Merc, Lewis, and a plea for regulation sanity

[ScottB]

A budget cap may well reduce the gap to the rest, but, as it stands, my understanding is Ferrari have the largest budget, Red Bull aren't far off and, for a laugh, Mclaren are still spending like a front running team. A cap would be a restriction, like any number of other regulations are, it's what you can do within them that counts.

Mercedes appear to have excellent strength in depth, as others have observed, and good management. Mercedes may lose some of their edge, but then their rivals, who are currently failing to beat them spending comparable, even larger, amounts, would also be pegged back. Again, there's no guarantees. Indeed, of the front 3, Mercedes may well be best placed to succeed in that climate. Merc more than any other team, maybe in F1 history, doesn't seem to be about any one, or few, men; Red Bull or Williams we all think Adrian Newey, Ferrari in the 00's was Byrne and Brawn under Todt. Mclaren was Dennis and Gordon Murray etc. whereas this team has went through a number of 'big names' that we might have thought 'ah, he was the guy' and yet they've rolled onwards. Costa is about to go, a blow I'm sure, but a mortal one? Seems doubtful.

It's a combination, Merc have excellent technical skill and excellent management, Ferrari undoubtedly have the skill, but their management has been questionable for a while now, Red Bull arguably have both too, but have been hampered by engine issues. Hoping Ferrari sort their issues out and finding a way to let Honda close the gap on the other engines is probably the best and most reliable way of having more competition up the front.

[PlatinumZealot]

It' the people at Mercedes that make them who they are. Money is not all. toyota had the money. Honda had the money. Break those people up and Mercedes is a weaker team. Yeah Paddy and Bob Bell left and Aldo will too, but those guys are managers... Their job is to set foundation and resources and hire the good people. You can't just look at those guys alone. Break up the people beneath them as well.

Ferrari can win easily too. Take Lewis Hamilton away. If you cant get him.. Entice Pete Bonnington to go to Ferrari and leave Lewis at sea for a moment.. If you want to take an insidious approach.

[hurril]

Was it a problem that Usain Bolt was the fastest? Is there some other team that has earned to be on top more than Mercedes has?

[Gettingonabit]

Was it a problem that Usain Bolt was the fastest? Is there some other team that has earned to be on top more than Mercedes has?

It seems so obvious does it not, so much hot air to stifle excellence - sad!

[hurril]

Was it a problem that Usain Bolt was the fastest? Is there some other team that has earned to be on top more than Mercedes has?

It seems so obvious does it not, so much hot air to stifle excellence - sad!

No it does not.

[Andres125sx]

Ideas:
Fully computer controlled constantly adaptable suspensions with simple two element car wide wings. Utilize an aerodynamic based on 90% or more ground effect with a monster diffuser. This would do well to help level things aero wise and following cars. Ground effect based aero would allow for closer following to encourage passing without the need for the ridiculous DRS. I truly hate the DRS. Truly.

Agree, but once we´re into active suspensions we can go much further.

Add FIA sensors on suspensions to monitor DF, this will allow:
1- Modifying min height on the fly to compensate dirty air so the chasing car can run closer to the ground and increase DF when in dirty air. If not enough, the leading car can be forced to run higher too (automatically once the ECU find a noticeable difference in DF between two battling cars) so both cars perfomances can be more or less matched. Ok they will never be the same, but they will always be much much closer when compared to current scenario, allowing much better racing

2- This would open the door to a new set of rules, based on max DF produced instead of restricting the aerodinamic elements they can use. Let say max DF is 5000 points (whatever that means, it´s invented), teams are free to produce that DF with wathever elements they want. This would produce very different solutions and very different cars, recovering that marvelous era when cars could be distingished just by the silouette. With this set of rules aerodinamics will still be important as DF can be produced with more or less drag, so top teams will still perform better thanks to more efficient aerodinamics causing less drag, but while cornering they all will perform similar and gaps will be closer

I´m also assuming a fair money distribution, as IMHO current situation is just an scandal. I would even go to equal money distribution, top teams will always earn more money as sponsors will pay more to top teams, but budget teams will also receive some part of that money as they´re necessary for top teams to be top teams. A F1 with just Mercedes and Ferrari would probably be of no interest to Ferrari and Mercedes, so let´s distribute the money to all teams wich make this possible.


I can only think about one drawback, if dirty air is compensated, probably the leading car will be handicaped with a higher clearance meaning both cars will be slower, similar in perfomance, but slower to any other car in clean air. But that´s not different to the usual situation at any motorsport when two cars/bikes battling reduce their pace because closing doors to avoid a pass is slower to sticking to the racing line. So it would only increase a traditional consequence of racing, nothing serious

[siskue2005]

Ideas:
Fully computer controlled constantly adaptable suspensions with simple two element car wide wings. Utilize an aerodynamic based on 90% or more ground effect with a monster diffuser. This would do well to help level things aero wise and following cars. Ground effect based aero would allow for closer following to encourage passing without the need for the ridiculous DRS. I truly hate the DRS. Truly.

Agree, but once we´re into active suspensions we can go much further.

Add FIA sensors on suspensions to monitor DF, this will allow:
1- Modifying min height on the fly to compensate dirty air so the chasing car can run closer to the ground and increase DF when in dirty air. If not enough, the leading car can be forced to run higher too (automatically once the ECU find a noticeable difference in DF between two battling cars) so both cars perfomances can be more or less matched. Ok they will never be the same, but they will always be much much closer when compared to current scenario, allowing much better racing

so purposely hampering the lead car? how is that different from DRS?

[Andres125sx]

Ideas:
Fully computer controlled constantly adaptable suspensions with simple two element car wide wings. Utilize an aerodynamic based on 90% or more ground effect with a monster diffuser. This would do well to help level things aero wise and following cars. Ground effect based aero would allow for closer following to encourage passing without the need for the ridiculous DRS. I truly hate the DRS. Truly.

Agree, but once we´re into active suspensions we can go much further.

Add FIA sensors on suspensions to monitor DF, this will allow:
1- Modifying min height on the fly to compensate dirty air so the chasing car can run closer to the ground and increase DF when in dirty air. If not enough, the leading car can be forced to run higher too (automatically once the ECU find a noticeable difference in DF between two battling cars) so both cars perfomances can be more or less matched. Ok they will never be the same, but they will always be much much closer when compared to current scenario, allowing much better racing

so purposely hampering the lead car? how is that different from DRS?

DRS does not solve the disadvantage of dirty air while cornering, and causes a different disadvantage to the car in front (more drag, lower top speed), so instead of solving the problem, does cause a different one, both cars behave completely different so the chasing car can´t get close to the car in front in corners, and in the straights it´s much faster. If it´s able to reduce the difference the car in front gain while cornering, it will pass easily. No battle at all.

Increasing DF to the chasing car, and if necessary reducing DF to the leading car too, would cause both cars to behave very similar, even if one is in clean air and the other in dirty air, so it would be possible, or at least much easier than currently, to see on track battles again


Also, DRS is unfair at another aspect too, cars with more powerful PU take advantage of it much easier than cars with weaker PUs, so it´s a solution to dirty air (a common problem for all of them) wich only solve the problem to some cars of the grid. Obviously it will depend on the track, DRS zone lenght, etc., but Mercedes and Ferrari powered cars take advantage of DRS much easier (at more DRS zones) than Renault and Honda powered cars. If it´s a problem for the whole grid, the solution should work equally for the whole grid

[PlatinumZealot]

Please see my thread on "Fan boost" it solves all the following problems.

It even solves your marrriage problems too.

[Chuckjr]

After reading all the ideas posted--thanks everyone. I find I'm coming back to the same conclusion to help resolve domination and better reward cunning team strategy and gifted driver talent.

Is maybe the most effective, instantaneous, least chance to be overthought, fair for all drivers and teams, least influenced by big budgets -- by comparison to engine, or aero, or more complex computers and software -- solution simply to make two vastly different tire compounds?

No regulation to use both compounds in a race. No required tire stops. No tire limit use per weekend.

Compliment this change by vacuuming the track with trucks during yellow flags to completely clean the klag from outside the racing line, and open the race for late stage passing. (That's not even something that costs the teams anything and would have drastic affect on the race)

One soft compound that lasts 10-15 laps, and is significantly faster than the other compound--on the order of 2 maybe 4 seconds per lap faster. Then totally dead and useless -- a cliff drop off. Speed differentiation would allow for enough advantage to encourage passing and running a totally different style race.

One hard compound that never wears out, and can last a whole race on any track.

I know I mentioned this earlier it just seems that's the change that would make the greatest impact in a way I think many people would prefer.

[Jolle]

After reading all the ideas posted--thanks everyone. I find I'm coming back to the same conclusion to help resolve domination and better reward cunning team strategy and gifted driver talent.

Is maybe the most effective, instantaneous, least chance to be overthought, fair for all drivers and teams, least influenced by big budgets -- by comparison to engine, or aero, or more complex computers and software -- solution simply to make two vastly different tire compounds?

No regulation to use both compounds in a race. No required tire stops. No tire limit use per weekend.

Compliment this change by vacuuming the track with trucks during yellow flags to completely clean the klag from outside the racing line, and open the race for late stage passing. (That's not even something that costs the teams anything and would have drastic affect on the race)

One soft compound that lasts 10-15 laps, and is significantly faster than the other compound--on the order of 2 maybe 4 seconds per lap faster. Then totally dead and useless -- a cliff drop off. Speed differentiation would allow for enough advantage to encourage passing and running a totally different style race.

One hard compound that never wears out, and can last a whole race on any track.

I know I mentioned this earlier it just seems that's the change that would make the greatest impact in a way I think many people would prefer.

And how would that play out? Teams will calculate the best strategy and go with that. After a few races it will be clear what the way to go is and all will use this.
If you make the soft tire fast enough that teams will use it (else they will run the hard tire the whole race) you’ll get drivers who will try to get a lap or two extra out of them to win with one less stop.

[Chuckjr]

After reading all the ideas posted--thanks everyone. I find I'm coming back to the same conclusion to help resolve domination and better reward cunning team strategy and gifted driver talent.

Is maybe the most effective, instantaneous, least chance to be overthought, fair for all drivers and teams, least influenced by big budgets -- by comparison to engine, or aero, or more complex computers and software -- solution simply to make two vastly different tire compounds?

No regulation to use both compounds in a race. No required tire stops. No tire limit use per weekend.

Compliment this change by vacuuming the track with trucks during yellow flags to completely clean the klag from outside the racing line, and open the race for late stage passing. (That's not even something that costs the teams anything and would have drastic affect on the race)

One soft compound that lasts 10-15 laps, and is significantly faster than the other compound--on the order of 2 maybe 4 seconds per lap faster. Then totally dead and useless -- a cliff drop off. Speed differentiation would allow for enough advantage to encourage passing and running a totally different style race.

One hard compound that never wears out, and can last a whole race on any track.

I know I mentioned this earlier it just seems that's the change that would make the greatest impact in a way I think many people would prefer.

And how would that play out? Teams will calculate the best strategy and go with that. After a few races it will be clear what the way to go is and all will use this.
If you make the soft tire fast enough that teams will use it (else they will run the hard tire the whole race) you’ll get drivers who will try to get a lap or two extra out of them to win with one less stop.

Yes the idea is to make it possible for driver ability and team cunning to have a much more siginigicant role in attempting to curtail domination. Some drivers can make tires last much longer than others making similar time on the track. Some teams make better decisions than others in the heat of the race regardless of what everyone else is doing. These sorts of skill sets which are not money or team size dependent provide options that can have strong effect on the outcome of a race and even remove the strangle hold of a dominant team over a season.

[Fulcrum]

Draft systems are a useful, albeit slightly contrived, way of trying to level the playing field from year to year. Given the owners are American, I'm sure they would consider it. The NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB all use them. These systems work best in a completely different political and ownership landscape though:

- teams are franchises.
- teams have salary caps (e.g. NFL).
- drafts typically only apply to players.
- all of the NBA, NFL, NHL and MBL are national leagues.

So far, the only similar mechanism being discussed is a budget cap. Success ballast is a form of performance equalization, but it's more artificial, and less random, than the draft pick system.

Other sports have their "haves" and "have nots", but the extent of spread in F1 is extreme; and always has been I might add.

If the sport wants to create an environment where more teams can be competitive, greater parity of income distribution among the teams would need to be the first step. My guess is cost caps are far less fractious to implement though.

[NathanOlder]

I dont know anything about the draft systems in the American sports, but am I right in thinking the fresh group of young talent are picked by the teams in a set order and they then have to go play for that team?

[Fulcrum]

Sort of, but not quite. Finishing position from the prior year does play a role in determining the order in which you can pick. However, it is usually not purely deterministic, there is some element of randomness attached to the order in which teams can pick.

Often this is achieved with a weighted distribution. E.g. For the 1st pick, the last place team has a 15% chance, 2nd last has a 12% chance, etc... 1st place has a 5% chance. Subject to the number of teams, and the weighting algorithm they use. But it isn't guaranteed, at least not in all cases. Here is a link to the NBA version - I think! I'm not an expert, but this site provides a general idea; I can't vouch for it's accuracy as I'm not a follower of the NBA.

https://www.draftsite.com/nba/rules/

It's a lot more complicated than that depending on the sport, and it gets increasingly complicated when you consider that they usually allow a secondary market to develop for pick priority. I.e. Team A could be awarded the right to the 1st pick. Team A could choose to trade this pick to Team B for cash/an alternate pick/etc...

Part of the reason the draft is effective is because it not only provides a mechanism for partial equilization of teams, it also engages fans during periods when the season has concluded.

It's not really viable to F1 in direct application, but I think elements of it could enhance the sport. American sports are extremely successful so it would make sense to look at their model, even if only to dismiss it.