Merc, Lewis, and a plea for regulation sanity

[Just_a_fan]

Show me a professional sport that is not entertaining, and I'll show you a sport that isn't professional.

F1 isn't always entertaining but it sure is professional...

[NathanOlder]

Golf is a great game, as for entertainment, watch the Ryder Cup (maybe not for Americans as Europe have been bossing it this century) its a great game to watch in that format. More people play golf in the world than they do these silly games like American Rugby or American Rounders.

[zac510]

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.

I think you must underestimate the engineering challenge of this. I'm not a tyre engineer but Pirelli have been trying to do almost exactly this for the last 8 seasons and they've only got close at a few times, which in my eyes demonstrates the difficulty of the task. It's a total moving goalpost with changing weather, track surfaces, car upgrades, engineers/drivers learning and so forth, on a set of compounds that are fixed before the season starts. In recent years since they've got actual testing with current cars they've improved a lot, however.

They also have to battle against the fact that when the teams misuse the tyres the PR always falls against the tyre maker; the teams criticise the maker and fans are upset because their driver lost out and we get accusations of bias. To protect the tyre maker F1 has fixed CoG and restrictions on tyre pressure and camber.

[hollus]

Is it sport, is it entertainment, is it both? Which comes first?

Shoot me down all you like, but F1 plays the "game" in a manner equivalent to Manchester United playing at home every game, with the wind behind their backs, with the opposition having to run uphill every half; not discounting the fact they already have the best personnel, best facilities, biggest stadiums, and biggest fan bases. All of their competitive advantages do not need to be slanted any further by making the opposition play balanced on 1 leg.

At every level of the sport, there is positive reinforcement for the "haves" over the "have-nots". Keep it as it is, and it will always be as lopsided as it is. Some would argue, quite rightly, that this is perfectly fair. The fastest should be the fastest, they earned it. You'd have difficulty arguing it makes the sport entertaining though, when competition is confined to 1 driver per team, and 2-3 teams on any given weekend.

Disparaging Americanization of the sport is fine, but you should question whether it would be more, or less, effective than the current system of administration, whereby teams at the back are simply bankruptcies waiting to happen. American teams in American sports are viable businesses. When someone sells up, there are queues of investors looking to get in the door. Like it or not, F1 should be making decisions that precipitate similar circumstances for their participants.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting enforcing "draft" rules in a literal sense. I'm simply advocating for considering some rules that operate in a similar manner, that make sense relative to the domain of F1.

F1 has always been like this, even the second ever year had teams running out of money and had to run to F2 rules to make up the grid.

The average lifespan of a team is 3 seasons. If a team makes it to four seasons then they are in credit with the sporting Gods.

Motorsport has always been expensive, there's two well known sayings attributed to motorsport- to make a small fortune in motorsport, start with a large one. Also, speed costs money, how fast do you want to go? A third which is usually attributed to second hand cars but equally applicable is "fast, reliable, cheap- pick any two".

This isn't just exclusive to F1, the same names dominate their respective sports- Audi & Porsche in sportscars, Rossi and Doohan before him in MotoGP/500s, Penske/Haas/Ganassi in Indycars. 20 years ago Fogarty on a Ducati was unstoppable in World Superbikes.

25 years ago Williams dominated F1, having won the WCC in 1986, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997. In the years they didn't win they were either second or third, with 1988 being the outlier in 7th. From 1979 to 2004 it's quicker to list the years they were not in the top 4 with just four instances.[/size]

Imagine if this topic was written in 2005 with people moaning that Williams, Mclaren and Ferrari are winning everything for the last 25 years and something should be done? Really what has changed other than its now Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull winning?

Sorry, I could not resist

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=665

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=873

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=857

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=815

[Just_a_fan]

Nice one Hollus.

[strad]

Show me a professional sport that is not entertaining, and I'll show you a sport that isn't professional.

Golf.

waste of a perfectly good walk

only if you don't play... especially if you play seriously.

[Gaz.]

Is it sport, is it entertainment, is it both? Which comes first?

Shoot me down all you like, but F1 plays the "game" in a manner equivalent to Manchester United playing at home every game, with the wind behind their backs, with the opposition having to run uphill every half; not discounting the fact they already have the best personnel, best facilities, biggest stadiums, and biggest fan bases. All of their competitive advantages do not need to be slanted any further by making the opposition play balanced on 1 leg.

At every level of the sport, there is positive reinforcement for the "haves" over the "have-nots". Keep it as it is, and it will always be as lopsided as it is. Some would argue, quite rightly, that this is perfectly fair. The fastest should be the fastest, they earned it. You'd have difficulty arguing it makes the sport entertaining though, when competition is confined to 1 driver per team, and 2-3 teams on any given weekend.

Disparaging Americanization of the sport is fine, but you should question whether it would be more, or less, effective than the current system of administration, whereby teams at the back are simply bankruptcies waiting to happen. American teams in American sports are viable businesses. When someone sells up, there are queues of investors looking to get in the door. Like it or not, F1 should be making decisions that precipitate similar circumstances for their participants.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting enforcing "draft" rules in a literal sense. I'm simply advocating for considering some rules that operate in a similar manner, that make sense relative to the domain of F1.

F1 has always been like this, even the second ever year had teams running out of money and had to run to F2 rules to make up the grid.

The average lifespan of a team is 3 seasons. If a team makes it to four seasons then they are in credit with the sporting Gods.

Motorsport has always been expensive, there's two well known sayings attributed to motorsport- to make a small fortune in motorsport, start with a large one. Also, speed costs money, how fast do you want to go? A third which is usually attributed to second hand cars but equally applicable is "fast, reliable, cheap- pick any two".

This isn't just exclusive to F1, the same names dominate their respective sports- Audi & Porsche in sportscars, Rossi and Doohan before him in MotoGP/500s, Penske/Haas/Ganassi in Indycars. 20 years ago Fogarty on a Ducati was unstoppable in World Superbikes.

25 years ago Williams dominated F1, having won the WCC in 1986, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997. In the years they didn't win they were either second or third, with 1988 being the outlier in 7th. From 1979 to 2004 it's quicker to list the years they were not in the top 4 with just four instances.[/size]

Imagine if this topic was written in 2005 with people moaning that Williams, Mclaren and Ferrari are winning everything for the last 25 years and something should be done? Really what has changed other than its now Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull winning?

Sorry, I could not resist

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=665

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=873

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=857

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=815

No need to apologise lol.

[Chuckjr]

Outstanding comments all. Thank you for your insight.

[PlatinumZealot]

It is sort of compliment that Hamilton gets mentioned with the likes of Michael schumacher isn't it?

[Ennis]

Is it sport, is it entertainment, is it both? Which comes first?

Shoot me down all you like, but F1 plays the "game" in a manner equivalent to Manchester United playing at home every game, with the wind behind their backs, with the opposition having to run uphill every half; not discounting the fact they already have the best personnel, best facilities, biggest stadiums, and biggest fan bases. All of their competitive advantages do not need to be slanted any further by making the opposition play balanced on 1 leg.

At every level of the sport, there is positive reinforcement for the "haves" over the "have-nots". Keep it as it is, and it will always be as lopsided as it is. Some would argue, quite rightly, that this is perfectly fair. The fastest should be the fastest, they earned it. You'd have difficulty arguing it makes the sport entertaining though, when competition is confined to 1 driver per team, and 2-3 teams on any given weekend.

Disparaging Americanization of the sport is fine, but you should question whether it would be more, or less, effective than the current system of administration, whereby teams at the back are simply bankruptcies waiting to happen. American teams in American sports are viable businesses. When someone sells up, there are queues of investors looking to get in the door. Like it or not, F1 should be making decisions that precipitate similar circumstances for their participants.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting enforcing "draft" rules in a literal sense. I'm simply advocating for considering some rules that operate in a similar manner, that make sense relative to the domain of F1.

Manchester United is a great example. They play in the English Premier League, who recognised that a more equal distribution of prize money would result in a better overall product, meaning the rich get more money overall.

Do you want £100m with your opponents getting £20m, or do you want to enhance the product and get £200m whilst your opponent gets £120m? This is a gross oversimplification of course, but its something that needs reviewed.

If you have a more equal distribution of prize money, you will generally find yourself with a tighter pack. The rich teams still have advantages - Mercedes have a stronger base than Williams, for example; Ferrari can still take advantage of their outstanding fanbase; Red Bull will still get a somewhat higher payment for finishing ahead of the rest - but the smaller teams at least have more of a fighting chance.

Thanks to the more equal distribution of money, you generally get a smaller gap from front to back, and a tighter pack leads to more on track events, which leads to a more marketable product, which leads to more income overall...