F1 IS BECOMING COMPETITIVE?

[Antony Snook]

A lot of people trash F1 as it often becomes a one or two horse show for the tittle. While looking at my bar chart of the drivers championship based on points i saw something odd. Usually the bar chart is a slope that sharpens at the top and curls and tightens up at the end. As drivers in the mid pack to back are closer on performance.
But the top 3 in red Verstappen, Leclerc, and Perez are causing a bump at the top making a three horse race for tittle with Perez as the dark horse. Yes the Red Bull is posably the best car but reliability issues have hurt them. Its not about power and performance reliability is vital. You can have the most Horse power on the grid but if it blows up in event what use is it.
So those who say F1 is not competative anough print this chart of points as of June 24th 2022 after Monaco

 

[jgf]

Competitive? With three out of twenty in contention? In my estimation at least six should be in contention to consider the series competitive, eight or more even better.

 

[BP]

Competitive? With three out of twenty in contention? In my estimation at least six should be in contention to consider the series competitive, eight or more even better.

I don't know...6 to 8 or more individuals competitive on a grid of 20 cars? Curious: can you name one year in F1 history where 6 to 8 drivers had a realistic shot at the title after 1/4 to 1/3 of the season completed?

I believe that would require:
3 teams with cars that have race winning pace in them across the entire season (possible), with 6 drivers of near equal skill (rarely happens since teams want to win the WCC first and not have their drivers fighting each other for #1 status, but ok) and no team orders enforced (impossible, as drivers usually know they're the #2 even if they don't admit it publicly or to themselves)....

...Or 5 or more teams having cars with race winning pace with at least 1 driver on each team skilled enough to extract that pace consistently (that's half the teams...highly unlikely for that many teams to get the formula so right that they're that closely matched in performance, even with the budget caps in place)...

...Or a whole lot of DNF's from the top 2 or 3 teams to allow midfield drivers to claim a few wins/podiums and claim the title (most unlikely scenario).

Indycar, IMSA and many other series are so close because they are, for the most part, spec series and/or car classes are BOP'd for closer racing...Formula 1 has never and will never be a spec series; it's a battle of manufacturers to keep their pace and development as high as possible throughout the season. It might not look close now, but 1 or 2 teams still have plenty of races and upgrades to attempt to catch up to the leaders. It's competitive, just in different ways IMO.

 

[jgf]

"Formula 1 has never and will never be a spec series"

Lol, if the regulations become any more draconian the teams will be handed a blueprint and told "build this car". Same with NASCARE and "Indycar".

 

[BP]

"Formula 1 has never and will never be a spec series"

Lol, if the regulations become any more draconian the teams will be handed a blueprint and told "build this car". Same with NASCARE and "Indycar".

Hmmm so (confused here)...do you want it to be "more draconian", which might have a chance at a more competitive field by making F1 essentially a spec series, which again is entirely against the premise of the series, plus the teams would never agree to that...

...Or you want less "draconian" and remain less competitive (by your standards)? F1 has a long history of cars running away with the title from the start because they found the loophole in the rules...so this isn't news tbh. Looking at the graph though, with 75% of the season left, couple updates planned and possible DNF's for whatever reason, I'd say the current top 5 or 6 still have a chance...

BTW I don't get how all of this is "Draconian", which means cruel, excessively harsh punishments that typically benefit the wealthier parties...if anything, the budget cap and rules help more than hurt the less financially-stable teams and there is substantially more design areas to be innovative than other series, hardly a punishment...just look at this year's machines, so many different ways to skin a cat, but some more successful than others.

 

[Antony Snook]

Competitive? With three out of twenty in contention? In my estimation at least six should be in contention to consider the series competitive, eight or more even better.

This is the pinnacle of motorsport bigger than Indycar. So you will not have many drivers at the top level. It is not a feeder series where you need a level playing field to help people mouve up to the next level. Because after F1 everything else is a step down. So the challenge to teams and drivers is the biggest. If that means F1 is a shark tank where you survive or get eaten so be it.

 

[Antony Snook]

I don't know...6 to 8 or more individuals competitive on a grid of 20 cars? Curious: can you name one year in F1 history where 6 to 8 drivers had a realistic shot at the title after 1/4 to 1/3 of the season completed?

I believe that would require:
3 teams with cars that have race winning pace in them across the entire season (possible), with 6 drivers of near equal skill (rarely happens since teams want to win the WCC first and not have their drivers fighting each other for #1 status, but ok) and no team orders enforced (impossible, as drivers usually know they're the #2 even if they don't admit it publicly or to themselves)....

...Or 5 or more teams having cars with race winning pace with at least 1 driver on each team skilled enough to extract that pace consistently (that's half the teams...highly unlikely for that many teams to get the formula so right that they're that closely matched in performance, even with the budget caps in place)...

...Or a whole lot of DNF's from the top 2 or 3 teams to allow midfield drivers to claim a few wins/podiums and claim the title (most unlikely scenario).

Indycar, IMSA and many other series are so close because they are, for the most part, spec series and/or car classes are BOP'd for closer racing...Formula 1 has never and will never be a spec series; it's a battle of manufacturers to keep their pace and development as high as possible throughout the season. It might not look close now, but 1 or 2 teams still have plenty of races and upgrades to attempt to catch up to the leaders. It's competitive, just in different ways IMO.

Yes spec racing will make it easyer on teams and drivers. But it takes something away from F1. Yes cars look the same but up close each team dose their own thing (Well apart from Aston Martin, they copy what other teams do well. But they are still behind) I have tried to follow Indycar and i don't like it at all. I don't like seeing the same chassis run around under a different paint job or engine. I like NASCAR whitch is spec in terms of manufacturers Chevorlet, Ford, Toyota. But you have to make your own calls on strategy and keep out of trouble, Plus its oval racing which is a new game in itself. But its not F1. But you get different drivers doing well each event. But its not Formula one level racing.

 

[Antony Snook]

"Formula 1 has never and will never be a spec series"

Lol, if the regulations become any more draconian the teams will be handed a blueprint and told "build this car". Same with NASCARE and "Indycar".

True I don't like spec racing. NASCAR i enjoy but it is always 2nd to F1.

 

[RedBull48]

Yes spec racing will make it easyer on teams and drivers. But it takes something away from F1. Yes cars look the same but up close each team dose their own thing (Well apart from Aston Martin, they copy what other teams do well. But they are still behind) I have tried to follow Indycar and i don't like it at all. I don't like seeing the same chassis run around under a different paint job or engine. I like NASCAR whitch is spec in terms of manufacturers Chevorlet, Ford, Toyota. But you have to make your own calls on strategy and keep out of trouble, Plus its oval racing which is a new game in itself. But its not F1. But you get different drivers doing well each event. But its not Formula one level racing.

Have you tried watching Indycar recently? I think Rodger Pensky has done a great job with the series since taking over. In the first 7 races this season there have been 6 different winners and a different pole sitter in each race. I will admit some of the tracks leave a bit to be desired but I believe it offers some great open wheel racing. The race in Detroit yesterday came down to a 1 second split on the last lap and there are often good strategy battles between refueling and tire strategy.

 

[Antony Snook]

Hmmm so (confused here)...do you want it to be "more draconian", which might have a chance at a more competitive field by making F1 essentially a spec series, which again is entirely against the premise of the series, plus the teams would never agree to that...

...Or you want less "draconian" and remain less competitive (by your standards)? F1 has a long history of cars running away with the title from the start because they found the loophole in the rules...so this isn't news tbh. Looking at the graph though, with 75% of the season left, couple updates planned and possible DNF's for whatever reason, I'd say the current top 5 or 6 still have a chance...

BTW I don't get how all of this is "Draconian", which means cruel, excessively harsh punishments that typically benefit the wealthier parties...if anything, the budget cap and rules help more than hurt the less financially-stable teams and there is substantially more design areas to be innovative than other series, hardly a punishment...just look at this year's machines, so many different ways to skin a cat, but some more successful than others.

Think about it Mercedes are constructor champions of last year. So they got less wind tunnel time. With a majour chainge in Airodynamic's and tires. So Mercedes pulled the short straw. But rulles beat up on them as they have money. Yes there is a salary cap but teams with money will cheat. Becuse money is lingering around. That can not be spent on car. If anything FIA stands for Ferrari International assistance. They did something with the engine and kept it under raps. They told the FIA and it was kept secret what was being done. You are just giving out fines that is chump chainge to a majour team. The small teams will survive as they have engines from big teams. There is also information shared with them. Maybe if the constructors championship was Mercedes verses Ferrari. But then Honda and Renault would loose out as you need the same number of cars per engine. This means somone in a small team running a Farrari would have to be competitive with points scored by all Ferrari powered teams to help Ferrari win tittle.

 

[jgf]

Hmmm so (confused here)...do you want it to be "more draconian"....., the budget cap and rules help more than hurt the less financially-stable teams and there is substantially more design areas to be innovative than other series, hardly a punishment...just look at this year's machines, so many different ways to skin a cat, but some more successful than others.

Just the opposite, I want the rules as lenient as possible, allowing the teams more leeway in construction. For example, with engines all that is needed is:
-max displacement
-normally aspirated or boosted
-what, if any, computer assists
-what, if any, "exotic" materials
And if one team wants a V16, another a flat 12, another a V8, fine, it's makes a more interesting season.

Same with body/chassis; specify dimensions, ground clearance, minimum weight, max downforce (including ground effects, if allowed). And, for my preferences, if it is an "open wheel" series, no part of the body or wings will extend past a line delineating the inner edge of the wheels on each side.

Budget caps benefit the more affluent, established teams. Limiting what a team can spend per season does not negate the years of R&D and experience those teams have already accumulated.

I have nothing against spec racer series when they were designed as such. IROC was a great series, just never had enough races; in SCCA SRF is one of the most popular (and is a lot of fun). But take exception when series that were once quite varied in design have, through increasingly stringent rules, become virtually spec racers. Many joke that NASCAR now stands for National Association of Spec Auto Racing, rules so tight they dictate the weight of pushrods and the thickness of gaskets; and when minor infractions of such rules determine the outcome of a championship it is ridiculous.

 

[jgf]

Have you tried watching Indycar recently? I think Rodger Pensky has done a great job with the series since taking over. In the first 7 races this season there have been 6 different winners and a different pole sitter in each race. I will admit some of the tracks leave a bit to be desired but I believe it offers some great open wheel racing. The race in Detroit yesterday came down to a 1 second split on the last lap and there are often good strategy battles between refueling and tire strategy.

Yes, they put on good races, most spec series do. But "Indycar" is a pale shadow of what it once was. Thirty years ago CART was considered worldwide as equivalent to F1; when the reigning F1 champion came to CART for two seasons it was seen as a sideways move. Can you picture the current F1 champion going to "Indycar"? It would be universally derided as a step down.

They bragged of their qualifying speeds at the IMS this year ...finally matching what CART was running 25 years ago. Many of the early IRL "stars" weren't even that interested in racing, they became millionaires then quit racing and invested their winnings. The series has yet to produce anyone the caliber of a Foyt, Unser, Mears, Andretti. And their races are now run under "nanny rules" nearly as bad as NASCARE; I caught the Road America race a year or two ago, tuned out when one car spun into the grass and they called a full course yellow ....on a 4.5 mile road course! Another road race was interrupted by rain (not a storm, just rain).

And the cars are uninspiring; some Brundlefly concoction, part Indycar part Canam, another square foot of material and they'll be tintops, a little more and they'll have front fenders to match the rear.

CART is gone, true Indycar is gone. We have a modernized, low budget, mid level, "open wheel" series that puts on decent races; but much like NASCAR, which it apparently wants to emulate, "the circus is in town". It is doubtful it will ever achieve the stature of thirty years ago.

 

[Antony Snook]

Just the opposite, I want the rules as lenient as possible, allowing the teams more leeway in construction. For example, with engines all that is needed is:
-max displacement
-normally aspirated or boosted
-what, if any, computer assists
-what, if any, "exotic" materials
And if one team wants a V16, another a flat 12, another a V8, fine, it's makes a more interesting season.

Same with body/chassis; specify dimensions, ground clearance, minimum weight, max downforce (including ground effects, if allowed). And, for my preferences, if it is an "open wheel" series, no part of the body or wings will extend past a line delineating the inner edge of the wheels on each side.

Budget caps benefit the more affluent, established teams. Limiting what a team can spend per season does not negate the years of R&D and experience those teams have already accumulated.

I have nothing against spec racer series when they were designed as such. IROC was a great series, just never had enough races; in SCCA SRF is one of the most popular (and is a lot of fun). But take exception when series that were once quite varied in design have, through increasingly stringent rules, become virtually spec racers. Many joke that NASCAR now stands for National Association of Spec Auto Racing, rules so tight they dictate the weight of pushrods and the thickness of gaskets; and when minor infractions of such rules determine the outcome of a championship it is ridiculous.

The number of cilinders dose not mater. The more cilinders you put in the more rules harm you. That is why V12 was a flat 12. In reality the best cars have smallest engines. Like a V8 Becuse it is lighter and more compact. The V12 would need a biger fuel tank and need a 3 stop race to finish the 200 mile distance. Now all the car manufacuters are looking into small engine cars on the road. So The F1 progam will not be able to mouve terchnology into road car market. So there will be no incentive to run a team. For egsample the 1st ABS brake system was used on a F1 car. So Technology is good for F1 as it is good for the road car market. Car companys like technology becuse it makes it hard for a car owner to do their own work on the car. Puting garage out of business. You are using technology right now on a PC or laptop on internet. You could not do that without technology. You would have to type it on a typewriter and mail it. Taking 2 weeks to get to the sender.

 

[Antony Snook]

This is not like taking a child to Baseball where evreyone gets a trophy. Even if they lost. If it was easy and half the field had a shot then a rival series could become the pinnacle of motorsport. Then INDY car will be #1. Some ignorant people in north America already think it is. We cant give in.

 

[jgf]

The number of cilinders dose not mater. .....

Directly, no. But my point being all three series' regulations specify not just the displacement but the type of engine; so instead of just "a 4L normally aspirated engine" it is "a 4L normally aspirated V10", thus removing all other engine options from the designers. There is no need for the specifications to dictate the type of engine, if , using that example, one team wants to build a 4L V10 and another a 4L V12 and another a 4L flat six it makes for a more interesting series.

 

[Antony Snook]

Directly, no. But my point being all three series' regulations specify not just the displacement but the type of engine; so instead of just "a 4L normally aspirated engine" it is "a 4L normally aspirated V10", thus removing all other engine options from the designers. There is no need for the specifications to dictate the type of engine, if , using that example, one team wants to build a 4L V10 and another a 4L V12 and another a 4L flat six it makes for a more interesting series.

Engine builders get into F1 as it is a test bed for car market. So the technolgy needs to be relevant to what is being done or planed to be done in road car market. And engine's are getting smaller as we know how to generate power with a smaller engine. And we need to look at alternative ways to run like Highbrid whitch will become full electric. This is good as gas comes from middle east for the most part. And the people raise and lower prices based on supply and demand. This makes the market volatile as price goes up and down. We still need oil fro rubber and foam that is a major part of our lives. At the end of the day why would say Ferrari build a V12 just for F1. If the road cars are runing something economic. They would pull out. There is no insentive for big engines on road cars the what they learn from F1's V12 is irelevant. Making F1 useless, and a waist of time. You have to move with the times or you will go backwards.

 

[Paul Glover]

Have you tried watching Indycar recently? I think Rodger Pensky has done a great job with the series since taking over. In the first 7 races this season there have been 6 different winners and a different pole sitter in each race. I will admit some of the tracks leave a bit to be desired but I believe it offers some great open wheel racing. The race in Detroit yesterday came down to a 1 second split on the last lap and there are often good strategy battles between refueling and tire strategy.

I'm loving Indycar at the moment.

 

[RedBull48]

I'm loving Indycar at the moment.

Same here, I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea but I find it offers great racing and in general it's a very competitive field.

 

[Gevatter]

I'm loving Indycar at the moment.

Is there somewhere online where I can watch Indycar free in Europe? The official NTT Series Youtube Channel seems to only have clips and old races.

 

[jgf]

Engine builders get into F1 as it is a test bed for car market. So the technolgy needs to be relevant to what is being done or planed to be done in road car market. ...

Theoretically. But how many road cars use a V-12 or a V-10? or any of the high tech innovations common in F1 engines? Much of this would be inefficient or not economical for road car use. And this supports my statement that F1 is near spec racer status. If you want technology relevant to the average road car specify a DOHC I-4 or V-6, and fuel economy and efficiency over raw power.

And hybrid technology is a dead end, it will be obsolete before economical. Just look at the hybrid aircraft of the late forties, piston engines for cruise and jet engines for speed; none made it past the test stage because before they could be perfected jet engines had become reliable and efficient.

But the best thing that could happen for F1 is to get rid of that dinosaur Ecclestone, he has been using the series as his private cash cow for forty years.