F1 Zombies

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
After the "excitement" of the Hungarian GP I haven't yet plucked up the courage to watch the German race. I suspect I will watch it on fast forward tonight to find the occasional tid bit of excitement and to avoid the faux enthusiasm of Sky's commentary team telling me what a "classic" it was.

Lewis Hamilton's current domination of the sport, much like Vettel and Schumacher's before, is testimony to his brilliance as a driver but, apart from his die hard fans, probably doesn't do much for the rest of us. One car and one driver domination is not new, there have been similar situations even beyond those I have referred to.

But where does this leave me? I've watched the sport for more years than I care to admit and my enthusiasm has waxed and waned at various points. I watched the 5 years of the Red Baron and could marvel at his complete control over car, team and team mate and, when you dug a little into how he did what he did, the science involved.

The Vettel years offered a little more satisfaction as I quite like the guy. He has a very British sense of humour and to watch him win a race by destroying the field just on the first lap was astonishing. That did leave the remaining 1 hour an 58 minutes to fill but with his team mate being a bit of a no-Mark (get it, no-mark?) there was at least some action for the podium places. In reality this wasn't much compensation as the race result was a forgone conclusion and who really wants to sit down and watch a sporting event almost certainly knowing what the result is going to be?

And now we have the Mercedes era. Even from his first race in F1 it was clear Hamilton was going to be something special and this he has proven. Mercedes have made the best engine, the best car and have signed (probably) the best driver on the grid. They went around and collected the best engineers, with the exception of Adrian Newey, and many wondered how a team of super brains could all work together. Well it has and the result is I'm bored rigid.

It only takes two cars to make a motor race. I will never forget the San Marino GP of 1982 when only a handful of cars lined up on the grid, due to yet another political battle between the teams and the FIA, but Villeneuve and Pironi put on a show that few who have seen it will ever forget. The tragic events at the next race may have a significant impact as to why.

To help us along the first images of the 2017 tyres have just emerged. Big new boots of the same marshmallow rubber the drivers currently bitch about as having to spend more time managing than racing. The teams have decided on the changes to the technical regulations. What? What the hell do the teams have to do with the rules? Why would any of the teams want to change the rules in such a way that it gives away whatever advantage they think they have?

F1 cars are now so complex, both mechanically and aerodynamically, that we are told it's impossible for the drivers to pilot them without assistance from the boffins in the pit lane. What a nonsense the sport has created.

Some might argue that you cannot un-invent things. Well F1 cars haven't had active suspension, traction control or ABS brakes for quite sometime so it's perfectly feasible to make the teams give up things which are not to the sports benefit.

Moving back to the V8 or V10 days is not the answer. Hybrid technology is the way forward for the top classes of motor sport but does the driver really need to have all those dials and switches on the steering wheel? Do the front wings really need to have 123 different elements on them to make the car work? We have seen drivers lose bits of the front wing and still drive as fast, sometimes faster.

I know these are discussions which we have all had many times but I'm fed up with being force fed something by the FIA and FOM which isn't fit for purpose. The FIA should make the rules and the teams should build the cars around them, not be consulted on what they may or may not like. There should be more freedom for the engines, such as there is in LMP1 where you have a power equivalency formula on the combustion engine and the hybrid system. Multiple tyre manufacturers should be allowed to come in to the sport to supply as long as they agree to supply at least 50% of the grid and not to develop their rubber specifically for one car maker.

You may be wondering about the title of this thread. During qualifying for the German race I commented that watching F1 these days reminded me of the George A Romero film Dawn of the Dead where the zombies go to a shopping mall as what little is left of their brains makes them do the thing they were most used to doing. I'm very worried that I am becoming an F1 Zombie.
 
Well that's a small straw to cling to but we have to wait and see.

Fully agree on the FIA, just where is Jean Todt these days? Does he have an office in Stuttgart? As contemptible as J-M Balestre and Max Mosely were they did appear to be trying to resolve any problems with the sport, even if they didn't always succeed.
 
It only takes two cars to make a motor race. I will never forget the San Marino GP of 1982 when only a handful of cars lined up on the grid, due to yet another political battle between the teams and the FIA, but Villeneuve and Pironi put on a show that few who have seen it will ever forget.

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

But most of that was fake wasn't it? Gilles in his last interview (with N Roebuck) claimed that the four drivers from the two top-teams left on the grid (Renault and Ferrari) had had a rivate meeting before the race to discuss the situation (of only having 14 cars on the grid). Apparently they'd agreed to put on a bit of show to make it look a bit more entertaining, passing and re-passing each other. The "real" race was due to start on lap 30, at whichpoint they'd agreed to revert to their original grid positions and then start racing for real.

But Ferrari, who were borderline in fuel consumption at this track also had their pwn arrangement, which was that whoever had the lead should both Renaults retire, would keep it.
Prost retired on lap 2 and Arnoux on lap 31. Pironi howver kept attacking Villeneuve who even then thought Didier was merely putting on a bit of a show. The problem was that when Didier was in the lead they were lapping in the 1m 35s. When Gilles was in the lead, they were lapping in the 1m38 (to maintain the fuel-saving directive) Hence Gilles 's sense of betrayal when Didier passed him on the last lap.

So one way or the other most of the excitement at that race would have been artificial - according to Gilles' s interview.
 
Last edited:
I know you all think I'm a grumpy bastard, and you're probably right. Anyway, courtesy of Autosport here's some pie charts.

23231402_10215271046588647_3121455394605571356_n.jpg


23316407_10215271046828653_3093645543528279126_n.jpg
 
Just goes to show the 'Red Bull dominance era' people talk about really wasn't as bad as people say.

Be interesting to see some for the eras further back than thus. 2000 - 2005 would be a good one. 2006 - 2009 even better.

I'm crap at this sort of thing. Anyone got time to do it?
 
Just goes to show the 'Red Bull dominance era' people talk about really wasn't as bad as people say.
In fact the dominance from Mercedes is probably not just the car, but also the drivers. With Hamilton and Rosberg Mercedes had two pretty good drivers. I especially rate Rosberg higher than Webber. He would have won a lot more races at Red Bull than Webber.
 
Back
Top Bottom