planetf1.com

I thought the French Grand Prix was pretty decent to be honest. A mistake by one of the title contenders led to first lap chaos and subsequent charge through the field, while there was plenty of mid-pack action, even without the artificial DRS zones. Yet reading through this forum and twitter I see constant cries of 'boring' or 'fake'.

It begs the question just what do fans consider an entertaining race? Because I've got news for you - if you want constant chaos, carnage, smoke, a half-wet half-dry track, non-stop overtaking, relentless driving, some kind of explosion or two, and all the while with your favourite driver winning the race, then you need to go and watch monster trucks, or a fast and furious film*. I'm just about old enough to remember Senna sitting on Mansells car, so that gives you an idea of how long I've been watching the sport, and I can honestly say it's a lot better now than it used to be in some periods. Anyone watch 2001-2005? It was a long Schumacher procession with little to no overtaking barring a few intermittent challenges from BMW, McLaren and BAR.

Yes, the current aero regulations were a poor decision. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of aerodynamics knows that F1 needs to make things less complicated on top side of the car and move them underneath the car. They are trying to address that next year and for now we just have to make do with artificial overtaking aides. For me the bigger 'artificial' problem are the shoddy new tracks. Just look at the action we get at Silverstone, Spa, Hokkenheim etc. Old school tracks that have been around 70 years that are wide, allow multiple corner lines, and have fast balls out corners leading onto a straight. Instead we have new tracks with lots of fancy amenities that are simply crap layouts for racing. Slow corner, loooong straight, slow corner.

I have faith in Ross Brawn, he just needs a little time. For now just enjoy watching the fastest racing cars ever. Sometimes it will be a good race, sometimes it will be bad. It's all just chance.

*Not one of the new ones - I mean the first one which was actually good before Dwain the Rock Johnson and Vin-Diesel became James Bond/Ethan Hunt type international spy racing drivers.

It was a bit of a fluke as to why we had more overtakes, a incident at T1 jumbled up the qualifying order so we had quicker cars behind slower ones instead of the other way around like usual and we had a strong headwind in the DRS zone making it twice as strong.

You could run that race again and get no overtakes with a change in direction in wind and no T1 incident.

Not that I thought it was boring but this is why the organisers want reverse grids as people seem to love watching faster cars picking off slower ones so jumbling up the grid order is going to be brought up again if this race is held up as some kind of standard. Maybe those downplaying it are against this?

The biggest problems against overtaking are the tracks not being conducive to overtaking and the difference in car performance between the top tier and lower teams is too great. Even if it were possible, aerodynamically, to overtake, it wouldn't matter if the track is too narrow, with no opportunities to overtake, and the car in front is 1 second a lap faster than than the car behind. The fastest car will still get in front so it's not like a Force India will suddenly be able to win a race because the aerodynamics have been changed to 'allow' cars to overtake. A Ferrari or Mercedes would still win because they would still be at the front of the grid and would be too far ahead. Yes, a Ferrari may overtake a Mercedes but would people be any happier? Ironically, the regulations are being changed yet again to try and improve overtaking but this may also cause a wider gap between 'big' teams and smaller ones. As far as I'm concerned, overtaking has not been a big thing in F1 for years and years and I don't see it changing. Anyway, I watch it for other reasons than to see cars overtaking. I enjoy the technology involved and the 'story lines' throughout the season between different teams and drivers. There is still an unpredictability factor without overtaking every second. It doesn't help that disgruntled teams and drivers criticise the sport every 5 minutes because they aren't doing very well, claiming it is too predictable and boring. If those same teams/drivers were winning they would shut up.

Boring is a relative term. If you think today's racing is boring, perhaps some of you will remember Jackie Stewart's 2-lap victory over Bruce McLaren at the 1969 Spanish GP. Or for you kiddies, the 2-lap margin by Damon Hill over Olivier Panis at the 1995 Australian GP.

Many of these older races were won by more that 2-3 minutes, the leader lapping the entire field. Stewart won the 1968 Nurburgring (long circuit) by more than 4 minutes. Had it not been in the fog and rain, it would have been exceedingly boring.

Real F1 is not a video game. It's a technology exercise pushing the boundaries of mechanical perfection and human endurance. Wheel to wheel racing is just a (small) part of it. I get my bumper car jollies watching NASCAR's contrived competition, not F1

IMO, the French GP was entertaining, not an absolute classic, but an interesting race to watch. Yes. there was no fight for the win, but in sharp contrast to the Canadian GP there was action in the upper midfield and below.

The major change is the level of professionalism and the absence of gravel traps. In the mid 90s overtaking was every bit as difficult and car performance varied much more. However there was always a strong chance people would break down or spin off meaning you never really knew who was going to win.

IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

I just dont get it why the DRS zones was so "powerful" in the French GP compared to the Canadian GP. Or do it show how powerful a top car is VS a midfield car?

mikeyg123 wrote:The major change is the level of professionalism and the absence of gravel traps. In the mid 90s overtaking was every bit as difficult and car performance varied much more. However there was always a strong chance people would break down or spin off meaning you never really knew who was going to win.

IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

well to be fair they also had much longer braking distances and manual gearboxes, which also helped

frankwer wrote:I just dont get it why the DRS zones was so "powerful" in the French GP compared to the Canadian GP. Or do it show how powerful a top car is VS a midfield car?

Strong headwind on the straight makes the car in front slower and the car behind in the slipstream and DRS open much quicker. A strong headwind effectively doubles the strength of DRS as the car behind has more "normal" conditions + DRS open while the car in front with no drs is taking all the air being pushed against it with more force than in "normal" conditions or a tailwind.

Does a tailwind have the opposite effect then? Canada is usually better than it was this year so maybe there was a strong tailwind on the straights that day?

Exediron was there maybe he can shed some light about whether it was a windy day there, I've no idea?

Lotus49 wrote:Exediron was there maybe he can shed some light about whether it was a windy day there, I've no idea?

It wasn't very windy. There were some breezes, but about halfway through the race that died down and then a whole bunch of water bugs started to form a cloud over the grandstands and get in people's clothing!

2017 was extremely windy, though. I don't remember it having much effect on overtaking.

Exediron wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Exediron was there maybe he can shed some light about whether it was a windy day there, I've no idea?

It wasn't very windy. There were some breezes, but about halfway through the race that died down and then a whole bunch of water bugs started to form a cloud over the grandstands and get in people's clothing!

2017 was extremely windy, though. I don't remember it having much effect on overtaking.

Eww with the bugs but cheers for the info anyway.

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:The major change is the level of professionalism and the absence of gravel traps. In the mid 90s overtaking was every bit as difficult and car performance varied much more. However there was always a strong chance people would break down or spin off meaning you never really knew who was going to win.

IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

well to be fair they also had much longer braking distances and manual gearboxes, which also helped

No manual gearboxes in the mid 90s. Not sure about the braking distances but there really wasn't a lot of overtaking.

I don't know if you remember the 97 Austrian Grand Prix? A really good race with very little overtaking. I think it's on Youtube if any one wants to watch it.

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

I'm somewhat curious now if there's any demonstrable correlation between tracks punishing drivers for mistakes, and overtaking. My gut feeling is that there is not, but I can't say for sure.

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

You two have summarized it perfectly. In the old days, you heard of drivers making two, perhaps three real mistakes a year. Now it's almost two to three a weekend.

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

I'm somewhat curious now if there's any demonstrable correlation between tracks punishing drivers for mistakes, and overtaking. My gut feeling is that there is not, but I can't say for sure.

I very much doubt there is. The point is that it can give excitement without the need for easy overtaking if drivers actually have to drive well to finish or get a good result.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

I'm somewhat curious now if there's any demonstrable correlation between tracks punishing drivers for mistakes, and overtaking. My gut feeling is that there is not, but I can't say for sure.

I very much doubt there is. The point is that it can give excitement without the need for easy overtaking if drivers actually have to drive well to finish or get a good result.

Ah, I see. So in other words you're saying that the audience isn't impressed by the basic skill the F1 drivers are demonstrating anymore, and that's why races without overtaking are perceived as boring?

Going back to something you said earlier, I do think driver professionalism plays a big role in the processional nature of F1. It has always been true that the single largest source for overtakes between equivalent cars is a mistake by the leading driver: that hasn't changed, but they don't make as many mistakes anymore, and when they do the mistakes are rarely punished with serious consequences (such as, at the least, losing a position).

As for drivers barging each other off track however, I don't think that has as much to do with the lack of gravel traps as it does with the safety of the cars. They know that neither they nor the driver they run off track is going to die.

Fiki wrote:

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

You two have summarized it perfectly. In the old days, you heard of drivers making two, perhaps three real mistakes a year. Now it's almost two to three a weekend.

And that's even if you hear of it. Hamilton getting it wrong at Raidillon is now such a meaningless non-event that it's barely worth reporting. He'd just give up on the corner and drive over the endless expanse of tarmac and continue on his way.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

I'm somewhat curious now if there's any demonstrable correlation between tracks punishing drivers for mistakes, and overtaking. My gut feeling is that there is not, but I can't say for sure.

I very much doubt there is. The point is that it can give excitement without the need for easy overtaking if drivers actually have to drive well to finish or get a good result.

Ah, I see. So in other words you're saying that the audience isn't impressed by the basic skill the F1 drivers are demonstrating anymore, and that's why races without overtaking are perceived as boring?

Going back to something you said earlier, I do think driver professionalism plays a big role in the processional nature of F1. It has always been true that the single largest source for overtakes between equivalent cars is a mistake by the leading driver: that hasn't changed, but they don't make as many mistakes anymore, and when they do the mistakes are rarely punished with serious consequences (such as, at the least, losing a position).

As for drivers barging each other off track however, I don't think that has as much to do with the lack of gravel traps as it does with the safety of the cars. They know that neither they nor the driver they run off track is going to die.

Well, I think it reduces the chance for something exciting to happen. Imagine if there was gravel at Paul Ricard. One locked wheel or snap of oversteer and Hamilton's win has gone. Just the knowledge that something like that could easily happen keeps things exciting.

But what we have now is a situation where it's almost irrelevent if Hamilton drives well or not. He could make 5 mistakes in one lap and lose no more than a couple of seconds.

It also masks driver ability somewhat. Take the parabolica at Monza. With gravel only the best drivers could take that corner at their cars potential for the whole race and not make an error. Lesser drivers would have to be more cautious. Now all drivers may as well chuck it in at 100% all the time and if you run a little wide so what?

With gravel traps, you would probably need larger grids as well. Last Sunday's starting phase in Le Castellet with gravel traps might have easily thrown half of the field out of the race in the first lap ...

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:With gravel traps, you would probably need larger grids as well. Last Sunday's starting phase in Le Castellet with gravel traps might have easily thrown half of the field out of the race in the first lap ...

We managed for years with around 22 cars. You find if there is gravel outside the track then drivers some how find a way to stay on it.

Eh, this race was fine I guess, for me I've had this really strange feeling in both this race and Canada that I've never felt before which is that the race kind of felt like a practise session somehow.

Canada there was no overtaking which for me is fine, I like F1 the way I like cricket - for the grand strategy. What was strange though that a few people pointed out was that it it didn't really feel like anyone was racing, almost like each driver has got into a position they liked and then thought "this will do me" and settled in.

In France there was a tonne of overtaking but I somehow had the same feeling, I can only remember one or two instances in the race of a driver contesting an overtake, even when it was between two relatively close matched teams. Every overtake looked like when teammates are given team orders to swap positions.

It could be that the quality of overtake was so strong that it was incontestable? I guess it was just strange that I had that same "not actually racing" feeling for two polar opposite races.

F1 is just lucky a lot of its fans only watch it. If more people started watching sportscars they'd see how consistently entertaining top-level motor racing can be. I've watched six hour WEC races that have barely had a period where there wasn't some close racing to follow.

Toby. wrote:F1 is just lucky a lot of its fans only watch it. If more people started watching sportscars they'd see how consistently entertaining top-level motor racing can be. I've watched six hour WEC races that have barely had a period where there wasn't some close racing to follow.

Also possible, a lot of F1 fans are aware of other forms of motorsport and still find F1 special for some reason that doesn't center around constant on-track action.

Exediron wrote:

Toby. wrote:F1 is just lucky a lot of its fans only watch it. If more people started watching sportscars they'd see how consistently entertaining top-level motor racing can be. I've watched six hour WEC races that have barely had a period where there wasn't some close racing to follow.

Also possible, a lot of F1 fans are aware of other forms of motorsport and still find F1 special for some reason that doesn't center around constant on-track action.

For sure, but I thought we were discussing people complaining about boring races!

However in my opinion F1 really would benefit by having more exciting races, like you see in other series. F1 is hiding behind its "pinnacle of motor racing" identity - something I'm not even sure it is anymore (I suppose it depends on what you're looking at when considering what the top level is). Any other series that regularly had races like Canada this year would seriously struggle to stay alive, I reckon.

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

Yeah I too agree. I think this practice of "leaving out to dry" should be banned completely, i.e. the driver on the outside has the right to remain there even if he's behind the driver on the inside. Would prolong battles, make defending harder and overtaking easier as you could do it on the outside as well.

F1 has never been the overtaking fest I think some people believe it should be.

I remember some real processions throughout the 80's & 90's and at the great tracks like Spa & Silverstone but what has changed is the unpredictability of the sport.

For me the main issues regarding processional & predictable races are:

- Track layouts. The replacing of gravel with tarmac no longer ends a cars race should they venture off the track. Having said that though, I'm 100% sure that were there gravel traps at turn 1 in France, there would be people who'd be saying it's unfair Max's race was spoilt because he took evasive action when Vettel hit Bottas and ended up beached in the gravel. To that i'd say omelettes and eggs and all that.

- Aero regs. No explanation needed there.

- Reliability. Cars are more reliable these days resulting in fewer engine failures, especially at the sharp end of the grid. This leads to more predictable results.

- Weather. If a bird flys overhead and pisses on the track these days the race is red flagged due to dangerous conditions.

- Strategic options. Cost cutting measures have led to fewer strategic options being available so we basically have the entire grid singing from the same song sheet every race.

- Teams influence on the direction of the sport. To me this is the main issue concerning the sport these days. Some teams have too much influence and it's that influence that has had the biggest impact, mostly in a negative way, on the way the sport is today.

Covalent wrote:

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

Yeah I too agree. I think this practice of "leaving out to dry" should be banned completely, i.e. the driver on the outside has the right to remain there even if he's behind the driver on the inside. Would prolong battles, make defending harder and overtaking easier as you could do it on the outside as well.

I'm still trying to find on what basis this is supposed to be allowed. I can't find it in the rules; not last year's and certainly not this year's.

Fiki wrote:

Covalent wrote:

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:IMO turning every track into a car park is the biggest single mistake in modern F1 history. It completely changes the way drivers tackle a corner and has profoundly changed the sport.

Totally agree. Being able to push the car beyond its limits without consequence has been massively detrimental to the sport. It has also created this ugly practice of drivers pushing each other off the track on the exit of corners.

Yeah I too agree. I think this practice of "leaving out to dry" should be banned completely, i.e. the driver on the outside has the right to remain there even if he's behind the driver on the inside. Would prolong battles, make defending harder and overtaking easier as you could do it on the outside as well.

I'm still trying to find on what basis this is supposed to be allowed. I can't find it in the rules; not last year's and certainly not this year's.

It's never been really properly addressed in the rules, but for whatever reason the FIA has chosen to buy into this argument about the driver on the inside 'owning' the corner and apparently having the right to run the other driver off track.

At least we won't be having a 2002 scenario were Merc win 90% of the races...

gregs51 wrote:I thought the French Grand Prix was pretty decent to be honest. A mistake by one of the title contenders led to first lap chaos and subsequent charge through the field, while there was plenty of mid-pack action, even without the artificial DRS zones. Yet reading through this forum and twitter I see constant cries of 'boring' or 'fake'.

Fans have always had short memories. Football is suffering the exact same thing.. in the Premier League people have got used to teams having fast pace attacking football. Yet those short term memory fans forget that Arsenal were the first team to really create that. To the point Manchester United had to completely change the way they played to fight them. Now we have Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool that play fast pace attacking style.

Fans also forget that only one of those teams have been successful lately (City). And Arsenal that have played like it for quite some time consistently lose their best players and have won nothing worth while for some time.

F1 is very much like it. You always have that hectic race that turns in to a classic - usually once every 2-3 seasons. You get a few fun races a year but you still get the endless boring ones. The French GP was just another fun one.

What I find funny, are those sitting there whining about when one team dominates like Merc - no one talks about when those team mates fight. Giving us a good race. Outside of the top two nothing happens.

It's not like MSC days when his team mate was rarely on par and when he was, he was ordered to move over. The Vettel days wasn't no where near as bad - MW actually put up a fight occasionally. One thing that I do miss is unpredictable weather... because they alter the F1 calendar in a way to avoid the rainy seasons.

For me F1 is not an overtaking-fest. An overtake should be the culmination of a fine manoeuvre, a reward if you want, like a football game. I wouldn't want a goal every minute, that would be too much. I am getting excited with the racing itself.

For example, I was more excited with the famous battle between Alonso and Schumacher in Monza 2005 that I didn't care that my favorite driver didn't make it stick in the end. It was just awesome to watch, two drivers at the top of their game battling it all out lap after lap. In the end Schumacher put a great effort to pass, Alonso had a great defensive race and won fair and square and everyone was happy with the spectacle. That is racing for me, not 55 overtakes in a race by DRS...

Siao7 wrote:For me F1 is not an overtaking-fest. An overtake should be the culmination of a fine manoeuvre, a reward if you want, like a football game. I wouldn't want a goal every minute, that would be too much. I am getting excited with the racing itself.

For example, I was more excited with the famous battle between Alonso and Schumacher in Monza 2005 that I didn't care that my favorite driver didn't make it stick in the end. It was just awesome to watch, two drivers at the top of their game battling it all out lap after lap. In the end Schumacher put a great effort to pass, Alonso had a great defensive race and won fair and square and everyone was happy with the spectacle. That is racing for me, not 55 overtakes in a race by DRS...

It was Imola but other than that I completely agree.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:For me F1 is not an overtaking-fest. An overtake should be the culmination of a fine manoeuvre, a reward if you want, like a football game. I wouldn't want a goal every minute, that would be too much. I am getting excited with the racing itself.

For example, I was more excited with the famous battle between Alonso and Schumacher in Monza 2005 that I didn't care that my favorite driver didn't make it stick in the end. It was just awesome to watch, two drivers at the top of their game battling it all out lap after lap. In the end Schumacher put a great effort to pass, Alonso had a great defensive race and won fair and square and everyone was happy with the spectacle. That is racing for me, not 55 overtakes in a race by DRS...

It was Imola but other than that I completely agree.

Oh, thanks mikeyg123, my memory is starting to fade!

Teddy007 wrote:

gregs51 wrote:I thought the French Grand Prix was pretty decent to be honest. A mistake by one of the title contenders led to first lap chaos and subsequent charge through the field, while there was plenty of mid-pack action, even without the artificial DRS zones. Yet reading through this forum and twitter I see constant cries of 'boring' or 'fake'.

Fans have always had short memories. Football is suffering the exact same thing.. in the Premier League people have got used to teams having fast pace attacking football. Yet those short term memory fans forget that Arsenal were the first team to really create that. To the point Manchester United had to completely change the way they played to fight them. Now we have Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool that play fast pace attacking style.

Fans also forget that only one of those teams have been successful lately (City). And Arsenal that have played like it for quite some time consistently lose their best players and have won nothing worth while for some time.

F1 is very much like it. You always have that hectic race that turns in to a classic - usually once every 2-3 seasons. You get a few fun races a year but you still get the endless boring ones. The French GP was just another fun one.

What I find funny, are those sitting there whining about when one team dominates like Merc - no one talks about when those team mates fight. Giving us a good race. Outside of the top two nothing happens.

It's not like MSC days when his team mate was rarely on par and when he was, he was ordered to move over. The Vettel days wasn't no where near as bad - MW actually put up a fight occasionally. One thing that I do miss is unpredictable weather... because they alter the F1 calendar in a way to avoid the rainy seasons.

The problem is most of the teams employ a star driver and a good driver, the good driver ultimately knows that he may be able to fight, but the teams are very good about keeping these guys on year to year contracts to keep them in check... thus the star driver is always able to take more risks knowing he has a three year contract in his pocket and other options if push comes to shove.

Even when a driver gets to the back end of his career you'd think more of them would start to rebel, but for whatever reason they don't seem to. Maybe it's that perennial hope that they can get one more season in F1.

I don't need overtaking to enjoy a race - just the ability to get close enough to at least try it.

That was what was missing at Canada this year- usually one of my favorite races.

ALESI wrote:
The problem is most of the teams employ a star driver and a good driver, the good driver ultimately knows that he may be able to fight, but the teams are very good about keeping these guys on year to year contracts to keep them in check... thus the star driver is always able to take more risks knowing he has a three year contract in his pocket and other options if push comes to shove.

Even when a driver gets to the back end of his career you'd think more of them would start to rebel, but for whatever reason they don't seem to. Maybe it's that perennial hope that they can get one more season in F1.

Correction: Ferrari don't like two fire/top tier talent drivers.

Merc: Lewis may have beaten Nico 2-1 but Nico still put up one tight fight.
RBR: Both drivers are very close.
Mclaren: Alonso and Lewis. If it wasn't for the tantrum of Alonso he probably would have stayed.
Ferrari: Do not like two tight talents.

In F1 teams are always going to have a driver that beats the other or has a bit of luck etc. I can see Merc not keeping Bottas if he doesn't improve because they would prefer to have two top tier drivers - likewise for RBR.

People just keep painting every team with the same Ferrari brush. If RBR or Merc had Kimi.. they would have removed him last season. Out of those top 6 drivers in 3 teams, he seems to be the worst one of the bunch and next in line would be Bottas.

Yellowbin74 wrote:I don't need overtaking to enjoy a race - just the ability to get close enough to at least try it.

That was what was missing at Canada this year- usually one of my favorite races.

Regarding the top cars that has been the case for many years now, even more so this year. The only time cars get close is like China with the big difference in tyres, before that even with the massive straight there was no overtaking. France would have been the same without turn 1.

Teddy007 wrote:

ALESI wrote:
The problem is most of the teams employ a star driver and a good driver, the good driver ultimately knows that he may be able to fight, but the teams are very good about keeping these guys on year to year contracts to keep them in check... thus the star driver is always able to take more risks knowing he has a three year contract in his pocket and other options if push comes to shove.

Even when a driver gets to the back end of his career you'd think more of them would start to rebel, but for whatever reason they don't seem to. Maybe it's that perennial hope that they can get one more season in F1.

Correction: Ferrari don't like two fire/top tier talent drivers.

Merc: Lewis may have beaten Nico 2-1 but Nico still put up one tight fight.
RBR: Both drivers are very close.
Mclaren: Alonso and Lewis. If it wasn't for the tantrum of Alonso he probably would have stayed.
Ferrari: Do not like two tight talents.

In F1 teams are always going to have a driver that beats the other or has a bit of luck etc. I can see Merc not keeping Bottas if he doesn't improve because they would prefer to have two top tier drivers - likewise for RBR.

People just keep painting every team with the same Ferrari brush. If RBR or Merc had Kimi.. they would have removed him last season. Out of those top 6 drivers in 3 teams, he seems to be the worst one of the bunch and next in line would be Bottas.

Bottas is having a very good season, without the bad luck he would be very much in the title hunt. He is capable of taking points off Vettel and makes Hamilton work for it most weekends.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

ALESI wrote:
The problem is most of the teams employ a star driver and a good driver, the good driver ultimately knows that he may be able to fight, but the teams are very good about keeping these guys on year to year contracts to keep them in check... thus the star driver is always able to take more risks knowing he has a three year contract in his pocket and other options if push comes to shove.

Even when a driver gets to the back end of his career you'd think more of them would start to rebel, but for whatever reason they don't seem to. Maybe it's that perennial hope that they can get one more season in F1.

Correction: Ferrari don't like two fire/top tier talent drivers.

Merc: Lewis may have beaten Nico 2-1 but Nico still put up one tight fight.
RBR: Both drivers are very close.
Mclaren: Alonso and Lewis. If it wasn't for the tantrum of Alonso he probably would have stayed.
Ferrari: Do not like two tight talents.

In F1 teams are always going to have a driver that beats the other or has a bit of luck etc. I can see Merc not keeping Bottas if he doesn't improve because they would prefer to have two top tier drivers - likewise for RBR.

People just keep painting every team with the same Ferrari brush. If RBR or Merc had Kimi.. they would have removed him last season. Out of those top 6 drivers in 3 teams, he seems to be the worst one of the bunch and next in line would be Bottas.

Bottas is having a very good season, without the bad luck he would be very much in the title hunt. He is capable of taking points off Vettel and makes Hamilton work for it most weekends.

Is Bottas having a good season or Hamilton having a bad one.

As the only weekends Hamilton has been ahead are weekends where Mercedes have a clear advantage.