Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's interesting to see contradictory arguments used to reach the sane conclusion. Yesterday a poster was heralding the meritocricy of F1 where the fastest should be at the front. That's precisely the situation we have right now. The Hamilton-Mercedes is the fastest driver-car combo and they are odds on to qualify on pole win every individual race.

I don't necessarily agree that they should win every single race (because it's boring) but I go think the fastest car-driver combo should score the most points and win the championship over the course of a season.

I agree that the 2022 changes should help. The budget caps will take years to fully take effect. But there's absolutely no reason to not try reverse grids in the meantime. You could write the script for next season. Hint: Hamilton dominates and wins the championship by such a margin that he could not bother driving the last 5 races.

Also, did you think Gasley winning in Monza cheapened bring a GP winner? I think it was heralded as a great relief from the meritocracy of Hamilton winning unless there's a penalty or mechanical failure.

The 2022 rule changes were originally meant to be for 2021, a little thing called Covid got in the way. That's no reason to change a fundamental part of the sport on a whim. I am not against change, but it has to sensible change and done for the right reasons. Kneejerk reactions and short term fixes are not sensible.

And on the contrary, Gasly's win is all the more valuable because it was achieved in the current formula. He delivered when it mattered and earned the victory. That's meritocracy, that's Formula 1

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

The 2022 rule changes were originally meant to be for 2021, a little thing called Covid got in the way. That's no reason to change a fundamental part of the sport on a whim. I am not against change, but it has to sensible change and done for the right reasons. Kneejerk reactions and short term fixes are not sensible.

And on the contrary, Gasly's win is all the more valuable because it was achieved in the current formula. He delivered when it mattered and earned the victory. That's meritocracy, that's Formula 1

Gasley was not the fastest driver-car combo. He won due to a series of flukes including the double whammy of pitting before the pit lane closed and Hamilton being penalised for pitting after the pit lane had closed. Gasley won but not by merit and it was great

So while you say you want meritocracy, and say you support Gasley's win and it didn't cheapened the GP win, but that's not a consistent position.

Budget caps is antithetical to meritocracy.
Limiting aero development is antithetical to meritocracy.
Meritocracy is Hamilton and Mercedes out front on Saturday and Sunday and winning 6 of 10 races and leading the championship by a country mile. Meritocracy this year means having absolutely no doubt about who the driver's and constructor's championship would be from the first couple of races.
You say you revere meritocracy but I think that's just something people say without actually thinking about it.

Maybe you really like the state of f1 this year, but think we can do better.

quokula

I think the key to any great sport is the human element. Nobody talks about starting the top 100m sprinter 5 metres behind the rest. Nobody talks about handicapping the top golfer or tennis player.

But if the winning golfer or tennis player was winning thanks to having a much better racket / set of clubs than anyone else, then people would certainly be talking about changing that.

A sportsperson can dominate and can do so for years. When Roger Federer walked out on court, you knew he would probably win, but he still had to actually put the work in and perform at his best, every single time. When he won, you knew it was because he did the best job on the day, not because he had a locked in advantage and just needed to turn up and not do anything stupid to be guaranteed victory.

Mercedes don't have to do anything better than anyone else on race day. They built a piece of hardware the best part of a decade ago, before anyone else started developing for the current formula, and have a locked in advantage thanks to that piece of hardware which they've spent a fortune to simply develop at roughly the same rate as everyone else ever since. As long as they turn up and don't mess up, they're guaranteed to win.

Now you could say that F1 has always been a team sport and is not a spec series. This is true. But in the old days you had people from Colin Chapman to Gordon Murray to Ross Brawn to Adrian Newey, pitting their wits against each other. The technology and regulations constantly shifted and changed, meaning no team ever maintained the best car for more than a year or two before having to go back to the drawing board to stay competitive. What we have now is unprecedented. It's a billion dollar corporation who poured resources into building an engine to a specific spec behind closed doors, who then lobbied to get the rules changed so only this spec was allowed, and then went on to have an unprecedented length of rules stability, combined with artificial token limits and limits on testing, making it near impossible for anyone else to have a chance.

Reverse grids aren't an ideal solution by any means, but in a sport that is unwilling to solve the systemic problems, they would have at least provided some interest. Max Verstappen would have a chance of beating the Mercs if he does a better job at overtaking midfielders, versus having zero chance now. That would at least be worth watching.

El_Duderino 09

quokula wrote: »

I think the key to any great sport is the human element. Nobody talks about starting the top 100m sprinter 5 metres behind the rest. Nobody talks about handicapping the top golfer or tennis player.
...

This might be a contender for most ill-chosen analogy.

But to be fair, your broader point is valid.

quokula

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This might be a contender for most ill-chosen analogy.

Not in professional competitive events.

El_Duderino 09

quokula wrote: »

Not in professional competitive events.

I get it.

quokula

One other thing I would say about reverse grids races is that it wouldn't be unfair and it would still be on merit. There wouldn't be a rule saying "Mercedes start last", there would be a first race that gives points, and a reverse grid second race that gives points, and every team would have a completely equal chance to do their best to get the most points from those two races. It would still be ultimately fair, it would just require a different set of skills to what is required now. This is how F2 works today, and it doesn't impact the legitimacy of the championship winner at all.

It would also incentivise teams to develop cars that can follow and overtake better, and might drive top teams to hire two drivers that can race and push forward rather than just having a reliable number two to fall in behind the first car.

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Gasley was not the fastest driver-car combo. He won due to a series of flukes including the double whammy of pitting before the pit lane closed and Hamilton being penalised for pitting after the pit lane had closed. Gasley won but not by merit and it was great

It is absolutely not as simple as fastest driver, fastest car and you know it. In racing things happen, penalties, mistakes, mechanical failures. To win a Grand Prix requires one to have the best combination of car, driver, performance, strategy, car management, tyre management, etc; on the day. You're suggesting that Gasly's win has no merit and it was just dumb luck. I wholeheartedly disagree.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So while you say you want meritocracy, and say you support Gasley's win and it didn't cheapened the GP win, but that's not a consistent position.

It's consistent because I have a clear view on what meritocracy in F1 is, the best combination of multiple factors as outlined above. You're oversimplifying what it entails to win a Grand Prix.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Budget caps is antithetical to meritocracy.
Limiting aero development is antithetical to meritocracy.

I disagree, when a few teams can outspend the others 3:1 it's no longer an engineering race, it's a money one. Budget caps actively promote a level playing field, the best engineers will find a way to produce the best car within the confines of the budgets. Any subsequent success is the result of talent, effort and achievement rather than wealth.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Meritocracy is Hamilton and Mercedes out front on Saturday and Sunday and winning 6 of 10 races and leading the championship by a country mile. Meritocracy this year means having absolutely no doubt about who the driver's and constructor's championship would be from the first couple of races.
You say you revere meritocracy but I think that's just something people say without actually thinking about it.

Yes typically meritocracy these days ends with Hamilton winning in a Mercedes. Because they've done a better job, some will try to argue the old "they wrote the rules" chestnut but that's horse manure. They've built a winning organisation and are delivering the results when it matters (most of the time). Is it boring, yes most certainly. That's still not reason enough to sacrifice the integrity of the sport for a few cheap thrills on a Saturday that will make no difference to the competitive order on a Sunday.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe you really like the state of f1 this year, but think we can do better.

I don't really like the state of F1, however I do enjoy F1. Can it do better, yes absolutely. Budget caps, revenue distribution and sensible measures to ensure a competitive field with closer racing. All good things and they will hopefully close the performance gap in the coming years. I'd much prefer if F1 continued to focus on measures like this rather than a short term band-aid to satiate the whims of a minority.

Inquitus

Just to note Mercedes F1 is almost profitable to Mercedes, in fact if you consider the benefits of the free advertising it most certainly is more than free.

Mercedes-Benz AG provided £44.4m to the team in 2019 but £16m was returned, reflecting a net cost of £28.4m.

The F1 team’s newly-published accounts reveal that higher sponsorship and marketing revenue meant turnover increased from £338.4m in 2018 to £363.3m in 2019, and the post-tax profit rose by £2m to £14.7m.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mercedes-record-breaking-titles-cost-manufacturer-less-than-30m/

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

It is absolutely not as simple as fastest driver, fastest car and you know it. In racing things happen, penalties, mistakes, mechanical failures. To win a Grand Prix requires one to have the best combination of car, driver, performance, strategy, car management, tyre management, etc; on the day. You're suggesting that Gasly's win has no merit and it was just dumb luck. I wholeheartedly disagree.



It's consistent because I have a clear view on what meritocracy in F1 is, the best combination of multiple factors as outlined above. You're oversimplifying what it entails to win a Grand Prix.



I disagree, when a few teams can outspend the others 3:1 it's no longer an engineering race, it's a money one. Budget caps actively promote a level playing field, the best engineers will find a way to produce the best car within the confines of the budgets. Any subsequent success is the result of talent, effort and achievement rather than wealth.



Yes typically meritocracy these days ends with Hamilton winning in a Mercedes. Because they've done a better job, some will try to argue the old "they wrote the rules" chestnut but that's horse manure. They've built a winning organisation and are delivering the results when it matters (most of the time). Is it boring, yes most certainly. That's still not reason enough to sacrifice the integrity of the sport for a few cheap thrills on a Saturday that will make no difference to the competitive order on a Sunday.



I don't really like the state of F1, however I do enjoy F1. Can it do better, yes absolutely. Budget caps, revenue distribution and sensible measures to ensure a competitive field with closer racing. All good things and they will hopefully close the performance gap in the coming years. I'd much prefer if F1 continued to focus on measures like this rather than a short term band-aid to satiate the whims of a minority.

Your definition of Meritocracy didn't include the biggest single factor in Gasley's win which was a penalty for Hamilton. I didn't say Gasley's win has NO merit and I don't need to suggest that to make my point. If your definition is that the driver with most merit is the one who crosses the line first, that's fine. In any case Gasley was the winner, I don't think anyone had any objection to the win and the biggest factor was the penalty for Hamilton who would have strolled to the race win from first. So not Gasley's merit but certainly great news for the sport.

I don't need to argue that every race is won by the most meritorious driver as you seem to be doing with Gasley. I think the best driver-car combo should win over the course of a season but I don't need the champion to have won 60% of races as Hamilton has done this year. He's only been beaten on performance without a penalty or reliability issue in one race this year. That's 6/7 (85% win rate) in races where he wasn't stopped by a penalty or reliability issue. And that's pure merit. The meritocracy we have at the moment means boring races. And paying lip service to the ideal of meritocracy shouldn't be put ahead of having good racing where the best car-driver combo ultimately win's the championship, but there's room for some suspense along the way.

El_Duderino 09

OSI wrote: »

Simplest refute to reverse grid races is to look at the post race reactions every time Hamilton or equivalent has to come from the back of the field due to penalty, spin, poor qualifying etc and manages to put in on the podium. It's always the exact same as the current reactions, "They only got there because they have the fastest car".

How does that refute reverse grids?

People say exactly the some thing now when he wins another race or when he wins championship this year and next year.

Anjobe

quokula wrote: »

One other thing I would say about reverse grids races is that it wouldn't be unfair and it would still be on merit. There wouldn't be a rule saying "Mercedes start last", there would be a first race that gives points, and a reverse grid second race that gives points, and every team would have a completely equal chance to do their best to get the most points from those two races. It would still be ultimately fair, it would just require a different set of skills to what is required now. This is how F2 works today, and it doesn't impact the legitimacy of the championship winner at all.

That's not what was proposed for F1 though.

Frank Bullitt

quokula wrote: »

I think the key to any great sport is the human element. Nobody talks about starting the top 100m sprinter 5 metres behind the rest. Nobody talks about handicapping the top golfer or tennis player.

But if the winning golfer or tennis player was winning thanks to having a much better racket / set of clubs than anyone else, then people would certainly be talking about changing that.

A sportsperson can dominate and can do so for years. When Roger Federer walked out on court, you knew he would probably win, but he still had to actually put the work in and perform at his best, every single time. When he won, you knew it was because he did the best job on the day, not because he had a locked in advantage and just needed to turn up and not do anything stupid to be guaranteed victory.

Mercedes don't have to do anything better than anyone else on race day. They built a piece of hardware the best part of a decade ago, before anyone else started developing for the current formula, and have a locked in advantage thanks to that piece of hardware which they've spent a fortune to simply develop at roughly the same rate as everyone else ever since. As long as they turn up and don't mess up, they're guaranteed to win.

Now you could say that F1 has always been a team sport and is not a spec series. This is true. But in the old days you had people from Colin Chapman to Gordon Murray to Ross Brawn to Adrian Newey, pitting their wits against each other. The technology and regulations constantly shifted and changed, meaning no team ever maintained the best car for more than a year or two before having to go back to the drawing board to stay competitive. What we have now is unprecedented. It's a billion dollar corporation who poured resources into building an engine to a specific spec behind closed doors, who then lobbied to get the rules changed so only this spec was allowed, and then went on to have an unprecedented length of rules stability, combined with artificial token limits and limits on testing, making it near impossible for anyone else to have a chance.

Reverse grids aren't an ideal solution by any means, but in a sport that is unwilling to solve the systemic problems, they would have at least provided some interest. Max Verstappen would have a chance of beating the Mercs if he does a better job at overtaking midfielders, versus having zero chance now. That would at least be worth watching.

And tragically enough, right now F1 has probably the least reliance on the human aspect ever. Over engineered, time delta, manage the tires, lift and coast. I miss seeing a driver hustle a car beyond its limit.

skipper_G

The drivers views on reverse grid qualifying
https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/01/f1-is-not-wwe-all-20-drivers-give-their-views-on-reverse-grid-qualifying-races/

But then what would they know, they've only been racing most of their lives....

skipper_G

skipper_G wrote: »

The drivers views on reverse grid qualifying
https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/01/f1-is-not-wwe-all-20-drivers-give-their-views-on-reverse-grid-qualifying-races/

But then what would they know, they've only been racing most of their lives....

Whatever about the reverse grid thing I really have to disagree with the overall sentiment. The drivers should have basically no input into the rules of the racing.

Lawlesz

I personally wouldn't touch the reverse grid idea. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, where the fastest/best engineered car with what should be the best driver wins. Much as I dislike Hamiltons general behaviour at times, and much as I dislike the boredom of Mercedes winning 90% of races, these gimmicks have no place in the sport.

On occasion when Hamilton, Verstappen or whoever has ended up at the back due to penalties or an off, I don't take any joy in seeing him whizz past a Williams or Haas or Alfa and work his way up the field. It is to be expected in the fastest car, and he generally can make it back to the top 5 or 6 in double quick time. And the same would go for Red Bull and Verstappen. Albon is generally stuck in the pack anyway, and the midfield is pretty evenly matched this year anyway, so I don't see what it would bring really.

rianmcn

"Honda Motor Co., Ltd. today announced that it has decided to conclude its participation in the FIA*1 Formula One (F1) World Championship as a power unit supplier at the end of the 2021 season."

WOW! Did not see this coming!

https://global.honda/newsroom/news/2020/c201002aeng.html

SureYWouldntYa

Red bull gonna have to go back to Renault with their tail between their legs so

mickdw

rianmcn wrote: »

"Honda Motor Co., Ltd. today announced that it has decided to conclude its participation in the FIA*1 Formula One (F1) World Championship as a power unit supplier at the end of the 2021 season."

WOW! Did not see this coming!

https://global.honda/newsroom/news/2020/c201002aeng.html

Do they ever feckin learn. Just when they get competitive having spent billions, they walk away. Its not the first time they pulled that trick

Lawlesz

rianmcn wrote: »

"Honda Motor Co., Ltd. today announced that it has decided to conclude its participation in the FIA*1 Formula One (F1) World Championship as a power unit supplier at the end of the 2021 season."

WOW! Did not see this coming!

https://global.honda/newsroom/news/2020/c201002aeng.html

Strange they are doing it now just as they seem to have pumped money in to be some bit competitive. What happens with RB now, back to Renault I guess? They won't get a Merc and who would want a Ferrari. BMW anyone :pac:

LollipopJimmy

This is possibly the end for F1. Three engine suppliers with one of those head and shoulders above the rest

aidyhawse

Lawlesz wrote: »

Strange they are doing it now just as they seem to have pumped money in to be some bit competitive. What happens with RB now, back to Renault I guess? They won't get a Merc and who would want a Ferrari. BMW anyone :pac:

Chances of Cosworth returning with RB/AT?

ELM327

I'd say RB would mortgage the house to get a merc PU

El_Duderino 09

Lawlesz wrote: »

I personally wouldn't touch the reverse grid idea. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, where the fastest/best engineered car with what should be the best driver wins. Much as I dislike Hamiltons general behaviour at times, and much as I dislike the boredom of Mercedes winning 90% of races, these gimmicks have no place in the sport.
...

This attitude is a big part of the problem. Some people seem to think there's a particular nobility in folliwing f1, no matter how bad it gets. The word 'gimmick' couldn't get be used with a straight face. The entire sport is a gimmick. It's supposed to be enjoyed, not endured. Last year, this year and next year are pure endurance, waiting gur the rules to change and maybe there will be more conpetition.

There's a great chance Mercedes will continue to dominate from 2022 onwards. But any chance to spice things up whke Hamilton canters to the championship this year and next year (and most likely beyond that) MUST be missed.

You characterised the current state of the sport as 'boredom' but gleefully miss the opportunity to do something to alleviate your boredom.

Choosing boredom over change is very on-point for F1 fans.

El_Duderino 09

Talking about new teams coming in is fanciful. My mates f1 WhatsApp group is the same - full of 'bring back Cosworth' and BMW and hopes that Aston Martin will develop an engine. Total fantasy.

They're almost certainly pulling out because of the fact that the global car market has almost completely stopped this financial year. And next year will be the same as we head into global recession

Honda might not be the only F1 stakeholder to pull out. Renault are always a flight risk

AMKC

rianmcn wrote: »

"Honda Motor Co., Ltd. today announced that it has decided to conclude its participation in the FIA*1 Formula One (F1) World Championship as a power unit supplier at the end of the 2021 season."

WOW! Did not see this coming!

https://global.honda/newsroom/news/2020/c201002aeng.html

At last some F1 news do not good news.

Here is what I think
It's good that some good has come from it for them. It's a pity they will leave after next year as after the Mercedes PU the Honda one is now the second best and Renault 3rd with Ferrari the worst one. Will be interesting to see where Red Bull and Alpha Tauro go now. I am not sure Renault will be willing to supply them again and even if they were do not think Max would be happy with a Renault engine again so Ferrari look like there best hope. It might be back to the back of the grid for Red Bull and Alpha Tauri for a while or maybe midfield but unless Ferrari meraculasly solve there engine power problems that's the best they could hope for unless a new PU Engine supplier comes in.

Inquitus

AMKC wrote: »

At last some F1 news do not good news.

Here is what I think
It's good that some good has come from it for them. It's a pity they will leave after next year as after the Mercedes PU the Honda one is now the second best and Renault 3rd with Ferrari the worst one. Will be interesting to see where Red Bull and Alpha Tauro go now. I am not sure Renault will be willing to supply them again and even if they were do not think Max would be happy with a Renault engine again so Ferrari look like there best hope. It might be back to the back of the grid for Red Bull and Alpha Tauri for a while or maybe midfield but unless Ferrari meraculasly solve there engine power problems that's the best they could hope for unless a new PU Engine supplier comes in.

Red Bull will not be happy about this, I wonder could it impact their continuation in the sport, does the latest concorde agreement bind them to competing for a number of years?

artanevilla

Inquitus wrote: »

Red Bull will not be happy about this, I wonder could it impact their continuation in the sport, does the latest concorde agreement bind them to competing for a number of years?

Think they are committed to 2025.

geotrig

aidyhawse wrote: »

Chances of Cosworth returning with RB/AT?

Would Cosworth be capable of returning with this engine formula ? better chance of ford returning I'd guess ! unless the vw group are back in the frame.

If Bernie was still around I'd be more confident of the likes of cosworth and he'd wangle some mad background deals.for engine supplies. ah i miss the good old owheeling and dealing f1 even if we only heard of it ears latter.

It really is a cross roads for f1 ,I think it needs to redefine its self somewhat ,The push to have big manufacturer teams mostly have backfired and failed for the most part ,Are they they happy with a limited field and 3 engine suppliers ? maybe ,could renault leave , possibly ,but like mercedes I think theyd' remain engine suppliers for the foreseeable futureif either pulled out.

ELM327

Inquitus wrote: »

Red Bull will not be happy about this, I wonder could it impact their continuation in the sport, does the latest concorde agreement bind them to competing for a number of years?

Yes. 2025.