Opinion on 2022 regulations

[bas550]

Could be from other factors, couldn't it? Outside of that, it's still up.


Just wondering, but how would one not directly involved in the business actually correlate both?


Yes, it's kind of a capitalistic thing to release new models for people to purchase.

Also, the first date named is 2012, whereas Mercedes had their own team from 2010. Market share already was up by 0,5% since then.




And how exactly does that dispute the fact that McLaren is a company that reaches further than just F1? It apparently comes as a shock to you, but companies can sell off their assets. And perhaps even more shocking; rarely is a company actually owned by a single entity!




McLaren Group, founded on 2 december 1985. Ron Dennis' Project 4 and McLaren merged in 1981. And before you start disputing this, the found date is literally on the sidebar of the wikipedia article you quoted.

I took the time to fact-check it, and literally nowhere is a founding date of somewhere in 1981 mentioned. However what is mentioned on this news article is the following;

"The TAG Group first invested in McLaren in 1984 and is the longest standing of the McLaren Group’s shareholders."

I might of course be wrong here, but last I checked, 1984 came after 1981. This also aligns with the TAG-Porsche engines that McLaren ran in the MP4/2.

This and your other post, exactly.

Can you supply any data the supports your claim?

Can you?

I did not make the claim? I am asking for supporting evidence on what you said. in other words, I want to understand how did you come to the conclusion you made.

I find it amazing on this forum that one can post an conclusion, then fight tooth and nail not to present the data that led you to the conclusion... light weight stuff!

Sorry, I misread. I thought it was you that claimed that the top 4 teams would leave but it was another.

Either way, you have information there for you, but you choose to ignore it. As you yourself agreed as well, putting marketing in absolute terms is hard to do, but be rest assured that NO board would sign off on a hugely expensive exercise if it didn't make financial sense, i.e. offer a return.

With an F1 team being worth billions in the near future (Zak Browns' words), the team is probably Mclaren's strongest asset right now. Why would they give that up if the rules changed tomorrow? They didn't do it in 2007 either when the V8 engine freeze came along.

[wesley123]

I did not make the claim? I am asking for supporting evidence on what you said. in other words, I want to understand how did you come to the conclusion you made.

I find it amazing on this forum that one can post an conclusion, then fight tooth and nail not to present the data that led you to the conclusion... light weight stuff!

Except I did actually provide such evidence, and the response was incredibly cherry-picked making requirements that would make it impossible to actually prove it.

[NicoS]

I did not make the claim? I am asking for supporting evidence on what you said. in other words, I want to understand how did you come to the conclusion you made.

I find it amazing on this forum that one can post an conclusion, then fight tooth and nail not to present the data that led you to the conclusion... light weight stuff!

Except I did actually provide such evidence, and the response was incredibly cherry-picked making requirements that would make it impossible to actually prove it.

You failed to make a connection between your claim and the link to the vehicle sales report you provided
You supplied a general vehicle sales report that references 0 to f1.
The Hyundai report will read exactly the same...

[drc]

You guys know all there is to know about racing, so there's no sense us going down that same old road again.
To beat this thread, you need logic. And exactly this seems to be far away from this years' points system. How the freak can a gp-'loser' walk away from a gp with the most points, ie, as the 'winner'? In fact, up to 6 drivers can simultaneously score more points in a gp weekend than the actual 'winner'. In other words, winners turned into losers, and losers into winners.
Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks, explaining that driver A may have been the official winner and got to stand on the podium for a meaningless ceremony, but still was valued less than the driver who came in 7th, for example.
Ofcourse I'm talking about the revised scoring systems for the sprints(, and shortened races).
There's more to come too. As reported, pretty much every promoter is interested in hosting sprint-weekends. And why wouldn't they be, right? It brings them more money. Same goes for broadcasting channels, (and thus) liberty, the teams, and the fia. F1 have already said they do indeed want to expand on the sprints, brawn deeming them a "success". So say they all get sprints, then it's actually possible to win all gp', yet still lose out on the wdc. In fact, be out of contention for the wdc, several races before the season ends.
So my opinion on (this part of) this years' regs? Loony.

"So how was your year?"
- "Pretty good I guess?"
"How come?"
- "I won all 25 gp' on the calendar."
"Congratulatiooons, f1 world champ."
- "Ehhh, not exactly.."

[wesley123]

I did not make the claim? I am asking for supporting evidence on what you said. in other words, I want to understand how did you come to the conclusion you made.

I find it amazing on this forum that one can post an conclusion, then fight tooth and nail not to present the data that led you to the conclusion... light weight stuff!

Except I did actually provide such evidence, and the response was incredibly cherry-picked making requirements that would make it impossible to actually prove it.

You failed to make a connection between your claim and the link to the vehicle sales report you provided

Please elaborate on what then would prove a relation. Because what I’m seeing is that whatever data would be provided, you would always just dispute it with a generic remark on how there are many other factors that affect car sales.

So please elaborate on how someone would prove this relation.

You supplied a general vehicle sales report that references 0 to f1.

They were good enough for you to cherry-pick pieces of data and dispute them in a way to suit yourself.

The Hyundai report will read exactly the same...

Actually it doesn’t, and you naming Hyundai is another great cherry-picked name, since it is one of the brands that made significant market gains. Another brand you could have picked is Kia.

You also might want to look up what a “market share” is.

[Andres125sx]

Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks

Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all


Any good driver with a dominant car will get better statistics than a real talent who never drove a dominant car



Just as an example, Rosberg or Button have better statistics than Giles Villeneuve, not only because they´re World Champions while Giles wasn´t, also on victories, poles, fast laps...

But none with a brain will claim neither of them was faster or better than Giles, but this is F1, they got dominant cars so their statistics are much better.

I could argue something similar about Hamilton. One of the greats ever, period. But is he really better than Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, etc. as statistics show? No way, he just drove the most dominant car ever. No other car dominated for so many consecutive seasons, as FIA usually change rules at 4th season when any team dominate the grid. Not this time. Is that delay from FIA an evidence of Hamilton greatness? Obviously not.

IE, driver statistics in F1 are almost irrelevant

[drc]

Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks

Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all

No, these would be very different. You're talking about putting asterisks based on (perceived) driver quality, but I'm not. What I'm talking about is that the result that is scored best, has always been 1st place in a gp. And why should it be any different? Has always been, that is, until now. This season you can score the best possible place in a gp, the 'win', yet still getting outscored. Even by 6 other drivers at the same time.

[holeindalip]

Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks

Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all


Any good driver with a dominant car will get better statistics than a real talent who never drove a dominant car



Just as an example, Rosberg or Button have better statistics than Giles Villeneuve, not only because they´re World Champions while Giles wasn´t, also on victories, poles, fast laps...

But none with a brain will claim neither of them was faster or better than Giles, but this is F1, they got dominant cars so their statistics are much better.

I could argue something similar about Hamilton. One of the greats ever, period. But is he really better than Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, etc. as statistics show? No way, he just drove the most dominant car ever. No other car dominated for so many consecutive seasons, as FIA usually change rules at 4th season when any team dominate the grid. Not this time. Is that delay from FIA an evidence of Hamilton greatness? Obviously not.

IE, driver statistics in F1 are almost irrelevant

I mean the rules were changed in 2014,2017,2021,2022.

[Stu]

Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks

Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all


Any good driver with a dominant car will get better statistics than a real talent who never drove a dominant car



Just as an example, Rosberg or Button have better statistics than Giles Villeneuve, not only because they´re World Champions while Giles wasn´t, also on victories, poles, fast laps...

But none with a brain will claim neither of them was faster or better than Giles, but this is F1, they got dominant cars so their statistics are much better.

I could argue something similar about Hamilton. One of the greats ever, period. But is he really better than Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, etc. as statistics show? No way, he just drove the most dominant car ever. No other car dominated for so many consecutive seasons, as FIA usually change rules at 4th season when any team dominate the grid. Not this time. Is that delay from FIA an evidence of Hamilton greatness? Obviously not.

IE, driver statistics in F1 are almost irrelevant

One interesting aspect of this is that there are now many more championship qualifying races than ever before.
Compare the 50’s/60’s - 6-9 qualifying events per year to the 80’s/90’s - 12-16 qualifying events per year to the 10’s/20’s - 18-24 qualifying events per year and you see how that also skews the stats.

At one time it was a huge ‘thing’ to record 200 race starts, now it is achievable in 8.25 years. It used to indicate a good, consistent talent (Rubens Barrichello),
In 2026 it will simply mean that your dad has deep pockets…

[Andres125sx]

Indeed Stu...

[jjn9128]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, statistics is the evil arm of mathematics

[Big Tea]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, statistics is the evil arm of mathematics

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable. (Twain, Mark not shania)

[jjn9128]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, statistics is the evil arm of mathematics

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable. (Twain, Mark not shania)

[PlatinumZealot]

Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks

Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all


Any good driver with a dominant car will get better statistics than a real talent who never drove a dominant car

Just as an example, Rosberg or Button have better statistics than Giles Villeneuve, not only because they´re World Champions while Giles wasn´t, also on victories, poles, fast laps...


IE, driver statistics in F1 are almost irrelevant

I know what you are saying but talent is only part of the equation in sports and that portion gets even smaller in motorsport.

Whether or not Gilles Villenueve was more talented in my opinion that doesn't give him the right to have better stats. Statististics should not be the be all and end all asterisk or none.

I would say what makes "great" drivers is how they live on in memory and lore regardless of statistics!

Look at Pastor Maldonado. He was a guest at the Barcelona race, and a mere shot of him in frame brought much fanfare across the entire internetz! And I thought to myself... Pastor Maldonado... He is an F1 legend.. His memory will never die.

[JordanMugen]

Is it time to discuss that the new aero formula has been a failure?

It has been a triumph IMO.

The move to more ground effects and less downforce combined with the suspension change has produced a lousy race car.

They race better than ever, almost like F2 cars!

I’ve been watching F1 since 1986 and this is the first big regulation change that has actually improved the racing. So IMO it’s been a big leap forward.

Agreed.

So that solution is sort of what I am saying anyway (that the formula is not successful)
Doing that only solves the symptom not the cause.

The formula is perfectly successful IMO.

Absolutely nothing at all wrong with the regulations. Its for the teams to build a car to work well within them. Look at the Red Bull and the McLaren. Hardly any porpoising at all. The red bull actually looks about the same, if not better than last year down the straight.

Indeed, porpoising is an eminently solvable problem within the existing regulations.

it's extremely difficult for those who didn't to fix the issues during the season.

That's impatient! I'm sure the others will have it fixed within two to three seasons time.