Big Money Or Championship Wins?

[Ruslan]

Well, McLaren has significant outside money from middle eastern investors. They are the 4th or 5th highest budgeted team in the field. In the long run $$$ = speed. They will be back. If the budget cap comes in (which I understand is still the case), then Mercedes/Ferrari/Red Bull will loose their budget advantage. We shall see how good the engineering and team management is with everyone having the same budget.

I had also kind of felt that Hulkenburg had reached his "natural level" but suddenly saw him pick up the pace once he went to Renault. He has managed to consistently outqualify Sainz, who was not that far off from Verstappen when they were teammates. It has renewed my faith in the Hulk. Suspect he will not make it to a top team, but I can think of two Finnish drivers in the top teams that he is at least as good as now.

Perez has always belonged with a top team and was in one (McLaren) for a year. He apparently is a complete pain to work with, so much so that McLaren replaced him with Magnussen, which was a step down. Perez has consistently outperformed his teammates, many who were quite good (Kobayashi, Hulkenburg, Ocon). Jenson Button is the only team mate that had a better season than him, and that was for the year at McLaren that did not work out. I don't think he has reached his "natural level." Put him in a top team, in the right environment, and with the right personality mix (Perez is still kind of a jerk), and I think he would be winning races.

The real problem with F1 is that there are only three competitive teams and this has been the case for most of six seasons (no other team but those three has even won a race since McLaren did in 2012 and Lotus [now Renault] won the first race of 2013). This results in lot of deserving talent never having a chance at driving a winning car, because there are only six winning seats available and sometimes some of these seats are reserved for #2 drivers.

Formula One has really been a competitive failure for the last six years. It is embarrassing how lop-sided the competition has been.

 

[Clay]

Suspect he will not make it to a top team, but I can think of two Finnish drivers in the top teams that he is at least as good as now.

I can only think of one, unless the other is also as good as Hamilton.

The real problem with F1 is that there are only three competitive teams

That's good news isn't it though, after having Mercedes dominante from 2014- 2016 like no other team has before.

Formula One has really been a competitive failure for the last six years.

No it hasn't since last year. Three teams challenging for wins is absolutely fine and not regular occurrence looking at the past 20 years and apart from that it's mixed bag behind the top three; the midfield, except for Williams, is highly competitive.

 

[siffert_fan]

Three teams may have been "challenging" last year, but Mercedes had THREE TIMES as many wins as their nearest "competitor". Their dominance was still such that I was wondering if the whole season wasn't stage-managed by Merc to give the illusion of greater competition than there actually was.

 

[Ruslan]

I can only think of one, unless the other is also as good as Hamilton.


That's good news isn't it though, after having Mercedes dominante from 2014- 2016 like no other team has before.


No it hasn't since last year. Three teams challenging for wins is absolutely fine and not regular occurrence looking at the past 20 years and apart from that it's mixed bag behind the top three; the midfield, except for Williams, is highly competitive.

I tend to look at the early 1980s, when we had seven teams that would win a race or two every season or every other season. If for example, team A is good for a couple of seasons, and then team G can get in a couple of wins, and then teams B, C, D, E and F all have their time at bat...then everyone has a chance and most drivers don't have a wasted career. Now.....you have to be on one of only three teams, otherwise you are just making up the numbers. You can't go to a promising team, work with it for a couple of years and then you will have your chance......as basically no one else can get into the winners circle. I hope this will all change with the budget cap.

 

[Ruslan]

Three teams may have been "challenging" last year, but Mercedes had THREE TIMES as many wins as their nearest "competitor". Their dominance was still such that I was wondering if the whole season wasn't stage-managed by Merc to give the illusion of greater competition than there actually was.

I am not a conspiracy theorist (as most conspiracies are wrong), but I do get the impression that the last couple of seasons the Mercedes has started with a car that was "good enough" and had a backlog of improvements that they were ready to implement in mid-season. The end result might look like what you are claiming.

 

[Clay]

I tend to look at the early 1980s, when we had seven teams that would win a race or two every season or every other season. If for example, team A is good for a couple of seasons, and then team G can get in a couple of wins, and then teams B, C, D, E and F all have their time at bat...then everyone has a chance and most drivers don't have a wasted career. Now.....you have to be on one of only three teams, otherwise you are just making up the numbers. You can't go to a promising team, work with it for a couple of years and then you will have your chance......as basically no one else can get into the winners circle. I hope this will all change with the budget cap.

You should mention though that multiple race winners per season were mainly the result of a large number of technical failures. That levels the playing field for potential race winners but it doesn't make the racing as such more exciting. Even then there were plenty of teams who weren't even close to challenging for a win.
The racing is close between the top three and the midfield currently.

 

[Il_leone]

I don't think Ricciardo has a choice but to sign for Red Bull because it is a competitive car and gives him the chance of being at the front now

Judging by the crash Max had the other day..it looks like Max still has a lot of learning before he is defacto No 1

Mclaren are in a real mess and if Zak Brown is admitting that the size of the task is much greater than unless you're bold or brave then that is the team to avoid. The performance of the Toro Rosso Honda proves that the Honda engine is not as awful as we all thought. They should have got Ross Brawn when he was available

--------------


Now looking at other drivers

Hulkenberg... he is destined to not sign for one of the top teams and must be unfortunate but at Renault he's been best of the rest on most occasions this season and has lead the team well. Perhaps if Team Enstone improve again next season he might be able to show his abilities

Perez - Went to Mclaren too early in his career and failed to impress and has been showing well at Force India ...so why has not he been signed up by a top team?

- he rejected the offer from Renault because he thought they were in a mess but he was not going anywhere with Force India in terms of being world champion and fighting for wins. The offer went to Hulkenberg who saw the long term potential of Renault. Now Force India are struggling more than I thought with the money troubles relating to their owners and talk of the team being put up for sale is not helping either

- He harbours the Ferrari drive hoping to use Telmex connections to get the seat but so far Ferrari have stuck with Raikkonen because they feel despite Kimi getting slower there is not any better replacements and probably Vettel having some input. So I think he definitely will not get a chance at a top seat and the best he could hope for is a move to Haas

 

[Ruslan]

You should mention though that multiple race winners per season were mainly the result of a large number of technical failures. That levels the playing field for potential race winners but it doesn't make the racing as such more exciting. Even then there were plenty of teams who weren't even close to challenging for a win.
The racing is close between the top three and the midfield currently.

Lets see....up until from 1950-1987 (38 years), never did a car/driver combination win the championship more than two years in a row, and the only driver who won the championship more than twice in row did it using three different cars (Maserati, Mercedes, Ferrari). Since 1987 we started to see extended periods of team dominance, with it being more often than not since 2000, and it being the only story since 2010.:

1988-1991 = McLaren/Senna (3)/Prost (1)
2000-2005 = Ferrari/Schumacher (5)
2010-2013 = Red Bull/Vettel (4)
2014-2017 = Mercedes/Hamilton (3)/Rosberg (1)

 

[siffert_fan]

IMO, the way to tell if the dominance is mostly due to the car, rather than the drivers, is by the number of 1-2 finishes by a team. Excluding the McLaren situation with Prost and Senna, who were undeniably the best drivers of that time, 1-2 finishes frequently show the superiority of the car, since most teams have a #2 driver, of decidedly lesser ability than any team's number 1.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

The performance of the Toro Rosso Honda proves that the Honda engine is not as awful as we all thought.

today I've seen this article and it doesn't really look like the Honda engine is as good as I thought that it had become, if they lose 9 tenths of a second per lap just on the engine it means that it will be very hard for RBR to win any race next year, I couldn't understand why Ricciardo seemed so reluctant to sign a new contract with them until I saw that article. If that is the case he probably knows that his chances of winning the WDC are now very very slim, he's not getting any younger. I can only say that it's a pity that he can't drive for either Ferrari or Mercedes, IMHO he deserves it much more that Bottas and Kimi, and the fans deserve some proper in-team fights as well, something that we'll never get from Bottas and Kimi in their respective cars

 

[Titch]

I couldn’t agree more Publius Cornelius Scipio

 

[Il_leone]

The problem with Red Bull is they aint willing to pay the same salary as Verstappen so it seems

 

[Clay]

Lets see....up until from 1950-1987 (38 years), never did a car/driver combination win the championship more than two years in a row, and the only driver who won the championship more than twice in row did it using three different cars (Maserati, Mercedes, Ferrari). Since 1987 we started to see extended periods of team dominance, with it being more often than not since 2000, and it being the only story since 2010.:

1988-1991 = McLaren/Senna (3)/Prost (1)
2000-2005 = Ferrari/Schumacher (5)
2010-2013 = Red Bull/Vettel (4)
2014-2017 = Mercedes/Hamilton (3)/Rosberg (1)

Ferrari won the constructors three times in a row from 1975- 1977. Lotus were always close to winning the championship from 1963 onwards until 1970. It may be that not many teams had a long run at the top as in recent years but the previous champions have then always been there or thereabouts.
Not much has changed but we tend to glorify the past.

 

[Angel]

The problem with Red Bull is they aint willing to pay the same salary as Verstappen so it seems

Plus they're more likely to favour Verstappen if push comes to shove and Ricciardo knows it. Max is their future, can't feel good for him as he has no other realistic option to take it seems.

 

[Titch]

The same driver winning race after race, started with Schumacher, initially we were full of admiration, which rapidly turned to boredom. Since then it seems that there is always a dominant driver in the dominant team, and the pattern repeats. F1 needs to address the issue of dominant teams (money), and, perhaps all drivers should be paid the same, exactly the same, so that all teams got the same opportunity to hire all of the drivers.

 

[Il_leone]

Titch unfortunately the big boys will always offer more to get the best and put in resources to be the best and even tailor the rules to suit them

 

[Ruslan]

Ferrari won the constructors three times in a row from 1975- 1977. Lotus were always close to winning the championship from 1963 onwards until 1970. It may be that not many teams had a long run at the top as in recent years but the previous champions have then always been there or thereabouts.
Not much has changed but we tend to glorify the past.

Sorry, things have changed.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

The same driver winning race after race, started with Schumacher, initially we were full of admiration, which rapidly turned to boredom. Since then it seems that there is always a dominant driver in the dominant team, and the pattern repeats. F1 needs to address the issue of dominant teams (money), and, perhaps all drivers should be paid the same, exactly the same, so that all teams got the same opportunity to hire all of the drivers.

I'm not sure that this is only about money, we have seen in the past terams who invested huge sums of money but they never got much in terms of results (to name a few, Toyota, Mercedes before the had the option of writing the rules to their liking, Honda, etc), I think that part of the problem is that it is very difficult to see some "revolutionary" development in F1 these days, it's always an evolution rather than a revolution, so if you're the dominant team chances are that while the others might improve you are still going to improve so the delta in performance might close but it is still there.

Obviously a big budget is essential and that limits the number of teams that can come up with a really good car, but if you have rules that in essence restrict how a car will look like and what its dimentions and weight distribution will be no one will have the chance to break the mould and turn up at a race with something like the fan at the back of the Brabhams in 1978, for example, or Renault introducing the turbo when everyone else was using naturally aspired engines.

I understand why they have such stringent rules, they have to try to limit the speed of the cars and try to have some sort of level playing field, let us imagine for a second that they banned most aero devices or they introduced a standard front and rear wing for everyone and deregulated most of the rest (not the engines though, for safety reasons) I'm sure that ingenuity could regain some space versus budgets and state of the art facilities

 

[Ruslan]

...let us imagine for a second that they banned most aero devices or they introduced a standard front and rear wing for everyone and deregulated most of the rest (not the engines though, for safety reasons) I'm sure that ingenuity could regain some space versus budgets and state of the art facilities

Now you are starting to sound like me.

Although I think you need to put in budget caps before you make any major changes in regulations.

 

[siffert_fan]

Ferrari won the constructors three times in a row from 1975- 1977. Lotus were always close to winning the championship from 1963 onwards until 1970. It may be that not many teams had a long run at the top as in recent years but the previous champions have then always been there or thereabouts.
Not much has changed but we tend to glorify the past.

Actually, there has been a HUGE change: the advantage is now institutionalized thru the rules, which was never the case before.