Merc, Lewis, and a plea for regulation sanity

[AngusF1]

Yes please, massive simplification at least of the engine reg's to give other manufacturers a chance.

Four-stroke NA, capacity limited. Woohoo. Even simpler and better, two-stroke...

The current engines are so complicated only 1-2 teams can master them, and have their natural place in a garbage truck. (Literally!)

[Just_a_fan]

I feel the higher fuel flow and open engine regs make it an issue of driver skill rather than who can make the most horsepower, so it would negate Merc's advantage. Horsepower which surpasses the tire grip at all points of the track automatically limits power to driver skill because there's only so much push two rear tires can manage. Make the wheels spin anytime in any gear and it defaults to driver prowess.

The current engines have more than enough power to do that already - combined output of 1000hp don't forget. The teams work very hard to not have the tyres spinning - clever mapping etc. But if the drivers want to, they could have the tyres spinning easily up until the downforce takes over and gives the tyres massive grip. You see, again, it's downforce that is the key, not the engines (nor the brakes).

If you want to go back to old-school sliding cars, you need to massively reduce the downforce. Just doing that would make the cars a handful. It would also make the teams spend money on designing clever systems to make the car quicker / easier to drive quicker. And so the teams with the most money would still win.

[zac510]

A plea for sanity.

Will you stake your house, car and job on this plan?

I just want to repost this from another thread:

One thing about fans making suggestions about rules is that if they get the rule change wrong there is no downside. Fans love their sport, indeed, but they have no skin in the game.

If a fan suggests that aerodynamics should be reduced by 75% to improve overtaking, then maybe 1000 aerodynamicists in F1 will lose their jobs. This rule change has consequence for these engineers and their families. If the new rule change does not have the desired effect (of improving overtaking), the fan who proposed the rule will not suffer - he or she will get up on Monday morning and go about his day. But the aerodynamicist will be off to the Job Centre.

If a fan suggests the teams should re-introduce refuelling and the teams spend millions fitting it to the cars and pits and then we find that there was no improvement to the quality of racing, the teams have wasted millions and the fan has spent €0. The fan will get up in the morning and go to work feeling no guilt.

Without consequence, the opinion of a fan is pretty worthless.

[Phil]

Really appreciate the strong feedback and opinions from everyone. It's great to read what people think of the situation. I am surprised at how much resistance there is to change, and a strong desire to let things go as is. I find that interesting because it seems so counterintuitive to competitive sport.

Phil I was surprised you didn't read all of my post! Lol! I took your example in post length my friend!

I didn't mean to offend by writing I did not read the full post. I did - or at least skimmed it (even the ideas) until I got the gist of it. But I didn't want to go into the various 'ideas' and argue each specific point, because I felt that would not be fair and not be entirely productive.

I firmly believe any new change brings a certain complication with it. Change requires adapting and the big teams (the ones with the most resources and budget) have proven over the years they have ability to adapt to new changes the quickest and in the most effective way.

Take the new engine regs: Mercedes have gone from being the most dominant to being barely ahead within 4 years. If you look at 2014, you will see that most teams (well, sans McLaren) benefited from running the Mercedes engine vs other teams with other engines. Within a year or two years, this situation has changed and narrowed. Last year, Ferrari was extremely close. This year, I'd argue they were ahead of Mercedes throughout the summer but failed to capitalize on that. Next year? Who knows - if we had a simple continuation of the current Formula, I would have guessed Ferrari and Mercedes to be equal with RedBull not far behind. Alas, there are changes again to the rules with the new front wings, so there's a level of uncertainty if teams will find new things to exploit that would give them a major advantage.

So, yeah, I understand it's not attractive to see the same team and driver dominating year after year, but I also think that proposed changes to the Formula again will not solve the issue. It will only increase it, as any change has the years before.

I honestly think F1 is on a great path. The big issues are being resolved.

We want closer racing, so the aero rules are being changed to accommodate that. Step one being next year with the new simplified front-wings and more will follow in the big revision in 2021.

Another issue is dirty track. With the way these tires lose rubber, it creates a clean path around the racing line while everything beyond is dirty and is a compromise. I liked your idea with the vacuum trucks. Personally, I think a solution should be found with the tires instead.

Lastly, there needs to be some form of budget cap to avoid big teams being able to overspend the little ones by that big of a margin. I am also hopeful that not changing the engine complexity will lead to a closer competition among the 4 engine manufacturers we have so that they are all closer.

[Just_a_fan]

Driving off the racing line has always been a case of going on to dirty tarmac, it's not just "these tyres" that have that problem. The current tyres are definitely better than the ones from a few years ago - remember how the marble field was so bad you couldn't have walked across it without treading on rubber bits?

[SectorOne]

I´ve been watching Formula 1 for quite some time and whenever i saw domination.
Williams, Ferrari, Red Bull etc i thought to myself that it was an impressive team of people who managed to build faster cars than anyone else.
With Mercedes i realize its not a team anymore, its a god damn machine we are talking about here.

Its almost scary how efficient they are, how fast they develop even though the cars have sometimes shown some clear deficiencies compared to other cars.
On top of that you have right now arguably the greatest driver on the grid who seems to fill in the gaps where Mercedes are at their weakest.

It seems like before if you had the fastest car that was enough to take a championship. But with Mercedes you´re gonna need more then just the fastest car to win.
I may eat my words(and hopefully i do) but i just dont see anything stopping this powerhouse anytime soon.

P.S. the moment it all clicked for me was Bahrain 2014. It was after the safety car i realized Mercedes was several years ahead of the competition.

[Jolle]

I´ve been watching Formula 1 for quite some time and whenever i saw domination.
Williams, Ferrari, Red Bull etc i thought to myself that it was an impressive team of people who managed to build faster cars than anyone else.
With Mercedes i realize its not a team anymore, its a god damn machine we are talking about here.

Its almost scary how efficient they are, how fast they develop even though the cars have sometimes shown some clear deficiencies compared to other cars.
On top of that you have right now arguably the greatest driver on the grid who seems to fill in the gaps where Mercedes are at their weakest.

It seems like before if you had the fastest car that was enough to take a championship. But with Mercedes you´re gonna need more then just the fastest car to win.
I may eat my words(and hopefully i do) but i just dont see anything stopping this powerhouse anytime soon.

P.S. the moment it all clicked for me was Bahrain 2014. It was after the safety car i realized Mercedes was several years ahead of the competition.

It happend before, McLaren from '84 all the way up to '91. Laura-Prost-Senna. Their whole operation was years ahead of everybody. The materials, the designers, the engines... even the way the team was funded. It took the one development they missed (active suspension) to stop their domination. But even that ended and still people look back at those years as some of the best in F1 (but always in retrospect)

[Just_a_fan]

Usually the top team is slowed by rule changes and this allows a change at the top. It's happened before on several occasions but Mercedes managed to win on both sides of a change that was, in reality, designed to help their competitors by making downforce and aero in general more important.

Interestingly, when one looks back, Ferrari won 8 out of 10 constructor's title from 1999 - 2008 (being stopped for two years by Renault but winning 6 in a row before that including 5 driver titles in a row, of course). RedBull won 4 on the bounce and now Mercedes have won 4 (and likely to be a 5th). So the reality is that Mercedes haven't been some amazing outlier of success - they are as successful as RedBull and but not yet as successful as Ferrari from the decade before RedBull. Before Ferrari's patch of dominance, Williams won 6 out of 8 years with 3 in a row. McLaren won 4 in a row 1988-91.

Since 1980, F1 has been dominated by 4 teams with three others having a brief success (Bennetton, Renault, Brawn). Williams, McLaren, Ferrari, RedBull all had periods of dominance. Now Mercedes have joined the party but the reality is that they are no "worse" than others have been.

People have short memories. I think, however, that the current outpourings are due mostly to the fact that favoured teams / drivers aren't currently the successful ones. Anyone who wasn't a Vettel/RedBull or Schumacher/Ferrari fan can understand that from the days of those pairings sweeping all before them.

This year the season has been closer between teams than for a number of years because Ferrari had caught / surpassed Mercedes at the start of the season. That Mercedes have sorted their car and made fewer mistakes is not the fault of Mercedes or F1 in general. Had Ferrari and Vettel been able to maintain their season then we'd still be looking at a closer race for the title.

If you want a closer season, petition for Ferrari / RedBull to do better. RedBull might, in the near future with their new engine. I have my doubts, however, as I think part of their issue with reliability is Newey's drive for tight bodywork causing temperature related failures. Ferrari? Well it's up to them, isn't it?

[digitalrurouni]

I think the more the boat gets rocked the more difficult it will become and really there is no guarantee that the Mercedes/Lewis combination will not win again. We already had a big regulation change since the hybrid era with the aero and look who's back on top again. I agree with the others that just throwing regulations out the window and making new ones will shake everything up but the cream will rise to the top. Mercedes has the man power and the driver power to ensure that. They also have quite the budget though it seems so do Red Bull and Ferrari.

MotoGP and WRC also have similar histories of being dominated by a rider/driver/machine combo. Sebastian Loeb in the Citroen and let's see Marc Marquez in recent history come to mind with the Honda. Ducati has caught up and have arguably the best bike on the grid but they don't have a Marc making the difference. It's the same here in F1.

I am totally not minding the F1 championship at all. This year's was phenomenal but now it's kind of lost it's tension because of how far Ferrari and Vettel have dropped behind. But this was a very good year for the overall championship and racing and the drama and pushing Merc to their limits. I predict next year will be even better. I am seeing Lewis Hamilton operate at an amazing level and I just revel in that fact. It's always amazing to see an athlete at the peak. I didn't mind the Red Bull domination at all with Vettel prior to this. I just am amazed constantly at how difficult it has to be ( I can't even imagine ) for an organization like say Honda Racing Corporation in MotoGP or Mercedes Petronas to operate and just dominate the way they have in their respective fields. Like people need to do case studies on these teams!!

Bottomline is yeah focus on making the spectacle better with better looking machinery and make the cars easier to follow. I think the cars look better than before for sure well except for the halo but the renderings of the future cars don't look bat AT ALL with the Halo. I think F1 is slowly going in the right direction and last year and this year is the proof.

[SectorOne]

It happend before, McLaren from '84 all the way up to '91. Laura-Prost-Senna. Their whole operation was years ahead of everybody. The materials, the designers, the engines... even the way the team was funded. It took the one development they missed (active suspension) to stop their domination. But even that ended and still people look back at those years as some of the best in F1 (but always in retrospect)

Yea could be, i was born in 88 so i dont know much about what happened before or during that period, it just seems Mercedes is in every single way better than other teams. The philosophy, the ability to immediately take on blame for a virtually fatal mistake without fear of getting fired but instead in some weird way get hailed for it is truly something special. Just compare to Ferrari, the´re already talking about the power-struggle between Arrivabene and Binotto whereas at Mercedes its ok to make mistakes, to learn, to improve, to become greater than you were.

Maybe thats a feature of any team that is dominating but from what i see it is something very special.


"Now Mercedes have joined the party but the reality is that they are no "worse" than others have been. "

No worse? you god damn right about that. They managed not only to engineer the engine formula but also managed to solve the aero problem (and tire problem) before their domination even started, Thats unreal when you think about it.

[Just_a_fan]

"Now Mercedes have joined the party but the reality is that they are no "worse" than others have been. "

No worse? you god damn right about that. They managed not only to engineer the engine formula but also managed to solve the aero problem (and tire problem) before their domination even started, Thats unreal when you think about it.

By "worse" I meant they haven't dominated anymore than others have previously. Not that they were no good as an orgainsation, etc.

[Chuckjr]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback to my original post. It's great have discussion about a typically volatile subject without it becoming a name calling, dick swinging contest. Thanks everyone for their maturity.

Wasn't at all offended Phil even if you had read only the first line. It was the irony that made me laugh, so thank you!

To answer the question posed to me, no I wouldn't bet my house on my ideas. It was simply a set of ideas proposed as possible solutions to the current situation. I got great feedback.

It seems most folks like the domination, and see it only as an achievement rather than a detriment. This opens an entirely new set of values unavailable to folks that don't like eras of dominance. It's good to see the other side, and it helps me understand why people here are so opinionated and absolute in their views.

I do wish the 1,000 hp was constant and not only available sometimes *and* limited within that time. I persist in my theory if the engines were 2,000 or more horse at all times, anytime, no mapping or batteries, they would be much harder to drive and it really would be useless coming up with more power.

Is it too horse and buggy to force the brake systems to be steel and not as effective by regulation and therefore force braking zones to increase? It seems zones are so small now, it compromises passing. But that question may be like asking to go back to H transmissions and foot clutches--ridiculous.

Cheers-

[strad]

Yea could be, i was born in 88 so i dont know much about what happened before or during that period

.
Please don't take this wrong but when I hear someone say this type of thing I can't help but wonder why if someone is a fan of something, doesn't have to be F1, they don't study the history of that thing.

[Just_a_fan]

I persist in my theory if the engines were 2,000 or more horse at all times, anytime, no mapping or batteries, they would be much harder to drive and it really would be useless coming up with more power.

2000hp? How on Earth would you get 2000hp from engines required to do several hundred miles? The highest output ever were well short of that figure and lasted 3 laps if you were lucky.

1000hp from a reasonably sized NA engine with decent longevity would be interesting. Forced Induction would be required and even then would be difficult.

[Just_a_fan]

Is it too horse and buggy to force the brake systems to be steel and not as effective by regulation and therefore force braking zones to increase? It seems zones are so small now, it compromises passing. But that question may be like asking to go back to H transmissions and foot clutches--ridiculous.

Again, downforce is the key to short braking distances, not carbon brakes.

Braking distance is limited by tyre grip, not brake material. Grip is increased by downforce. Reduce downforce, increase braking distances. The opposite applies, obviously.

What carbon brakes do is allow small brakes to handle the energy from the stops. They also reduce unsprung mass. Increase cooling and / or fit larger brakes (requiring large wheels, of course) and steel can still function. The reality is that a change to 18inch wheels could allow steel brakes that work adequately. With current downforce levels, however, braking distances won't change much.