He's done 1 good lap all season, yet his teammate has had 2 podiums in the same car? Bye Schumi, you won't be missed this time.
Read between the "laps" Miggins. No, he had outqualified his teammate in the start of the season, and at this point in time they are level on Quali scores. You are still reluctant to understand the facts that he has had poor luck this season, most DNF's have been technical failure but one incident in Spain. Please don't be bitter because of your personal issues. We still have more than half the season to go yet, he is not saying bye to anyone. You know, if I'd have acted similarly with Hamilton in 2011 the way you are doing about Schumacher now, I would have been eaten up. Every driver goes through low points in time whether based on technical failures or driver error. You are a child.
Alonso is the next one: Alonso - Formula One risks becoming a lottery http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/80280.html
I really don't get this "credibility" argument at all, if you win a race where eight people are in contention it's surely more credible than winning one where you're out on your own the whole weekend. This season has barely started and already it's classic, we probably won't see anything like this for another 30 years, people should be savouring it not moaning about it.
I guess you're missing the big picture, where by the reason why people are going faster is more down to the way the tyres are working with their car the track temperature and their style of driving in a way that no one can understand, rather than it being down to "deliberately engineered" performance. Just look at how the Ferrari's change when the track temperature changes by 4 or 5 degrees. With such things going on it's making performance more of a lottery as to whether the track and weather will suit your car and then your style of driving, than drivers knowing what to expect and taking matters into their own hands. As it is, they don't really seem to have a clue about what's making the tyres work properly, so the factors that are dominating performance are more those that are out of the teams/engineers/drivers hands rather than what they can control. The big clues should really should be the different winners every weekend, along with one of the Williams out performing everyone, whilst another struggles. The performance window seems to be so small and so changable and noone really seesm to know where it is, so much so, that when it does work out for someone, it's more through luck than judgement. Personally, if asked to choose one word to describe this season I'd use the word random, rather than classic, at the moment. At least things are still up in the air should the teams and Pirelle sort this out.
random? well HRT are at the back with Marussia & Caterham, with STR just in front of them and at the front it's generally RBR, Ferrari and McLaren with the odd result for Williams, Lotus and Mercedes, it's just that they're all close together rather than one being miles better than the other
Yeah exactly, performance has always fluctuated from track to track based on weather conditions and circuit layout, it's just the field is usually so spread that the gaps change while the order remains the same.
They are only close together in the sense that they are all almost equally inconsistent and clue-less about what's happening. The top teams are still leading the way in the points table however, and have a faster underlying pace, but when one car is suddenly a front runner, and then the next they are also rans once more, then I'd say that that was random. This isn't just Williams too, Red bull, Mercedes and McLaren have been yo-yoing around, and the Ferrari springs into life if a cloud passes over the track. This isn't like the more recent years where some tracks have suited certain cars. When that was happening they could look at longer wheel base cars and say that this track would suit them, or see from the characteristics in testing that another track would suite a certain car. At the moment, that's just not the case. No one has a clue, not even the teams, not even the most anally, data driven team in McLaren have much of an idea. The only hints of any stability/constancy have been more down to drivers like Lewis and Alonso and their tallents rather than anything else. There is no real car/team consistency from any team this season, which is why I'd use the word random. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think that it's simply the case that they are all much closer now. Even if you did think that it's just the track layouts suiting cars and the weather that's dictating performance, then I can't see that being a good thing. The teams themselves don't understand what is happening and tracks where they thought their designs should work, they haven't because the weather has been the deciding factor. Indeed, that is perhaps the main point, the weather and track temperature is playing a far larger part in what is happening and teams just can't predict that, let alone engineer for it, and if weather is the deciding then I think you'd have to agree that the weather can be pretty darned random and I can't say that I'd want an F1 Championship to be won by 1 team thinking that most tracks will have an average track temp of X +- 5 degrees while another engineers a car to work at an average track temp of Y +- 5 C, and then we just wait and see which temperature envelope was the correct one to gamble on.
Some good points being presented here. It is true that the grid is closer (especially towards the front), such that it should be obvious that domination will be less likely; and that results are likely to appear more 'random', statistically –simply because there is an increased opportunity for more teams and drivers. The question is therefore, "what do we want?"; to which the answer is found within all-important public opinion which gives a resounding sense that predictability is boring. Indeed, some might say it is within the very definition of the word! Nonetheless, as Aloonatron has rightly pointed out, despite apparent confounding logic, it increases the probability of the best drivers winning through in the end. In essence then; we are left with something of widening appeal, whilst at the same time driving quality is more likely to be recognised, admired and rewarded! What could be better? .Can we really strike a significantly better balance? Personally, I find it difficult to conceive of a significant improvement. This is why I agree with those who suggest we should be celebrating what we have. Remember that perfection is an elusive quality; and whilst seeking it out may be absolutely the most applaudable ideology, those who pursue it would be wise to bear in mind that it can never be fully realised, and that minor tweaks to something which gets pretty close (according to general consensus) must be considered with great care. By analogy: the higher one climbs, the less likely it becomes that one may gain further altitude, yet at the same time one has further to fall …
It all is a bit random at the moment but over 20 races the best driver & car combo will stand out at the front. Even after 6 races its Alonso, Vettel, Webber in the Championship. Alonso has put in championship worthy drives this season and despite the ever changing scenery he's secured 1st place. I agree that some races this season may be "ruined" so to say but nothing the FIA do will make it perfect. I'm happy with what we have, could be better but I have no idea how so I don't worry about it
I tend to disagree, I think the winning driver will be the one with the car that is most refined to open small margins of performance on the others. - and as you know - well Manny insists - the best driver is Schuey.
The weather has always played a part though, the 2009 Brawn, which had dominated in the first seven races, was completely undone by the cooler conditions in Britain and Germany. As long as the cars are built by different teams the weather will always play a part because the tyres are critical to performance and every car works them differently. It's not like we're seeing massive swings in performance with a team hitting the sweetspot and suddenly getting a one second advantage, it's all very tight, a few tenths here or there. I don't see why differing weather conditions playing a part is any less credible than different track configurations playing a part. The teams compromise all through the design process, it's no good design your aerodynamic package specifically for Monza when you have to race at Barcelona. If you run the car stiff for better performance at tracks such as Abu Dhabi, you're going to get punished at bumpier circuits like Interlagos. Designing with the weather in mind is just as important, if you have Bahrain and Belgium on the same calendar you know from the start of the season that your car is going to have to work well in a range of conditions. Fair enough, the teams don't know exactly what the weather will be throughout the season, but luck is always a major factor in sport. I like the increased emphasis current F1 places on the drivers, they know they can't mess up their qualifying, and anyone who hooks a lap up is likely to "transcend the car". There's an added pressure on the drivers to capitalise when they have the chance to win as well.
I particularly like that in the absence of an obvious 'best car' well out ahead of the pack, the emphasis has swung slightly more towards the driver; regardless of the many factors which are proving more difficult to get to grips with. It should also be borne in mind that the difficulty of the tyre situation is exacerbated by such little opportunity to test; and that this is one of the trickiest things to simulate. Indeed, the practice sessions are more important now than they have ever previously been, which once again emphasises the vital role of the driver to complete various programmes flawlessly in order to provide the optimum platform for development over the weekend. Motor racing has always depended upon a driver/car combination –none more so than F1 where the differences between cars has tended to be greater than in other series. However, I remember far too many occasions where I found myself defending the need for F1 teams to employ the best possible driver despite the significance of the car tending to play down the contribution from its driver. For this reason, I am quietly celebrating the shift in emphasis away from the car; and hope that we never return to forced refuelling which does the exact opposite: it makes me feel rather more valued (even if I'm not)!
Cosi, whilst I pretty much agree with your comment in its entirety, my issue with the Pirelli's is simply that the driver aspect of the car-v-driver combination cannot be exploited to the maximum and the most capable of these pilots have to place far too much consideration into tyre preservation. I know some will argue that there is always a limiting mechanical factor which ultimately will restrict driver performance or exuberance, call it what you like, but these Pirellis are far to devisive and provide a very limited opportunity for driver maximum exploitation of the hardware. We have had a different winner for each race of the season, which is crazy in my opinion, there must ultimately be a driver combination that had the tyres been sufficiently durable, we would see a potential WDC emerging, so far its like buying a lottery ticket, why bother spending millions to develop the hardware if it can't be used in anger. We are simply being cheated out of seeing the best beat the rest, one could compare it to a modern times school sports day where those that can arn't allowed to. Taking the emotion out of it for a moment, although it was an opportune moment for Sir frank, the Maldonaldo-Williams result for example was a complete fluke and would not in my opinion have been achievable had F1 been using proper tyre's,
I disagree entirely. TO say we are being cheated out of races, when Monaco has been the only example of drivers deliberately running slow to preserve tyres, is jumping the gun a bit. Drivers have always had to drive a car as fast as they can, but within the limits of the equipment they are given. Back in the 80's/90's, a driver who was mechanicaly sympathetic to his car would finish the race and get points, where as a driver who would rag the nuts off it would miss a gear, destroy the engine or just knacker it. I get really pissed off when its said that F1 is all about the 'fastest drivers, driving the fastest cars, as fast as the can'. If that was the case, why not drive on ovals? Drive as fast as you can for as long as you can? F1 is more technical than that, and thank goodness for it. The BEST drivers, not the FASTEST, will always shine through no matter what equipment they are given as they will know what to do with it to make themselves faster than anyone else. The drivers who are bitching and complaining about the tyres are those who have not adapted to them. Their loss. Their teammates and rivals have, so what are they doing wrong? The basic regulations for F1 have been arund for donkeys years, so the field will always be close which allows for a good mix of results. Lets enjoy it, after all, who wants a return to the dull as **** years of 2002 when the outcome was known before the race began? 2011 on paper looks the same, but Vettel was chased hard in almost every race but always just come out on top. It certainly wasn't a dull season on the circuit.
I get really pissed off when its said that F1 is all about the 'fastest drivers, driving the fastest cars, as fast as the can'. If that was the case, why not drive on ovals? Drive as fast as you can for as long as you can? F1 is more technical than that, and thank goodness for it. The BEST drivers, not the FASTEST, will always shine through no matter what equipment they are given as they will know what to do with it to make themselves faster than anyone else. I am well aware of what F1 is about, have been an avid follower since the mid sixties. Look, even Hamilton has given up, he's just racing for points, ffs, why not just pull the winners name out of a hat, Perez almost wins and Maldo gets a win, and almost nobody overtakes at Monaco, what a f**king joke. The tyres have been dumbed down to make the races a lottery.
Stop watching F1 if you think it is that much of a joke? You mention Hamilton, again, only Monaco was he really watching his tyres becuase if he didn;t he would go backwards quickly if he needed to pit. More of a Monaco thing as although faster than those in front he couldn't overtake. Fair to say in other traces his results are more of McLaren incompetence than him playing it safe. If it is all down to tyres, why is Button, Mr Tyre-man, struggling so much with them? Hopefully Canada will calm people down a bit and the dull-fest that was Monaco will be forgotten and all will be okay with F1 again.
On a personal note: I don't really appreciate your advise as to my watching F1 or not, thank you, as I'm surely old enough to make my old decisions without being prompted by juniors. As to Mr Buttons tyre problems, exactly my point,
Junior? A bit patronising? You'll also note my refence to the 80's/90's suggest i am no junior. But why watch a sport if you think it is a joke, unless like, say, WWE or crap like that, it is actually a joke sport so you watch it (or not) for that reason. Not sure about your point though. My point is the best drivers will overcome these issues with tyres, or any regulation change for that matter. That Schumacher & Button can't questions how good they are when things aren;t perfect for them. All the others are just getting on with it and letting their driving do the talking, especially their teammates who are doing a much better job than they are.
