Spare Parts (F1 odds and ends)

Andy Murray!?

The show stopped being meaningful in 2009 when Giggs beat Button to it.

Too easy to rig now with internet campaigns for one person.

LH didn't deserve it over and above anyone else who was nominated, but was there really any standout sportsman this year who truly excelled in their chosen sport, without opening their mouth and making a cock of themselves?

 

I almost feel bad for Andy Murray, he kept wanting to stress how the Davis cup win was a team effort, and individually he's had better years, yet he wins it anyway. The team prize should have been enough.

Fury getting that number of votes did surprise me, and I thought Rutherford would place a lot higher than that.

 

The event is now just a showcase for the BBC and an excuse for people to get hammered at the licence fee payers expense.

There also seems to be a correlation between those who win the award and have success late in the year. People have short memories, so if you're unfortunate to win anything meaningful before June, people forget about it.

As said, no one on the shortlist stood out this year. If Fury had kept his mouth shut he probably would have had a decent chance of placing a lot higher than he did.

 

It's a weird award, and it seems even the beeb can't decide what it is. They say it's about personality as much as sporting achievement, but look at that shortlist... Hmmm.

I'd have given it to Kevin Sinfield - he's been a class act for many years now (on & off the pitch), and he captained the Rhinos to an exceptional achievement. His modesty & decency probably helped him get lots of votes from supporters of other rugby league clubs. (Disclosure - I'm from Leeds.)

One thing I do like - there were several people on that shortlist that seem like genuinely nice people and genuinely good role models. If those had been the criteria, there could have been a tie for first place.

 

Kimi!!!

 

Have a Merry Christmas wherever you are people.

Lets put all the bad moments of last year behind us and cherish moments around our loved ones. Most importantly I hope we can have a better year/ season ahead.

In terms of the forum we has some great banter over the season whether it be about Mercedes, Mclaren, Lewis/ Nico or even Maldonado's presence in general, we've had fallouts and rants etc. But there is nowhere else like it is there. There is something homely about this place.

It seems like yesterday when we got this site going. Just about 5 years ago now I think? I was 17!.
Safe to say I/ we have matured and grown in terms of F1 knowledge through sharing ideas and opinions. But time doesn't stop does it folks...

I hope we can have some more users join over the next year, as I can't help but feel people were losing touch with getting involved on here over '14/'15.

My F1 xmas wish is to see #7 back on the front row (and obviously for Michael to keep on recovering), what is yours?

I'm guessing someone out there is wishing S1lv3r4rr0w and Forza Alonso can return to have their weekly spat.

 

As if it's been 5 years..! Merhi Christmas people.

 

Now full of Christmas turkey and pudding, little Jack Horner decides that domination by a single team is not good for F1.

Good on him. RBR's domination though was okay, oh and too many people put their own self interests ahead of the good of the sport.

Okay, nice one Jack, you were doing well up until then

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122350

 

He does qualify it by saying that RBR were never as dominant in that they never finished 1-2 in the championship - you've conveniently ignored that!

 

Because that makes all the difference ;-)

We all know there have always been dominant teams but the order of things does change. From 1984 to 1996 Either Williams or McLaren won constructors championship. 1999 to 2004 Ferrari won, 2 years Renault, another 2 years Ferrari, 2010 - 2013 Red Bull lastly 2 years Merc.
If you look at it another way in the last 13 years unless you had a Renault or Ferrari engine you were not going to win constructors championship (OK so Brawn with a Merc 1 year).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Constructors'_Champions
So winners come and go, the order does change..... Stable regs enable other manufacturers to catchup.

 

Indeed I did ignore it. Selective journalism.

Besides, how can 1 person dominating a sport be better than a team dominating a sport, but with 2 drivers that are fairly closely matched. Didn't Vettel win 9 in a row without challenge, how is that good for anyone except Vettel and RBR!?

Imagine how bad it could have been if Rosberg was constantly finishing 4th or 5th, like Webber was with Vettel?

Horner's point is invalid (as most of his are these days. Anyway, it's a good job he doesn't want the rules changed because of his self interest with RBR to get back to the front of the grid.......... Self interest is bad, he's said it.



Anywayz, happy new year to you all, good to get some debate going again after a quiet week of us all in either drink/food coma.

Raise a toast to John Surtees CBE. Should've got a knighthood based on some of the nobodies who have been knighted this year on the back of political decisions...........

 

It makes a lot of difference, because the "competition" isn't under the control of one team. When RedBull were dominating, it was possible for anyone else to engineer their solution - their domination was the combination of a very well sorted chassis with 2-3 key technologies/concepts that were unique or executed better and exploited to the max by only one of the drivers. Today only Ferrari can compete with Merc on their own terms as it's an engine dominated formula and only those teams make their own engines.

Right now we have a staged managed event, where Merc use just enough of their pace to stay out of reach in the races and manage the status quo in the team carefully too. It's not F1 anymore and needs fixing. Horner's looking after his own interest no doubt, but that doesn't make him wrong.

I know it's fashionable to bash Horner round here, but if he was solely after his own interests he'd point out that the competition/sport lobbied and had several rules changed to curb their success each year and Merc are getting a free pass to at least 3 years of pre-scripted results.

 

Merc aren't getting a free pass for 3 years, they made a better job of the rule changes when they came into effect and reaping the rewards of it. RBR reaped the rewards of making their trick exhaust system work better than anyone else and made it stick for several years. The rule are there for everyone, it's how well you interpret them that determines whether you win or not.

Dominance on any scale is bad for competition and sport. It is not a new phenomenom, which seems to be some people's view. The RBR years were as bad as what it was this year, but with one driver leading the way all the time. The Ferrari 2000 -2005 years were worse, save for the odd season when they introduced some new machinery which took a while to bed in, Williams Renault/Honda, McLaren-Tag/Porsche/Honda, it's all been there in the past. All were eventually overhauled by either a rival finding a new advantage over them, or a complete rule change which came into effect.

Trouble with F1 is it takes so long now to develop new concepts. What should F1 have done, devised a completely new set of rules in mid-2014 after just 6 months of Merc domination of the new rules? Any new rules wouldn't have come into effect until 2016, which if Ferrari/RBR etc had already caught Merc everyone would be saying why are the rules being changed so much!?

Who's to say that with the next new overhaul in 2017, another team will steal a march on the others and dominate? Do we all cry foul and demand yet another change of rules after a season or two!?

Rule stability does not in itself create better competition over time, RBR showed that with the last 4 years of the V8 engines and reasonably well set aero regs. They still found something better than the others.

Unless you want a stock chassis/aero package aka Indycars, then the chances of one team dominating in F1 at any one time will always exist.

 

I think the issue with the Merc dominance is more down to the restrictions on competitors being able to catch up. In years gone by, teams have ultimately been able to throw huge budgets at developing and recovering.

2009 is a good example, Mclaren were at the back at the start of the season but winning races at the end. Honda coming in as new competitor but having extended restrictions on their development is just unsporting, and preventing development through restrictions (both on and off the track) is not within the spirit of the sport.

Creativity and dominance is fine, but shouldn't be purely because the rules prevent competitors from improving.

 

If the result of a race is mostly predictable, then it doesn't really matter by how much a team dominates by, it's still mostly boring.

As stated, restricted testing makes it impossible for teams to catch up, so unless that somehow changes, we'll just get a series of rule changes followed by a new dominant team.

F1 needs to decide what it is once and for all. Is it the pinnacle of motor sport or just another budget capped, open wheel series being held back by old regs?

 

Spot on.

It's the restrictions on allowing teams to properly test and develop during the season that means it's difficult to catch up.

Smithers uses the example of 2009 very well with McLaren, but RBR can also be brought into it as they came back very strongly at Brawn and by the end of the season were the team to beat.

With the restrictions now in place, neither Ferrari, RBR etc can realistically catch Merc unless either of them produces a car that is fast from the outset. No changes in the way the cars are designed or powered can change that. Only the freedom to develop would. But then it is a cost issue, which is a complete nonsense anyway as the restrictions are a limp wristed attempt by the FIA to cut costs. The teams spend the money elsewhere, but for value and real development they're better off doing it around a track.

 

A lot of people are waiting for Ferrari or Red Bull to catch up with Mercedes. Maybe FOM should share out the 'turning up' money and try and encourage others to have a go. Can you imagine what the others could achieve if they were granted the same in excess of $1.5m a week for simply for being there that those two get?

Even if they kept the same overall payment that Fer, RB, Mc, Merc, and Williams get then that would still average to over $20m each... which is... hmmm... enough to get a PU for a year, aren't the FIA supposed to be working on making PU's more available?

I'd love to see more testing in F1 but it's difficult, it's very difficult for FOM to make money out of testing. In theory an extra day pre-post race wouldn't be to hard, surely?

 

Though that'd help, I still think that allowing teams to test behind closed doors would be better so that every development isn't scrutinised by journalists.

Also, that better splitting of the money would help all teams be able to afford to test.

 

If the FIA really wanted to cut costs they would put a cap on the PU costs AND only allow a single version of the PU (including software, modes, and maybe even ancillaries.) to be on track. i.e. all Merc PU would be identical, all Ferrari PU would be identical etc. They would all only be allowed to charge say £15million for the PU to run a team.
OK so FIA can't go back in time to add these restrictions but they can from 2017.
The token system is just silly it only benefits a pu manufacturer who got it right first time. By limiting the supply cost it makes the pu manufacturers only really spend their own money to fund development not hold other teams to ransom. Plus only 1 spec means no preferential treatment of manufacturers teams to a 'test' spec engine or map.

The FIA do need to make aero regs so wings less complicated/cheaper and cars develop a lot less downforce so chasing cars can get close and overtake.

I think the aero is wasted money in that it is virtually useless in road cars. I want F1 to push technology to the benefit of road cars. I want cars to get close and overtake naturally not by an artificial method.I want to see engineering innovation.

Thinking about it, it is difficult as I want to see the underdogs get a chance to fight now and again but to push engineering developments. It is a very difficult balance to achieve if it is even achievable at all?

 

It's entirely possible so long as everyone has a good financial base to start from. If teams are struggling to make their basic payroll, then they're never going to be able to compete, but with a bit of brass and some ingenuity they could put one over on the big boys at any time.

I desperately want to see more diversity on car design and to see different solutions to getting around the track as quickly as possible rather than the very expensive clones we have now.