The Continuing Story of F1's Lopsided Competition

[Casper]

There has been a long running discussion of how to fix F1 but I don't want to go there as everyone has read the thread and put their own views forward.

I think the question should be asked another way, should the top teams be handicapped by either regulation or a capped spend or should the lower teams be assisted in some way to make them more competitive, or put another way do you slow one down or speed the other up. Would the competition suffer if the top teams were to lose lap time speed and be slowed down and how would a regulation change to bring them back to the field be implemented and not slow the midfield and back of the field teams at the same time.

Any regulation change is an impost and artificially shapes the competitive side of the sport but it seems to be accepted these days.

Mods, please delete if you think this belongs elsewhere.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Casper

There has been a long running discussion of how to fix F1 but I don't want to go there as everyone has read the thread and put their own views forward.

I think the question should be asked another way, should the top teams be handicapped by either regulation or a capped spend or should the lower teams be assisted in some way to make them more competitive, or put another way do you slow one down or speed the other up. Would the competition suffer if the top teams were to lose lap time speed and be slowed down and how would a regulation change to bring them back to the field be implemented and not slow the midfield and back of the field teams at the same time.

Any regulation change is an impost and artificially shapes the competitive side of the sport but it seems to be accepted these days.

Mods, please delete if you think this belongs elsewhere.

If they would just start by eliminating all performance bonusses. Teams race for honour and marketing purposes.

Performances bonusses only strongly amplify the teams differences. You have a big team with a lot of resources and big sponsers join because they know it will work together with the teams own resources and performance bonusses. Small teams don't have a winning chance so are left with the tiny sponsor deals.

In my eyes it would be ludricrous to introduce cost caps while performance bonusses are still in place. Infinately easier to make annulation of performance bonusses work compared to cost caps as well..

PS. Yeah I think this should go into one of the existing threads.

[Casper]

That does not address my question at all and I was concerned when I wrote it that it would not get read properly.

Is it desirable that the leading teams get slowed down or that the midfield/tailenders get assistance to speed up because that is basically the scenarios that are possible.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Casper

That does not address my question at all and I was concerned when I wrote it that it would not get read properly.

I think it does address the question. Money = performance.

I would hate to see teams being deliberately handicapped just because they are good. I stopped watching BTCC when they introduced success ballast (I've no idea how the series is run now). However F1 performance is so budget dependant that taking away the bonuses (or perhaps even reversing them) would help to level the playing field. It's a form of budget cap but unlike all the other suggestions, it is workable.

[Casper]

I am not asking any question on finances, you obviously can't read. Do you want the leaders slowed down or the midfield to come up to their level. Its a pretty simple question really.

[ApexTurtle]

Then I have a simple answer: no

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am not asking any question on finances

Originally Posted by Casper

should the top teams be handicapped by either regulation or a capped spend

If you are not asking about finances, then what do you mean by a 'capped spend'?

Originally Posted by Casper

should the top teams be handicapped by either regulation or a capped spend or should the lower teams be assisted in some way to make them more competitive, or put another way do you slow one down or speed the other up.

Neither - IMO F1 teams should be free to develop within the regulations, and any form of handicap system (which seems to be what you are implying) would only harm the sport.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Casper

Do you want the leaders slowed down or the midfield to come up to their level. Its a pretty simple question really.

It might be a simple question, but it doesn't really warrant an answer as simple as yes or no.

For the record, my leanings would be towards "no".

Team #1 (who happen to be Mercedes) are, as I've posted previously, running things just about perfectly right now. Their car is spot on, engine is spot on, drivers are spot on, strategists are rarely making mistakes, their marginal decision making almost always comes out on the beneficial side, aerodynamicists & designers & manufacturing staff are churning out splendidly engineered pieces of kit and they just go marching on and on.

Time was Team #1 was Ferrari; Red Bull had four years up there, McLaren and Williams between them dominated for the best part of 15 years only punctuated by Benetton. Domination is not a new phenomenon.

The common theme to all those periods of domination, including the current one? Money. McLaren, Williams and Ferrari all had masses of tobacco money. Red Bull are still largely funded by one of the world's richest single-product companies (although to a lesser extent than during their dominant period).

People still trot out the "we want overtaking" line and "the racing is crap", but the racing is actually closer now than it was when Williams and McLaren were out and out dominant - the "little" teams used to finish literally minutes down on the leaders having been lapped three, four or more times.

Did they moan? Maybe. Did "the fans" moan? I don't think they did.

I stand by what I've said many times: we collectively should be relishing the fact that there's one team who are currently getting everything right, at every level. Forcing them to get things wrong in the interests of some biased view that F1 is now less interesting than it used to be* is likely to make the money behind the team to leave, and others will follow them, and then F1 won't be F1 any more...


*perhaps media saturation is to blame for that, but that's a whole different subject.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I think it does address the question. Money = performance.

I would hate to see teams being deliberately handicapped just because they are good. I stopped watching BTCC when they introduced success ballast (I've no idea how the series is run now). However F1 performance is so budget dependant that taking away the bonuses (or perhaps even reversing them) would help to level the playing field. It's a form of budget cap but unlike all the other suggestions, it is workable.

All you are doing here is rewarding the "start and park" teams - refer NASCAR.
Williams would continue distributing any revenue to their shareholders and still not spend enough on the car to be any more competitive.

The answer to the opening posts' question is no. "Success ballast' in whatever form is a terrible idea, however reducing the areas where it is possible to spend money to make a huge difference would seem a good idea, e.g. standard single element front wings.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am not asking any question on finances, you obviously can't read. Do you want the leaders slowed down or the midfield to come up to their level. Its a pretty simple question really.

This is a rude tone to take with people, so re-think how you phrase your points on here. Thanks.

I would also add that your 'simple' question mentioned top teams being handicapped by either regulation or a capped spend and therefore did allude to finances.

Do you mean that the top teams should be handicapped once they have achieved success in some direct way (such as success ballast where success leads to a regulation-led handicap) or an indirect way (there are many of these possible ways and they include new technical regulations wiping out a technical advantage)?

For me, if it's direct, I don't like it at all. I would prefer regulations which make it more likely that the midfield will come up to the top level of their own accord. Basically, those who have mentioned restrictions on heavily aero-dependent parts are along my lines of thinking. Aero seems to be a black art that the top teams' budgets are more capable of maximising.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am not asking any question on finances, you obviously can't read. Do you want the leaders slowed down or the midfield to come up to their level. Its a pretty simple question really.

Only "yes" or "no" answers in the thread? If pushed into that corner. "No". Is my participation in this thread done?

In all seriousness, I am not sure how this is different than the "How to Fix F1?" thread other than the OP has specific rules on what we can talk about? Then as the thread topic evolves and gets out of his control (was it ever?) it is just another "what is wrong with F1" thread?

So while I question another thread on the same general topic I will try to answer the questions without the bounds of only providing "yes/no" answers.

Originally Posted by Casper

I think the question should be asked another way, should the top teams be handicapped by either regulation or a capped spend or should the lower teams be assisted in some way to make them more competitive, or put another way do you slow one down or speed the other up.

Why does it have to be either or? I actually am not sure what "top teams be handicapped..." means. Especially with respect to the regulation side. Are you saying... performance penalty such as adding weight to the winning cars or some other BoP method? I am not sure how you write rules to handicap top teams short of something like that. Unless you are talking about your second part which is to cap spending. That will hurt those who will see their budget shrink.

I would say I am not in favor of things that directly penalize winners such as BoP style adjustments. I am very much on record for advocating cost caps, more equitable revenue distribution, less "special cases" such as Ferrari payments, vetos, etc.

Originally Posted by Casper

Would the competition suffer if the top teams were to lose lap time speed and be slowed down and how would a regulation change to bring them back to the field be implemented and not slow the midfield and back of the field teams at the same time.

As to competition suffering. If everyone is playing by the same rules, I can't see it hurting competition. If you implement BoP style stuff, then the competition moves more away from the track and into the back room. I personally prefer watching it on track.

You speak of "speed" as if the desire is to slow down the front runners and speed up the back of the field. I don't view this as "hold someone back" or "speed someone up". I view it as trying to remove some of the disparity of how the sport is organized and then let the chips fall as they may (i.e. competition). The pecking order may be the same as before! But... the idea is that it should tighten the field and the minnows may not be purely focusing on survival. Or at least... make it hard to dominate via the size of your budget.

And before someone mentions it... Yes, having a budget doesn't guarantee success, but boy it sure does help! I think Mercedes is successful for two reasons. First they are well funded and second they are well managed. If their budget was capped and continue to have excellent management, they still very well may win on a regular basis. Some like to pick on Ferrari for "being typical Ferrari". So lets assume Ferrari is poorly managed. If they are capped and remain poorly managed, they may drop back. Someone else might rise up and challenge (and even surpass) Mercedes. Who knows!

Richard

[MGDavid]

To the OP - No.

[Aysedasi]

No for me too.

[Alan52]

No.
However I fear for the future of F1 if the Mercedes dominance continues.Notice that most of the grandstands at Catalunya we’re near deserted and the rest half full.Suspect this is happening to tv audiences as well.
6 years at this level of dominance is unprecedented in F1 and this year is the most lopsided yet.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Alan52

6 years at this level of dominance is unprecedented in F1 and this year is the most lopsided yet.

For comparison, I have looked at the Ferrari run from '99, and compared it to the current Mercedes run.

From '99, the Ferrari margin in the WCC was 103%, 112%, 175%, 240%, 110%, 220%.
The current Mercedes margin reads 173%, 164%, 163%, 128%, 115% and 179%.

What does this suggest? The Ferrari dominance was more varied, but at times exceeded more than 200% of their nearest rival.
Mercedes' dominance is more consistent, but before 2019 has gradually declined.

So far, the dominance of 2019 is not as lopsided as times during the Ferrari run. After 5 races of the 2004 season, Ferrari's WCC standing was 256% of their nearest rival.

[Kempi]

Did you adjust this for the changed points scheme? In 2004 2nd place points were only 60% of the first place points, in 2019 it is 72%.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Greem

I stand by what I've said many times: we collectively should be relishing the fact that there's one team who are currently getting everything right, at every level. Forcing them to get things wrong in the interests of some biased view that F1 is now less interesting than it used to be* is likely to make the money behind the team to leave, and others will follow them, and then F1 won't be F1 any more...

Personally I reckon this is a false argument that is dragged into the discussion far too often.

I almost never see people say that competition used to be much closer. Just that having it closer would make F1 more interesting NOW. Making it live up to it's potential more in a world where a lot more things fight for people's attention and interest.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Did you adjust this for the changed points scheme? In 2004 2nd place points were only 60% of the first place points, in 2019 it is 72%.

Not into that much detail. Any attempts to apply current points systems onto previous results will always have flaws, and I accept that this exists in my post regarding the level of dominance.

My point was more that the current Mercedes dominance is not that exceptional, when you compare even just the last 20 years of F1. But it does appear to be more consistent, than the apparent erratic level of advantage that Ferrari had. 6 years of dominance is not unprecedented though, as was being claimed.

[Anyopenroad]

As I posted on another thread (indicating that there is indeed overlap with other discussions) I think that two issues get conflated here.

Issue 1:
Three teams are miles ahead of the rest. This is a problem for the sport and is down to money, so sorting that out requires radical action on budgets and revenue distribution.

Issue 2:
Of the three top teams, Mercedes is dominant. This isn't a problem with/for/of the sport, it is a problem with/of/for Ferrari and Red Bull. There is nothing stopping those two teams competing with Mercedes other than their own differing level of competence in pretty much every aspect of racing an F1 car.

I am absolutely, totally opposed to punishing success. Mercedes are an awesome, brilliant, incredible sporting force, due nothing but applause and celebration. It is a privilege to watch them. It's not their fault Ferrari and Red Bull can't keep up (metaphorically and literally). The relative flaws of Mercedes' competitors should not be compensated for by holding back the team which has done and continues to do a better job.

[wolfhound]

Out side the top three the rest (excluding Williams) are very close together and there seems to be a different team at the top each race with a second or so covering that section of the grid. If we could get all teams that close together then we should have some interesting races.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Personally I reckon this is a false argument that is dragged into the discussion far too often.

I almost never see people say that competition used to be much closer. Just that having it closer would make F1 more interesting NOW. Making it live up to it's potential more in a world where a lot more things fight for people's attention and interest.

Every single survey about F1 in recent years has resulted in "bring back overtaking" and "it was better in the year XXXX" without any hard facts or statistics to back up the assertions. Hell, we ended up with DRS as a response to endless "there isn't enough overtaking" comments in the media.

Your latter comment is a salient point, though: lots of things in the worlds of the arts, entertainments and sport are fighting for people's attention, interest and money. Consumers of such things have decreasing attention spans, perhaps in part because there's so much stuff vying for their attention. F1 races are long, the season is long, and it isn't necessarily going to deliver thunderingly exciting entertainment every minute of every race in every year...

So for the sake of argument: what is the "potential" of Formula 1?

[Kempi]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Not into that much detail. Any attempts to apply current points systems onto previous results will always have flaws, and I accept that this exists in my post regarding the level of dominance.

My point was more that the current Mercedes dominance is not that exceptional, when you compare even just the last 20 years of F1. But it does appear to be more consistent, than the apparent erratic level of advantage that Ferrari had. 6 years of dominance is not unprecedented though, as was being claimed.

Thanks. I agree it would be flawed, was just asking for better understanding.

Mercedes is passing Ferrari's level of dominance now. Ferrari's dominance was considered "worse" because they clearly favored one driver, other than Mercedes. Even though Mercedes uses team orders as ruthlessly as Ferrari back then, Mercedes is looked at a little more leniently for it nowadays because they let the drivers somewhat race.

During the MSC era the regulating body tried to do more about Ferrari's dominance, especially when they moved to the "no change of tires" rule. That is missing right now which might mean that Mercedes will stay dominant longer. But as I said back then (supported by team bias ), I agree with those now that say the other teams need to get their act together instead of crying for curbing Mercedes. It is a sport and a competition. Those who do their job better than others should reap the benefits.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

So for the sake of argument: what is the "potential" of Formula 1?

Writing this post as thoughts come to mind - so please forgive any ramblings.

One thing that has been raised has been the closeness or competitiveness of the middle runners. Surely this shows that the current F1 regime can produce healthy competition and close racing. The outliers are at the very back, and the front of the grid. How could this closeness be brought to the front of the grid?

One sport that comes to mind:
A sport where a controlled number of teams compete for a league title each year,
that has no relegation or promotion,
where certain teams have had dominant periods,
NFL.

Could F1 learn something from the NFL?

Fund distribution. All teams in the NFL receive an equal allocation from the league. This could be replicated in F1.

Separate divisions/conferences. Splitting teams up into small groups may not be feasible, but dividing the teams into two conferences may be possible? Imagine a scenario where race weekends alternate between two sets of teams. Teams would have less races per year, reducing the fatigue. More venues could host races. Locations could even hold more than one race a season.
Once the two conferences have reached their conclusion, a final round would see the top three teams from each conference compete for the title(s).

Draft. The driver roster is a lot smaller in F1 than NFL, but I still think there is scope here. At the end of each season, teams are not able to retain their drivers. All drivers who are eligible for F1 (including current drivers and rookies) are available for selection. The teams then receive draft picks based on their previous season's record. So currently the draft would be in two rounds, with Williams having first pick. This could even be expanded in the terms of 3-car teams, with the smaller grids at each event. An additional factor would be the knowledge of other cars that may be taken by drivers to other teams.

All just a pipe-dream, but if F1 is going to change significantly, then extreme measures must be at least put on the table.