more of an engineering championship than a drivers championship. The only short term way to make F1 more appealing to race fans is fill the grid with the current most dominant car, that would be the Mercedes. 22 Mercs please and may the best driver win.

Why appeal to race fans, f1 fans are a much bigger market ;)
 
That's the problem, one team at a time for a long period of time. Its more of an engineering championship than a drivers championship. The only short term way to make F1 more appealing to race fans is fill the grid with the current most dominant car, that would be the Mercedes. 22 Mercs please and may the best driver win.

Be more fun to watch 22 mc Hondas as you'd get lots of break downs!
Less perfect cars make for better entertainment!
 
That's the problem, one team at a time for a long period of time. Its more of an engineering championship than a drivers championship.

How many drivers can you count where they didn't have the strongest car yet still won either title, or even genuinely challenged for it?

I'm not going back a decade here, but throughout F1's entire history. Things like McLaren vs Ferrari in the late 2000s don't count as they could barely be separated.

You won't find many.
 
Last edited:
That's the problem, one team at a time for a long period of time. Its more of an engineering championship than a drivers championship. The only short term way to make F1 more appealing to race fans is fill the grid with the current most dominant car, that would be the Mercedes. 22 Mercs please and may the best driver win.

So you want all drivers to be in the same car? Thats never been F1. How did it work out for A1 GP?

There was a time, admittedly a while ago, when a team could develop their car and maybe catch up mid season.

A bit more in season testing would be good.
 
The fact is, until we have a spec series there will always be one team with an inherent advantage. Now I don't expect to see a spec series but there should be a way that those without the latest trick tech to catch up, without writing half of the rule book to accommodate it!

Stamp out the floor and let's get some Flintstone action going.
 
The fact is, until we have a spec series there will always be one team with an inherent advantage. Now I don't expect to see a spec series but there should be a way that those without the latest trick tech to catch up, without writing half of the rule book to accommodate it!

I wonder what would happen if F1 became an open formula. So that on race day they're required to publish the specifications and testing data for their cars. That would let smaller teams piggy-back on the efforts of larger teams, while the top teams would still carry an advantage from bringing the car through pre-season testing and continuous innovation.
 
I'd love to see the FIA separate the drivers and constructors championships, making it so that any car can easily fit any driver and make the drivers change teams every race weekend.

Each driver should drive for each team twice during the season

Love that idea. Would provide great entertainment and racing. I would stay awake too :D

great idea!

Providing the custom driver seats can easily be moved from one team car to another, along with possibly raising the minimum car/driver weight a little and adjusting ballast amount/position for each driver swap, it really could liven things up!

Far less uncertainty over who are the best drivers on the grid, but how do you decide which driver is in which car for a specific race? One car/track combo chosen by drivers at a time, based on their previous season finishing positions, with some sort of tie-breaker rule if equal?
 
in that scenario you wouldn't have the best driver on the grid - only the most adaptable driver on the grid. Cars are built around feedback from the drivers and some of the best drivers have been very adept at pulling the whole team around them.
 
Who's gonna pay the drivers wages as well?! Merc sign Hamilton, pay him £10+ mill a season and only get him in their car twice in a season!! You'd need all the drivers wages to come from some big pot of money but how would it work. Merc and Manor couldn't afford to put the same money in yet they'd get the drivers an equal amount of time.

It's a great idea till you start giving it a bit of thought!
 
The sport isn't just who is the best driver, it's which team can build the best car. Change that, and it isn't F1 any more.

The problem is that the teams hamstrung the sport themselves by insisting on limited testing and development in order to save money. They should have implemented budget caps if that was their aim. Instead they set up the current system where a team like Mercedes can get it right at the start, and no one can develop to catch up.

A lot of this boils down to CVC sucking money out of the sport for it's own pockets, and leaving the teams with less money to fight with.
 
Last edited:
in that scenario you wouldn't have the best driver on the grid - only the most adaptable driver on the grid. Cars are built around feedback from the drivers and some of the best drivers have been very adept at pulling the whole team around them.

Being the best driver means you're best at whatever situation is given.

Gilles Villeneuve was brilliant in some ways, but he'd have been a terrible driver in the current formula. Nigel Roebuck said it was merciful that Gilles died when he did, as the years after he died were dominated by economy runs. The same might well have been true of Senna, in terms of aggressive driving style (I mean the foot twitching through corners, which engineers would never let you try now).

Schumacher was vastly superior to most in his F1 career, but in the same Mercedes sportscar team Frentzen was deemed the most promising of the three German stars they had.

There's many different attributes a driver needs to be deemed "the best". Adaptability is certainly one of them, as all great drivers have crossed major regulation changes in their careers:

  • Brabham had the rear engine revolution and the introduction of aerodynamic downforce
  • Clark had vastly different power regulations and the first chassis with the engine as a stressed member
  • Lauda had ground effect and turbo engines
  • Senna and Prost had electronic driver aids and the true dominance of the turbo era, and then the return to the normally aspirated engines
  • Schumacher had the shift from driver aids, refuelling, the narrowing of cars and grooved tyres
  • Alonso and Hamilton have seen the move back to slicks, the ban of refuelling, the return of turbos and energy recovery, and soon the widening of cars and big slicks.

F1's an ever evolving formula. You will cross major regulation changes, and you need to be adaptable if you are to be deemed as one of the greats in years to come (Fangio excepted as his career was relatively short in terms of actual Formula 1 racing due to his age when it started).
 
Back
Top Bottom