planetf1.com

Mercedes are going to go for an unprecedented 6th double championship win this year with crash kids Vettel and Verstappen the only likely opposition barring a major breakthrough from Honda or Renault.

Are Ferrari's 2000-04 and Red Bull's 2010-13's glory years starting to look like just a short win streak? Mercedes might not be as dominant without Hamilton but I think if Hamilton did leave, Mercedes would find the next best driver in a flash. Mercedes are likely to stretch their run of championships to a decade at this rate and then sell or split the team once it becomes obvious they practically own the sport and fans lose interest. Does anyone else agree or have a different opinion?

They'll have to get that sixth win first. Until they do that, it's just tied for the longest in history. I don't think anyone saw the collapse of the Ferrari empire in 2004, so who knows? Mercedes' last championship could be this year, or it could have already happened - or maybe they'll do seven or eight or however many in a row.

Short answer: No, I don't agree. After three years of truly unprecedented dominance (2014-2016) Mercedes is now simply at the level of any other dynasty in F1 history. I not only can imagine them being beaten, I fully expect it given the trajectory Ferrari has been taking these last few years.

Exediron wrote:They'll have to get that sixth win first. Until they do that, it's just tied for the longest in history. I don't think anyone saw the collapse of the Ferrari empire in 2004, so who knows? Mercedes' last championship could be this year, or it could have already happened - or maybe they'll do seven or eight or however many in a row.

Short answer: No, I don't agree. After three years of truly unprecedented dominance (2014-2016) Mercedes is now simply at the level of any other dynasty in F1 history. I not only can imagine them being beaten, I fully expect it given the trajectory Ferrari has been taking these last few years.

What stops dominations are rule changes, mainly the large ones sometimes the smaller ones, the Ferrari domination was stopped by a change to the tyre rules were teams could only use one set of tyres for the whole race, Bridgestone produced a poor tyre for Ferrari, their main rivals were on the better Michelins.

This was only part of it though as I believe the poor season triggered the ageing Schumacher not to sign a new contract as he contemplated retirement, this prompted Ferrari to sign Kimi after which Schumacher's retirement was kind of locked in. If this had not happened then Schumacher probably would have won the 2007 and 2008 titles, so 2005 would have been merely seen as a blip and in 2006 Schumacher failed in a car good enough to win the title, that's little different to Mercedes this year only in this case they won the title, that would have been a long period of success 7 titles in 9 years.

That then would have finally been ended with a big rule change to the cars which allowed Red Bull in the back door after they were unable to win under the old rules, then basically they had the best car for 5 years winning 4 titles, I would say their 2009 failure was similar to Ferrari's 2006 failure, then of course we had a massive rule change that then allowed Mercedes in the back door.

Mercedes out right dominated for 3 years and then we have a rule change to the cars which basically ended that, this allowed Ferrari back into the equation although this in a big part was also down to the improvements in their engine. We have another rule change to the cars this year but I don't see it altering much then I presume a massive rule change in 2021 which may well move Red Bull back to the front.

So all in all Ferrari domination could have lasted from 2000-2008 that's 9 years, longer if Schumacher had not broke his leg in 1999, that would have been 10 years with a blip in 2005 I guess dropping it back to 9 years, this if Schumacher had stayed the course.

Mercedes' run is set to run from 2014-2020, that's 7 years then who knows what happens after that so I think it's comparable with Ferrari given the cars available if not the drivers available, Ferrari were missing Schumacher whilst I don't think a Mercedes line up of Rosberg and Bottas win the tiles for Mercedes in 2017 and 2018.

Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:They'll have to get that sixth win first. Until they do that, it's just tied for the longest in history. I don't think anyone saw the collapse of the Ferrari empire in 2004, so who knows? Mercedes' last championship could be this year, or it could have already happened - or maybe they'll do seven or eight or however many in a row.

Short answer: No, I don't agree. After three years of truly unprecedented dominance (2014-2016) Mercedes is now simply at the level of any other dynasty in F1 history. I not only can imagine them being beaten, I fully expect it given the trajectory Ferrari has been taking these last few years.

What stops dominations are rule changes, mainly the large ones sometimes the smaller ones, the Ferrari domination was stopped by a change to the tyre rules were teams could only use one set of tyres for the whole race, Bridgestone produced a poor tyre for Ferrari, their main rivals were on the better Michelins.

This was only part of it though as I believe the poor season triggered the ageing Schumacher not to sign a new contract as he contemplated retirement, this prompted Ferrari to sign Kimi after which Schumacher's retirement was kind of locked in. If this had not happened then Schumacher probably would have won the 2007 and 2008 titles, so 2005 would have been merely seen as a blip and in 2006 Schumacher failed in a car good enough to win the title, that's little different to Mercedes this year only in this case they won the title, that would have been a long period of success 7 titles in 9 years.

That then would have finally been ended with a big rule change to the cars which allowed Red Bull in the back door after they were unable to win under the old rules, then basically they had the best car for 5 years winning 4 titles, I would say their 2009 failure was similar to Ferrari's 2006 failure, then of course we had a massive rule change that then allowed Mercedes in the back door.

Mercedes out right dominated for 3 years and then we have a rule change to the cars which basically ended that, this allowed Ferrari back into the equation although this in a big part was also down to the improvements in their engine. We have another rule change to the cars this year but I don't see it altering much then I presume a massive rule change in 2021 which may well move Red Bull back to the front.

So all in all Ferrari domination could have lasted from 2000-2008 that's 9 years, longer if Schumacher had not broke his leg in 1999, that would have been 10 years with a blip in 2005 I guess dropping it back to 9 years, this if Schumacher had stayed the course.

Mercedes' run is set to run from 2014-2020, that's 7 years then who knows what happens after that so I think it's comparable with Ferrari given the cars available if not the drivers available, Ferrari were missing Schumacher whilst I don't think a Mercedes line up of Rosberg and Bottas win the tiles for Mercedes in 2017 and 2018.

I think both WDCs might have gone to Vettel, but Merc still would have won both WCCs.

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:They'll have to get that sixth win first. Until they do that, it's just tied for the longest in history. I don't think anyone saw the collapse of the Ferrari empire in 2004, so who knows? Mercedes' last championship could be this year, or it could have already happened - or maybe they'll do seven or eight or however many in a row.

Short answer: No, I don't agree. After three years of truly unprecedented dominance (2014-2016) Mercedes is now simply at the level of any other dynasty in F1 history. I not only can imagine them being beaten, I fully expect it given the trajectory Ferrari has been taking these last few years.

What stops dominations are rule changes, mainly the large ones sometimes the smaller ones, the Ferrari domination was stopped by a change to the tyre rules were teams could only use one set of tyres for the whole race, Bridgestone produced a poor tyre for Ferrari, their main rivals were on the better Michelins.

This was only part of it though as I believe the poor season triggered the ageing Schumacher not to sign a new contract as he contemplated retirement, this prompted Ferrari to sign Kimi after which Schumacher's retirement was kind of locked in. If this had not happened then Schumacher probably would have won the 2007 and 2008 titles, so 2005 would have been merely seen as a blip and in 2006 Schumacher failed in a car good enough to win the title, that's little different to Mercedes this year only in this case they won the title, that would have been a long period of success 7 titles in 9 years.

That then would have finally been ended with a big rule change to the cars which allowed Red Bull in the back door after they were unable to win under the old rules, then basically they had the best car for 5 years winning 4 titles, I would say their 2009 failure was similar to Ferrari's 2006 failure, then of course we had a massive rule change that then allowed Mercedes in the back door.

Mercedes out right dominated for 3 years and then we have a rule change to the cars which basically ended that, this allowed Ferrari back into the equation although this in a big part was also down to the improvements in their engine. We have another rule change to the cars this year but I don't see it altering much then I presume a massive rule change in 2021 which may well move Red Bull back to the front.

So all in all Ferrari domination could have lasted from 2000-2008 that's 9 years, longer if Schumacher had not broke his leg in 1999, that would have been 10 years with a blip in 2005 I guess dropping it back to 9 years, this if Schumacher had stayed the course.

Mercedes' run is set to run from 2014-2020, that's 7 years then who knows what happens after that so I think it's comparable with Ferrari given the cars available if not the drivers available, Ferrari were missing Schumacher whilst I don't think a Mercedes line up of Rosberg and Bottas win the tiles for Mercedes in 2017 and 2018.

I think both WDCs might have gone to Vettel, but Merc still would have won both WCCs.

It was only Hamilton’s lead that gave Mercedes the title in 2018. Both Ferrari drivers beat Bottas, so if Vettel wins the title then it’s hard to see how Merc would have won the WCC without Bottas improving his results quite handily

I don't think Ferrari produced a string of cars as good as Mercedes have done these last 5yrs. If Hamilton had a #2 the first 3 years, like Schumacher had, he could have won 45-50 races in just 3 seasons. The Ferrari was never that dominant.

F1 is a different beast now to the early 00's. Never has the midfield been so far away as evidenced by how few podium positions have been occupied by midfield cars in the last 50 races.

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

Football is starting to loose audiences in the host countries, whilst gaining popularity in "foreign" countries.

As a fan of a fairly big club in a small country, money has definitely ruined the game. My club has no opportunity to compete at the higher levels due to geography of the league we have to play in denying access the necessary revenue to compete.

Tbh, I am starting to find football boring.

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

Perhaps because we see excellent actions during the game.

In F1, usual business is good start - clean pit stop - cruise home. Who like to watch sterile motorsport? Not even the surgeons.

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:They'll have to get that sixth win first. Until they do that, it's just tied for the longest in history. I don't think anyone saw the collapse of the Ferrari empire in 2004, so who knows? Mercedes' last championship could be this year, or it could have already happened - or maybe they'll do seven or eight or however many in a row.

Short answer: No, I don't agree. After three years of truly unprecedented dominance (2014-2016) Mercedes is now simply at the level of any other dynasty in F1 history. I not only can imagine them being beaten, I fully expect it given the trajectory Ferrari has been taking these last few years.

What stops dominations are rule changes, mainly the large ones sometimes the smaller ones, the Ferrari domination was stopped by a change to the tyre rules were teams could only use one set of tyres for the whole race, Bridgestone produced a poor tyre for Ferrari, their main rivals were on the better Michelins.

This was only part of it though as I believe the poor season triggered the ageing Schumacher not to sign a new contract as he contemplated retirement, this prompted Ferrari to sign Kimi after which Schumacher's retirement was kind of locked in. If this had not happened then Schumacher probably would have won the 2007 and 2008 titles, so 2005 would have been merely seen as a blip and in 2006 Schumacher failed in a car good enough to win the title, that's little different to Mercedes this year only in this case they won the title, that would have been a long period of success 7 titles in 9 years.

That then would have finally been ended with a big rule change to the cars which allowed Red Bull in the back door after they were unable to win under the old rules, then basically they had the best car for 5 years winning 4 titles, I would say their 2009 failure was similar to Ferrari's 2006 failure, then of course we had a massive rule change that then allowed Mercedes in the back door.

Mercedes out right dominated for 3 years and then we have a rule change to the cars which basically ended that, this allowed Ferrari back into the equation although this in a big part was also down to the improvements in their engine. We have another rule change to the cars this year but I don't see it altering much then I presume a massive rule change in 2021 which may well move Red Bull back to the front.

So all in all Ferrari domination could have lasted from 2000-2008 that's 9 years, longer if Schumacher had not broke his leg in 1999, that would have been 10 years with a blip in 2005 I guess dropping it back to 9 years, this if Schumacher had stayed the course.

Mercedes' run is set to run from 2014-2020, that's 7 years then who knows what happens after that so I think it's comparable with Ferrari given the cars available if not the drivers available, Ferrari were missing Schumacher whilst I don't think a Mercedes line up of Rosberg and Bottas win the tiles for Mercedes in 2017 and 2018.

I think both WDCs might have gone to Vettel, but Merc still would have won both WCCs.

Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:They'll have to get that sixth win first. Until they do that, it's just tied for the longest in history. I don't think anyone saw the collapse of the Ferrari empire in 2004, so who knows? Mercedes' last championship could be this year, or it could have already happened - or maybe they'll do seven or eight or however many in a row.

Short answer: No, I don't agree. After three years of truly unprecedented dominance (2014-2016) Mercedes is now simply at the level of any other dynasty in F1 history. I not only can imagine them being beaten, I fully expect it given the trajectory Ferrari has been taking these last few years.

What stops dominations are rule changes, mainly the large ones sometimes the smaller ones, the Ferrari domination was stopped by a change to the tyre rules were teams could only use one set of tyres for the whole race, Bridgestone produced a poor tyre for Ferrari, their main rivals were on the better Michelins.

This was only part of it though as I believe the poor season triggered the ageing Schumacher not to sign a new contract as he contemplated retirement, this prompted Ferrari to sign Kimi after which Schumacher's retirement was kind of locked in. If this had not happened then Schumacher probably would have won the 2007 and 2008 titles, so 2005 would have been merely seen as a blip and in 2006 Schumacher failed in a car good enough to win the title, that's little different to Mercedes this year only in this case they won the title, that would have been a long period of success 7 titles in 9 years.

That then would have finally been ended with a big rule change to the cars which allowed Red Bull in the back door after they were unable to win under the old rules, then basically they had the best car for 5 years winning 4 titles, I would say their 2009 failure was similar to Ferrari's 2006 failure, then of course we had a massive rule change that then allowed Mercedes in the back door.

Mercedes out right dominated for 3 years and then we have a rule change to the cars which basically ended that, this allowed Ferrari back into the equation although this in a big part was also down to the improvements in their engine. We have another rule change to the cars this year but I don't see it altering much then I presume a massive rule change in 2021 which may well move Red Bull back to the front.

So all in all Ferrari domination could have lasted from 2000-2008 that's 9 years, longer if Schumacher had not broke his leg in 1999, that would have been 10 years with a blip in 2005 I guess dropping it back to 9 years, this if Schumacher had stayed the course.

Mercedes' run is set to run from 2014-2020, that's 7 years then who knows what happens after that so I think it's comparable with Ferrari given the cars available if not the drivers available, Ferrari were missing Schumacher whilst I don't think a Mercedes line up of Rosberg and Bottas win the tiles for Mercedes in 2017 and 2018.

I think both WDCs might have gone to Vettel, but Merc still would have won both WCCs.

It was only Hamilton’s lead that gave Mercedes the title in 2018. Both Ferrari drivers beat Bottas, so if Vettel wins the title then it’s hard to see how Merc would have won the WCC without Bottas improving his results quite handily

Good point.

Badgeronimous wrote:I don't think Ferrari produced a string of cars as good as Mercedes have done these last 5yrs. If Hamilton had a #2 the first 3 years, like Schumacher had, he could have won 45-50 races in just 3 seasons. The Ferrari was never that dominant.

F1 is a different beast now to the early 00's. Never has the midfield been so far away as evidenced by how few podium positions have been occupied by midfield cars in the last 50 races.

Ferrari were dominant enough in both 2002 and 2004 for the rules too be changed, after Schumacher won the 2002 title as early as September they changed the points system devaluing the points given for a win, they also changed qualifying to a one flying lap format in order to try and introduce a randomness to the grid.

After 2004 they introduced amalgamated lap times based on one flying lap from 2 qualifying sessions to try and randomise the grid even more, the system was hated so much it got scrapped after a few races.

In 2002 Schumacher won 11 races, Barrichello won 4 races, Ferrari won 15 out of 17 races, in 2004 Schumacher won 13 races, Barrichello won 2 races, Ferrari won 15 out of 18 races, those 2 years were pretty dominant.

However what's more impressive is that over a 10 year period Ferrari produced a car good enough to win a title in 9 of those years, Mercedes have for 5 years thus far so they still have a way to go to match that.

Badgeronimous wrote:

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

Football is starting to loose audiences in the host countries, whilst gaining popularity in "foreign" countries.

As a fan of a fairly big club in a small country, money has definitely ruined the game. My club has no opportunity to compete at the higher levels due to geography of the league we have to play in denying access the necessary revenue to compete.

Tbh, I am starting to find football boring.

That seems to be a problem for Scottish football not English football also it's something I've often wondered why is Scotland no longer producing great football players?

Lt. Drebin wrote:

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

Perhaps because we see excellent actions during the game.

In F1, usual business is good start - clean pit stop - cruise home. Who like to watch sterile motorsport? Not even the surgeons.

Well a team beating another team 5-0 can be viewed as a great game, I'm not sure how competitive you would view it though?

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

pokerman wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

Perhaps because we see excellent actions during the game.

In F1, usual business is good start - clean pit stop - cruise home. Who like to watch sterile motorsport? Not even the surgeons.

Well a team beating another team 5-0 can be viewed as a great game, I'm not sure how competitive you would view it though?

In footbal, you see great passes, actions, moves, kicks, goals, no matter of result.

In F1, it's done in the sterile mode. The following sentences, some often heard, do not belong to racing: "Tune down the engine". "Bring the car home". "Let Hamilton pass in curve 12". "Save the tyres".
The predictability is only one part of the problem. The other, greater, is lack of excitement, lack of duels, lack of wheel to wheel fight.

Then, the other problem is that current F1 cars and their liveries are not aesthetically appealing. But this one is just in my opinion.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

Yup. No question that there is more glamor in the WDC, but it is the WDC that pays the bills for the teams. You make a valid point about de-emphasizing the WDC would be a better representation.of team/car strength.

The big difference between Ferrari and Mercedes eras is TYRES.

Ferrari potentially were dominant 2000-2008 with the sole exception of 2005 and to lesser extents 2003 and 2006 - all those years due to tyres.

Schumacher - Ferrari could have easily won 9 or 10 straight titles over that period, although they probably didn’t have the outright best car in 1999 and 2000 neither have Mercedes for 2018 for example.

Schumacher was very close to winning 7 out of 8 years (if not for a broken leg and engine blow in 2006)

Johnson wrote:The big difference between Ferrari and Mercedes eras is TYRES.

Ferrari potentially were dominant 2000-2008 with the sole exception of 2005 and to lesser extents 2003 and 2006 - all those years due to tyres.

I'm not sure that's completely a difference. Mercedes didn't become a real top team until they learned to understand the tyres in 2013, and on most of the occasions they've been defeated, tyres (usually blistering) have been the reason. It would still be entirely possible for the FIA to introduce a tyre that would stop Mercedes from dominating, or probably even winning. The difference is that they haven't done that.

It wouldn’t be the same though as if they introduce a new tyre now, it’s the same for everyone. It’s a level field, Mercedes can cover all variables.

Ferrari were the only top team on Bridgestone. If Michelin produced a much better tyre, it didn’t matter how good Ferrari’s car was, it wasn’t going to be competitive. Ferrari had a major variable outside of there control which basically broke there title run and ended it at 5.

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

I could probably list all the WDC Champions going back to the 70's, ask me to do that for the WCC and I wouldn't have a clue, in 2008 Ferrari looked like they had lost a title rather than won a title.

Lt. Drebin wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Doesn't seem to do much damage to the game of football...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... _champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... _champions

Perhaps because we see excellent actions during the game.

In F1, usual business is good start - clean pit stop - cruise home. Who like to watch sterile motorsport? Not even the surgeons.

Well a team beating another team 5-0 can be viewed as a great game, I'm not sure how competitive you would view it though?

In footbal, you see great passes, actions, moves, kicks, goals, no matter of result.

In F1, it's done in the sterile mode. The following sentences, some often heard, do not belong to racing: "Tune down the engine". "Bring the car home". "Let Hamilton pass in curve 12". "Save the tyres".
The predictability is only one part of the problem. The other, greater, is lack of excitement, lack of duels, lack of wheel to wheel fight.

Then, the other problem is that current F1 cars and their liveries are not aesthetically appealing. But this one is just in my opinion.

Often a game goes dead if one team is too far in front in respect of thrill of the outcome but generally speaking you could view football as being a more exciting game hence it's popularity.

Since I started watching F1 back in the 80's it's always been like this but now all of a sudden it appears there's a problem, the main problem at the moment seems to be the same team/driver winning all the time but that's what F1 can always produce, after 2021 perhaps this changes?

Blake wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

Yup. No question that there is more glamor in the WDC, but it is the WDC that pays the bills for the teams. You make a valid point about de-emphasizing the WDC would be a better representation.of team/car strength.

The WCC pays the bills but maybe not so much for Ferrari they get far more money in appearance money.

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:The big difference between Ferrari and Mercedes eras is TYRES.

Ferrari potentially were dominant 2000-2008 with the sole exception of 2005 and to lesser extents 2003 and 2006 - all those years due to tyres.

I'm not sure that's completely a difference. Mercedes didn't become a real top team until they learned to understand the tyres in 2013, and on most of the occasions they've been defeated, tyres (usually blistering) have been the reason. It would still be entirely possible for the FIA to introduce a tyre that would stop Mercedes from dominating, or probably even winning. The difference is that they haven't done that.

Well there was a tyre war during the Ferrari years which there isn't now.

pokerman wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:

j man wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Perhaps because we see excellent actions during the game.

In F1, usual business is good start - clean pit stop - cruise home. Who like to watch sterile motorsport? Not even the surgeons.

Well a team beating another team 5-0 can be viewed as a great game, I'm not sure how competitive you would view it though?

In footbal, you see great passes, actions, moves, kicks, goals, no matter of result.

In F1, it's done in the sterile mode. The following sentences, some often heard, do not belong to racing: "Tune down the engine". "Bring the car home". "Let Hamilton pass in curve 12". "Save the tyres".
The predictability is only one part of the problem. The other, greater, is lack of excitement, lack of duels, lack of wheel to wheel fight.

Then, the other problem is that current F1 cars and their liveries are not aesthetically appealing. But this one is just in my opinion.

Often a game goes dead if one team is too far in front in respect of thrill of the outcome but generally speaking you could view football as being a more exciting game hence it's popularity.

Since I started watching F1 back in the 80's it's always been like this but now all of a sudden it appears there's a problem, the main problem at the moment seems to be the same team/driver winning all the time but that's what F1 can always produce, after 2021 perhaps this changes?

No, dominance has always been considered a problem by the fans. I think you're just noticing it more now because you are a die hard fan of the driver that the anti-dominance talk has been directed at.

There was at least as much negativity about Red Bull 2010-2013 as there was about Mercedes 2014-2017 and while I wasn't watching back in the Schumacher/Ferrari days from comments I've seen on here it sounds very much like it was the same during that dominant era too.

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

Fans relate to drivers, because both share "driving." Who doesn't want to be a WDC? WDC will always be the more popular title, and success benchmark.

Fans don't relate to race car designers or mechanics (few fans care about the nuances of bespoke race car construction and tuning).

There will always be teams who dominate F1. The McLaren Honda years (6 WCCs between 1984-1991) come to mind. Williams (5 WCCs 1992-97), etc. Ferrari's dominance was actually 8 out of 10 years (1999-2008. Now, that WAS boring). http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/page/3396.html

It's a technology game (I agree). But fans equate WDCs with WCCs and there's nothing wrong with it.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote: Perhaps because we see excellent actions during the game.

In F1, usual business is good start - clean pit stop - cruise home. Who like to watch sterile motorsport? Not even the surgeons.

Well a team beating another team 5-0 can be viewed as a great game, I'm not sure how competitive you would view it though?

In footbal, you see great passes, actions, moves, kicks, goals, no matter of result.

In F1, it's done in the sterile mode. The following sentences, some often heard, do not belong to racing: "Tune down the engine". "Bring the car home". "Let Hamilton pass in curve 12". "Save the tyres".
The predictability is only one part of the problem. The other, greater, is lack of excitement, lack of duels, lack of wheel to wheel fight.

Then, the other problem is that current F1 cars and their liveries are not aesthetically appealing. But this one is just in my opinion.

Often a game goes dead if one team is too far in front in respect of thrill of the outcome but generally speaking you could view football as being a more exciting game hence it's popularity.

Since I started watching F1 back in the 80's it's always been like this but now all of a sudden it appears there's a problem, the main problem at the moment seems to be the same team/driver winning all the time but that's what F1 can always produce, after 2021 perhaps this changes?

No, dominance has always been considered a problem by the fans. I think you're just noticing it more now because you are a die hard fan of the driver that the anti-dominance talk has been directed at.

There was at least as much negativity about Red Bull 2010-2013 as there was about Mercedes 2014-2017 and while I wasn't watching back in the Schumacher/Ferrari days from comments I've seen on here it sounds very much like it was the same during that dominant era too.

I can only speak for myself but I found it more asinine that inferior drivers were beating Schumacher only because of the car they were driving, when Schumacher finally started to dominate then he deservedly got what was coming to him so I didn't mind the Schumacher years at all, people dominate in other sports and they are reveled rather than people being bored.

I think it does relate a lot to how you view that driver who is dominating, how you rate him, during the Vettel years my main gripe was him beating the same driver every year, Webber, put someone else in the other car.

I don't know why you include 2017 as being one of the Mercedes dominant years, Vettel had fair chance to be champion these past 2 years in a close to equal car, more so in 2018.

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

True, but isn't that more honest?

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

True, but isn't that more honest?

Having tier 2 drivers as world champions because they are in a dominant car?

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

4 champions in 6 years shows precisely what F1 is about: it's about constructing a winning car within the published technical rules. There's a very good reason why Ferrari wanted Adrian Newey. And it looks as though they could still put his immense talent to profitable use.
I suppose part of the "game" for teams is their ability to influence FIA/F1 in their own advantage, while a huge disadvantage is probably their access to a/the top engine. Again, I believe that Adrian Newey is the top driver in F1, not Vettel, Hamilton or Verstappen.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to belittle the influence a top notch driver has on the results of the car produced for them. 2008 with Hamilton winning is a very good example of a driver being able to plug the little gap between the two contending cars. And we all know how good Schumacher was at driving. But the real championship winners aren't necessarily present at the race track.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

I could probably list all the WDC Champions going back to the 70's, ask me to do that for the WCC and I wouldn't have a clue, in 2008 Ferrari looked like they had lost a title rather than won a title.

That is because you are very much a driver oriented fan, poker. BTW, I couldn't list either championship going back to the 70s, that is what reference sources are for!

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:Hmm, it's no wonder people get frustrated with a sport when it's almost 'normal' for one team to win for years at a time is it?

Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

4 champions in 6 years shows precisely what F1 is about: it's about constructing a winning car within the published technical rules. There's a very good reason why Ferrari wanted Adrian Newey. And it looks as though they could still put his immense talent to profitable use.
I suppose part of the "game" for teams is their ability to influence FIA/F1 in their own advantage, while a huge disadvantage is probably their access to a/the top engine. Again, I believe that Adrian Newey is the top driver in F1, not Vettel, Hamilton or Verstappen.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to belittle the influence a top notch driver has on the results of the car produced for them. 2008 with Hamilton winning is a very good example of a driver being able to plug the little gap between the two contending cars. And we all know how good Schumacher was at driving. But the real championship winners aren't necessarily present at the race track.

So it's alright for a team to dominate F1 so long as a different driver keeps winning the title but not good if the same driver keeps winning the title for that team?

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well it's the WDC titles I was referencing for instance Ferrari won the WCC title in 2008 but who do you consider actually won?

I consider that Ferrari won the WCC and Hamilton won the WDC. Why does it need to be only one?

I'm aware that you (and many other fans, to be fair) place more emphasis on the WDC. But it's not a universally held opinion. I have suggested in the past for example that F1 would actually be a much fairer sport and a purer representation of where the real fight is if there was only a WCC and no driver's title. Nobody ever questions if the WCC is earned, but questions about the WDC abound.

I could probably list all the WDC Champions going back to the 70's, ask me to do that for the WCC and I wouldn't have a clue, in 2008 Ferrari looked like they had lost a title rather than won a title.

That is because you are very much a driver oriented fan, poker. BTW, I couldn't list either championship going back to the 70s, that is what reference sources are for!

I think anything worth remembering you would tend to remember perhaps?

pokerman wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: I could probably list all the WDC Champions going back to the 70's, ask me to do that for the WCC and I wouldn't have a clue, in 2008 Ferrari looked like they had lost a title rather than won a title.

That is because you are very much a driver oriented fan, poker. BTW, I couldn't list either championship going back to the 70s, that is what reference sources are for!

I think anything worth remembering you would tend to remember perhaps?

Well then, I guess neither of them are worth remembering as far as I am concerned.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well I guess that's what they are looking to change for 2021 onwards, F1 has basically always been like this.

Williams had the best car 1992-1997 with a blip in 1994 because of a massive rule change with the cars, so that was 5 out of 6 years winning 4 titles with 4 different drivers.

Yes, but the Williams years never seemed quite such a foregone conclusion. Plus, as you say, 4 different drivers... makes it seem completely different. If Mercedes/Ferrari had two top tier drivers it would be a different story I'm sure. But as it stands, no one is betting on anyone except Vettel or Hamilton for 2019 and if the Ferrari comes up short then it's game over (unless you're pinning your hopes on a Verstappen miracle...). If Merc had won 4 titles with 4 different drivers (I was going to say 2 - is Nico Rosberg's title the most forgettable title ever) then that would be a different matter. I just find it annoying that now one WDC is completely devalued. One WDC is a HUGE achievement, but now we have to quadruple champions on the grid it's almost like if Max won one now it would be like 'Oh, big wow'. Sure Schumacher set the bar ludicrously high, but after MS, Alonso won 2, Kimi won one, Lewis won 1, Button won 1... then Vettel ruined it by winning 4 on the trot.

Actually it wouldn't be so bad if a driver did win multiple titles but not all in a row. Alain Prost won 4 titles, but it took him 9 years to do it.

I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

4 champions in 6 years shows precisely what F1 is about: it's about constructing a winning car within the published technical rules. There's a very good reason why Ferrari wanted Adrian Newey. And it looks as though they could still put his immense talent to profitable use.
I suppose part of the "game" for teams is their ability to influence FIA/F1 in their own advantage, while a huge disadvantage is probably their access to a/the top engine. Again, I believe that Adrian Newey is the top driver in F1, not Vettel, Hamilton or Verstappen.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to belittle the influence a top notch driver has on the results of the car produced for them. 2008 with Hamilton winning is a very good example of a driver being able to plug the little gap between the two contending cars. And we all know how good Schumacher was at driving. But the real championship winners aren't necessarily present at the race track.

So it's alright for a team to dominate F1 so long as a different driver keeps winning the title but not good if the same driver keeps winning the title for that team?

No, there's no real requirement for a team to win with multiple drivers rather than one. But it will illustrate the importance of the car better than if the same driver keeps winning.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ALESI wrote: I think the opposite is true producing 4 champions in 6 years shows it up even more that it was all about the car considering 2 of those drivers were not top tier, if half the grid were champions then it would somewhat devalue the WDC.

4 champions in 6 years shows precisely what F1 is about: it's about constructing a winning car within the published technical rules. There's a very good reason why Ferrari wanted Adrian Newey. And it looks as though they could still put his immense talent to profitable use.
I suppose part of the "game" for teams is their ability to influence FIA/F1 in their own advantage, while a huge disadvantage is probably their access to a/the top engine. Again, I believe that Adrian Newey is the top driver in F1, not Vettel, Hamilton or Verstappen.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to belittle the influence a top notch driver has on the results of the car produced for them. 2008 with Hamilton winning is a very good example of a driver being able to plug the little gap between the two contending cars. And we all know how good Schumacher was at driving. But the real championship winners aren't necessarily present at the race track.

So it's alright for a team to dominate F1 so long as a different driver keeps winning the title but not good if the same driver keeps winning the title for that team?

No, there's no real requirement for a team to win with multiple drivers rather than one. But it will illustrate the importance of the car better than if the same driver keeps winning.

It's not an ideal world though the best car doesn't always win so you can't really make sweeping statements.