Join Grace and me as we discuss the Belgian GP investigation, Mercedes all-in with F1, the Haas F1 car and much more.
"You can't take F1 to America, you have to take America to F1."
This website is unofficial and is not associated in any way with the Formula 1 companies. F1, FORMULA ONE, FORMULA 1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trade marks of Formula One Licensing B.V. Additional information can be found at F1's website at www.formula1.com. We collect information about visitors who comment on Sites that use our Akismet anti-spam service. The information we collect depends on how the User sets up Akismet for the Site, but typically includes the commenter's IP address, user agent, referrer, and Site URL (along with other information directly provided by the commenter such as their name, username, email address, and the comment itself).
If 3 teams are fighting for the top, that means 6 cars have the potential to win. That’s 30% of the grid. So yea, I’m okay with that. Sure I’d like to see more teams battling at the sharp point, but realistically, that’s never been F1 racing because they never use identical machinery as they do in other racing series. Inherently there’ll always be winners and losers in the tech battle, and though you can try to make some pseudo battles with tire compounds, DRS, refueling, etc, in the end one or two teams will get it right, and the… Read more »
Indeed. Six cars from three teams capable but there was 10 cars that could win not long ago. More teams being competitive is what we want but as you say, that’s not always been the case and it is very expensive to do these days with hybrids.
Go back and listen to the podcasts from early 2012 ( when there was a different winner every race). There were lots of complaints that this wasn’t F1, as there was no predictability. At least we aren’t seeing the kind of dominance where a driver wins by a lap from his team mate, or is over a second quicker in qualifying than the next nearest team. The only reason there were so many winners in earlier decades is the reliability was so poor. Mercedes may be winning more than anyone else, but Ferrari had the faster car for much of… Read more »
The challenge with multiple winners from anywhere on the grid is, as you say, an issue unto itself that points to a different challenge the sport would/has faced. I recall seeing a lot of different winners early on in a season and it suggested that there was something all the teams were trying to get on top of with the regulations and there was a flourish of development to remedy. A series where anyone can win is more akin to a spec series and that is the usual backlash fans have for an “anyone can win” format. Having Merc, Ferrari… Read more »
If only 30% of a full grid is capable of winning a race, what’s the point of competition for the remaining 70%? No, I’m not okay with that. Because, at some point, that thought may permeate to the lesser teams to the point where they may look elsewhere for greener pastures.
I agree, it’s a fine line. I am not as focused on the percentage but right now, only works teams and Red Bull have a chance and RBR is a Honda team with a world-class design team and budget to accommodate. Macca, Haas, Racing point all need to up their game. The biggest loser is Renault.
Plus the disparity between the top three teams and everyone else is too great. The only chance an F1.5 team has to finish in the top six is if one of the top three teams has a DNF. The top three can start at the back of the grid and still finish in sixth on a regular basis, that doesn’t make for a competitive championship.
But then the only way to ensure that any team on the grid can win any given race is to give them identical machinery. Would F1 fans really be okay with that though? I find the tech race to be an interesting component of it, personally. though I agree that the current car is much too complicated.
Turn your phone off please. Fuck!
You asked for more F-bombs, happy to oblige ;-)