The rule changes before the start of the 2009 season were the biggest seen in the sport for a long time and they were introduced with the aim of improving the spectacle. 4 years later and it's inconclusive.
2004-8 saw 4 different champions while 2009-13 has seen just 2 and had Brawn/Honda not fired a fluke in 2009, Vettel would have reeled off 5 championships in a row, looking at the 2009 championship, Vettel finished 14 points (in old money) ahead of the next non Brawn car in Webber and 35 points ahead of Hamilton in the first non Brawn/RBR car, obviously points totals would be a lot different if Brawn hadn't existed or their 2009 car hadn't hit the sweetspot but I think Red Bull would have walked both titles if that was the case
The new regulations had the aim of improving overtaking but in 2009 there were actually less overtakes than in 2006-8 and these days the uber high 1000+ overtakes are severely affected by the later additions of KERS/DRS/Pirelli tyres. While hindsight is a wonderful thing, looking back, was it a case of (at least on the whole) if it aint broke, dont fix it? Particularly as in 2007 and 2008 we had some of the closest title finishes in recent memory and the same would have been in 2006 if Schumacher hadn't suffered an engine failure in Japan.
Aesthetically the cars are a lot worse and the rule changes proved to be their own downfall with the noses, particularly last year with the stepped nose, compare that to the MP4-23 for example, certainly todays cars are minimalist in comparison to the cars of pre 2009.
It does seem ironic that a set of rule changes designed to improve racing and overtaking inadvertently led to the domination of a different team with Red Bull, would Vettel/Red Bull have won as many titles if the rules fundamentally stayed the same after 2008 with only the usual few tweaks? Who knows, but I wouldn't have seen Red Bull being title contenders in 2009 anyway.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a thread slagging off all of the rule changes implemented in the big shake up and there was good that came out of it, the reintroduction of slick tyres being the main one and I do think KERS does improve racing, it's just overkill when combined with the needless DRS and the extreme nature of the Pirelli tyres. It does seem like the rule changes have done a lot more harm than they did good and perhaps they tried to mend something too much that didn't need an overhaul instead of a few tweaks here and there
2004-8 saw 4 different champions while 2009-13 has seen just 2 and had Brawn/Honda not fired a fluke in 2009, Vettel would have reeled off 5 championships in a row, looking at the 2009 championship, Vettel finished 14 points (in old money) ahead of the next non Brawn car in Webber and 35 points ahead of Hamilton in the first non Brawn/RBR car, obviously points totals would be a lot different if Brawn hadn't existed or their 2009 car hadn't hit the sweetspot but I think Red Bull would have walked both titles if that was the case
The new regulations had the aim of improving overtaking but in 2009 there were actually less overtakes than in 2006-8 and these days the uber high 1000+ overtakes are severely affected by the later additions of KERS/DRS/Pirelli tyres. While hindsight is a wonderful thing, looking back, was it a case of (at least on the whole) if it aint broke, dont fix it? Particularly as in 2007 and 2008 we had some of the closest title finishes in recent memory and the same would have been in 2006 if Schumacher hadn't suffered an engine failure in Japan.
Aesthetically the cars are a lot worse and the rule changes proved to be their own downfall with the noses, particularly last year with the stepped nose, compare that to the MP4-23 for example, certainly todays cars are minimalist in comparison to the cars of pre 2009.
It does seem ironic that a set of rule changes designed to improve racing and overtaking inadvertently led to the domination of a different team with Red Bull, would Vettel/Red Bull have won as many titles if the rules fundamentally stayed the same after 2008 with only the usual few tweaks? Who knows, but I wouldn't have seen Red Bull being title contenders in 2009 anyway.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a thread slagging off all of the rule changes implemented in the big shake up and there was good that came out of it, the reintroduction of slick tyres being the main one and I do think KERS does improve racing, it's just overkill when combined with the needless DRS and the extreme nature of the Pirelli tyres. It does seem like the rule changes have done a lot more harm than they did good and perhaps they tried to mend something too much that didn't need an overhaul instead of a few tweaks here and there
.
