... it's the engine. I was mulling over a comment by Galahad in race chat the other day that the current driver line up is amongst the worst we have seen in recent years. From that I thought I would go off and look at the number of races, number of different winners, different winning constructors and pole winners since the start of the World Championship era in 1950. I have to admit that the early years are skewed by the Indy 500 races included in the Championship and I will go back and remove these at some point. But, back to the point, we all know that the car has a significant impact on how a driver performs but, similarly, a poor driver (no matter how good the car) is till going to be poor. However, I think what most of us want it competitive racing where the ability of the driver has more of an influence over the result. My take on the figures I have cobbled together is that the most competitive era in F1 was when the Cosworth engine was used by more teams which had an equalising effect on power. Some cars were better than others but the driver was more able to compensate and the best chassis were closer to one another. So what's my conclusion? The low points on the graph appear to coincide with significant changes in the engine regulations. So if F1 wants to generate closer, more competitive racing it needs to do something to equalise the engine power which then brings the difference in performance down to how well the designer and the driver can make the car work. This could be either with a period of stability in the engine regulations to allow the manufacturers to catch up or by putting in additional controls to limit the power and power delivery from the motor. I've attached the graph I pulled out and the spreadsheet should anyone want to play around with the data themselves.