By on July 2, 2015

Williams-Cosworth FW07D

A Formula 1 study released yesterday shows that in just 5 years fans have gone from describing the sport as “Exciting” to “Boring” and that the more things change, the more things stay the same.

The 17-page report, which polled more than 200,000 fans of the sport, also revealed that fans are growing older and many fondly remember an era that didn’t go over so well in its time.

The study was conducted by the Grand Prix Drivers Association and Motorsport.com, and polled more than 215,000 fans from nearly 200 countries.

Among some of the more surprising responses were the fans’ favorite driver (Kimi Raikkonen), their favorite team (Ferrari) and their favorite era of F1 (2000s). It may not be surprising considering the average age of an F1 fan is 37 years old — the approximate wheelhouse for the Schumacher era. The winningest driver in F1 history finished second in a list of all-time drivers behind Ayrton Senna and ahead of Alain Prost.

While the report may serve as a warning for F1 bosses that the sport is growing dull, uncompetitive and too expensive, it’s very possible that the same sentiment was prevalent 20 years ago.

More than 30 percent of respondents said the 2000-era cars were their favorite (they were panned in their time), 89 percent said the sport needs to be more competitive (despite selecting one of the most-dominant drivers of his era) and the fan’s favorite team is the very expensive, very closed-door, very dominant Scuderia Ferrari.

Among the other interesting answers:

  • Only slightly more than half of respondents think a budget cap would be a good idea (54 percent);
  • Only 40 percent think the Drag Reduction System for passing has worked;
  • Four out of five surveyed think there should be more than one tire manufacturer in F1;
  • Nearly three out of four surveyed say the sound and power of F1 engines are important;
  • Less than half (45 percent) say F1 has the best drivers, although 88 percent say F1 needs to feature the best drivers;
  • And only 60 percent say F1 is still the pinnacle of motorsport.
Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

37 Comments on “F1 Fan Study: Everything Is The Same/Different...”


  • avatar
    Syke

    Part of the results are very believable: To any fan, what has happened in the past is always better than what’s going on now; and the current incarnation (which sucks) will be looked at glowingly 10-20 years from now.

    I guess that makes F1 the sports equivalent of a Panther.

    And F1 isn’t the only venue where the fans are tired of spec tyres. The yelling in MotoGP, if anything, is louder for multiple suppliers.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      “To any fan, what has happened in the past is always better than what’s going on now”

      IDK… pretty much everyone I talk to agrees that MotoGP is in a (if not the) Golden Age. 3 legitimate title contenders, 3 legitimately competitive factories, a lot of great story arcs, etc. etc.

      F1 on the other hand seems to be in complete shambles. Endless powertrain troubles, completely boring engine sounds, Bernie’s increasing senility, dull, dull, dull racing, skyrocketing costs pushing teams out… seems like every time I check Crash.net’s F1 section it’s a complete fiasco. The long races and deluge of technical minutae turn me off as a MotoGP devotee.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I remember Colin Edwards and Troy Bayliss fighting over the World Super Bike title in 2002. Anyone that said the past had better racing would have been laughed out of society. The nostalgia BS is just an excuse for producing a terrible product. There are going to be some people that miss the past, but the majority can tell if they’re watching something worthwhile or not.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Bikes have more resilience against developments which makes each competitor’s ride more equal. In a wide car, there is really no way to get around someone who competently drives the, in almost every corner, well established ideal line. The kind of diving and ducking Marquez, amongst others, brings to the the table in MotoGP simply wouldn’t work for cars. Which leads to all manners of bizarro workaraounds that may seem oh-so clever to the engineers developing them (electric boost, drag reduction….), but simultaneously clobbers any notion the average hot rodding, knuckedragging go-fast guy might have had that F1 is the “pinnacle of car performance and that is why the cars are so expensive..”

        The 80s-90s era of Honda Turbo dominance may not have been the most competitive, but at least the cars were genuinely awe inspiring. Now they’re more like a cross between video games and carnival rides.

        Making the tracks less predictable would be a good way to bring some excitement back. Nothing like a few whoops, ruts, speed bumps, bizarre cambers, 100mph crosswind fans and the occasional random splash of water and oil in the racing line, to bring some excitement back. And to make the manufacturers focus on improvements that the average Ricky Racer can relate to and appreciate.

      • 0 avatar
        Jacob

        It seems like this is still nothing new:

        1) F1 has been an unequal competition between the haves and have-nots since at least the 1980s.

        2) Engine troubles: In the 80s and 90s about two or three teams on the grid had access to the dominant engines. The rest (the have-nots, and other losers) had to use Ford/Cosworth, Hart, Peugeot, Mugen, etc. A typical race in the 80s and 90s could end with less than 10 cars seeing the checkered flag. Half of the disabled cars exited the race due to a burning engine.

        3) We have seen duller seasons in the past. Just recall some of Schumacher’s years at Ferrari, or 1992, or 2013 (IMHO, 2013 was an incredibly bad season, and that one used the old “good” engine spec). There were seasons in the 1980s where McLaren won nearly every race. Yet, those were not dull seasons, because there was a good competition within mcLaren. But if you accept this position, then the solution to F1’s current problems is NOT a new engine or attempting to limit the cost. According to that logic, since the Senna vs Prost competition within McLaren were some of the golden years of F1, the real solution to all F1 problems is for Mercedes to lay-off Rosberg and hire Alonso. The result will be incredible.

        As for MotoGP, yes it is is incredibly good. Last MotoGP season, Marc Marquez won nearly every race and it was still fun to watch. This year, it’s even better. I don’t think F1 can reach the same level of greatness. MotoGP is about fast fast sprint racing that lasts 50 minutes. In comparison, F1 is much slower, with races lasting two hours.

        I do think F1 should entertain the idea of splitting some F1 weekends into two short sprint races, with no planned pit stops. Give all cars unlimited fuel and a set of tires that will easily last one hour of hard racing.

  • avatar
    JMII

    They didn’t survey me but after watching last week’s amazing (yet scary) IRL race F1 is comparison is like watching paint dry. The main problem is the HUGE difference between the “have” and “have nots”. F1 should look at the way the British Touring Car rules worked: if you win you get a weight penalty. Seems that with every major rule shift one team figures it out (or just cheats?) and then dominates for several years before the rules shift again. In the years I’ve watched F1 it went from Honda, to Ferrari, to Red Bull and now Mercedes. Only when it rains do you get a mix up. Jokingly people have suggested all tracks get sprinklers and they come on randomly during the race to spice things up.

    Budget cap: they already cap testing, but clearly some teams simply just outspend their rivals to gain the upper hand so this could work.

    DRS: the problem is it only works when you are within 1 second. What is the point then? It should be the other way around – its always available UNTIL you are within 1 second. This would bunch up the field and encourage real passing.

    Tires: this is a tricky one… nobody wants to make a tire that falls off quickly, that is bad for PR. However that is what makes things exciting. A tire war would encourage making tires that never wear, thus leading to one manufacturing dominating again. Have we forgotten the Indy GP already?

    Sound and Power: Never been to a race in person so can’t really judge. Given the current rules the engines are actually developing more power from less so I have no complaints there.

    Best drives: easily the WRC (World Rally) are the best out there. At this point it appears the F1 guys are just the best at pushing various buttons on the steering wheel, managing tire wear and “pace”. It nice to see the cars sliding around more, so pure driving skills are coming back into play.

    Pinnacle of motorsports? Not really, of technology? For sure. I bet they could do even more if the rules were not so restrictive, but then we are back in the old days of traction control, ABS, trick turbos and crazy budgets. For pure motorsports I’d give that to the 24 Hours of LeMans type racing, that combines a little bit of everything including cars you can actually recognize.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      JMII – – –

      Good analysis. I agree.

      I stopped watching F1 this year. It is boring. And that after video-taping many races for years before.

      What I hunger for is simplicity, a return to basics, and more driver involvement, — less high tech trickery.

      I like part of the the Bob Lutz solution: no elaborate specs; just give every team (car) 100 gallons of gasoline, let them have at it.

      But, I’d add:
      1) No aero stuff — just nicely designed, beautiful cars as in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. (Right now, the things look ugly as hell, like an insect).
      2) Real Manual transmissions only (Let’s see some drivers’ operational skill for once!)
      3) No turbo’s: gotta have the screaming melodies of a high-revving naturally aspirated engine;
      4) Use the old (and, yes, more hazardous) “LeMans Start” for driver involvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_start
      5) Get the costs WAY down. Now it takes about $250M for a Mfgr to field a team for the season. Not good. Who can afford that? Only the “biggies”, like Mercedes.

      I guess the concept here is more sensory involvement for viewers AND drivers: better aesthetics, better acoustics, more visual skills displayed, lower costs, etc.,

      ================

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        I don’t think they need to go that far (and never will because of safety)… but it is really just the aero stuff that causing ALL the problems:
        Aero gives too much grip reducing driver skill. Aero favors the ones who have money for wind tunnels, extensive CD modeling and huge carbon budgets. Aero makes the cars ugly (wings, wings and more wings!) Aero makes passing difficult due to the wake effect from the leading car. Aero allows those with more power an even bigger advantage, speed + handling = win/win.

        I do like the ideal of “here is 100 gallons of fuel, you figure it out”. A no holes bared Ultimate Formula race would be very interesting, but not sure if that would make for good racing because driver skill and passing would not be the focus. However from a technology standpoint I would love to see it.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          I agree on the Aero. How about regulating the aero instead of the engines. Freezing the engines doesn’t save a dime. It just shifts development money that would be used on engines to aero. How about limiting the wings to two very simple straight surfaces, instead of those super complex wings they have now.

        • 0 avatar
          Jacob

          My understanding is that right now there is no rule like “here is 100 gallons of fuel, you figure it out”. They get 100 gallons of fuel, but there is a fuel flow sensor with a flue flow limit. The flow rate is incredibly stupid, because it indeed prevents some clever teams and drivers from occasionally beating the dominant team by using some kind of unusual strategy. The fuel flow limit also prevents us from seeing the magnificent non-finishes from cars that run out of fuel.

    • 0 avatar
      Rasputin

      I have been a fan of F1 for nearly 50 years. Very difficult to follow F1 back before cable/internet. Went to several GP’s at the Glen & Montreal, then lost touch for a while until cable/internet era. In the 00’s I was in Europe and went to Monaco, Hockenheim, Monza, & Spa a number of times. Found the live races exciting, but already they were becoming a parade of qualifiers. DNF’s seemed the only way to shake up the Q order. More recently I have been tuning it out, because as much as I love a parade, I miss actual racing.

      My answers:
      – bring back the driver as driver, not an on-board engineer. This would mostly consist of manual transmission & clutch.
      – limit aero (somehow).
      – eliminate KERS. F1 won’t save the world.
      – eliminate DRS (after reducing aero)
      – allow team choice of tire manufacturers and eliminate mandatory tire usage/changes.
      – bring back refueling. Make qualifiers start race with fuel on board after qualifying – teams decision how much.
      Edit – Forgot to add, bring back naturally aspirated engines, 6, 8, 12 – doesn’t matter.

      Obviously, not all of the above are necessary or even practical, but that’s my take.

    • 0 avatar
      healthy skeptic

      Why all the hating on turbos? I’ve never been on board with the whole NA romanticization thing.

      As for the “100 gallons of gas and you figure it out”, you’d have to implement some kind of budget restriction or something. Otherwise, the richest team is most likely to win.

    • 0 avatar
      healthy skeptic

      Why all the hating on turbos? I’ve never been on board with the whole NA romanticization thing.

      As for the “100 gallons of gas and you figure it out”, you’d have to implement some kind of budget restriction or something. Otherwise, the richest team is most likely to win.

      If you really wanted to make it all about driver skill, every driver would be given the exact same model of car. Otherwise, if you want cars to be different, you are implicitly acknowledging that the car matters to a certain extent, and a technologically superior car gives any driver an edge.

      Racing has always been an odd amalgamation of car capability and driver skill.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      The IndyCar race at Fontana was an example of a really BAD IndyCar race. It was three hours of crazy pack racing. After the race, the drivers described the race with words as “dangerous” and “stupid”. At least two-three drivers drew comparisons to the Las Vegas race of 2011. Instead of acknowledging the flop that was this race, IndyCar is apparently planning to crack down of the criticism.

      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2015/07/01/indycar-boss-criticism-damaging-sport/29578637/

      In my opinion, IndyCar had only one truly good race, and that was Indy 500 as usual. The rest seemed pretty IndyCar average, with maybe a couple of exceptions, like Toronto for not being a typical crash-fest it previously was.

      As for the differences between the haves and have-nots in F1, this vast rift existed in F1 ever since it actually became globally popular. In the 1980s already, there was a big difference between the team budgets. In the 80s and 90s, the “haves” were Ferrari and privateer teams with the best tobacco sponsors. In the 21st century, the haves are Ferrari, manufacturer teams, and corporate teams like Red Bull. McLaren is still an exception being an affluent privateer team, but I wonder for how long it will remain affluent considering how many seasons they have written off by now (third and counting).

  • avatar
    TW5

    Polling the fans demonstrates that the teams and the FIA are clueless about what keeps fans engaged, which is somewhat understandable. On the one hand, fans fall for ridiculous marketing canards about high technology, then when the teams introduce lots more technology, the fans recoil.

    To be honest, I’m not sure I’ve ever witnessed something as stupid as a cartel of companies polling the fans about what kind of unified product they should all manufacture. It’s something a dystopian novelist would write about, but not something you’d expect to see during your lifetime.

    Competition requires functional marketplaces. In general, motorsport has failed to build anything that resembles a competitive marketplace for the people who participate. It’s just a high-speed soap opera, which pales in comparison to mainstream sports.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      The FIA knows what keeps the fans interested the most. Close racing and real competitions for all positions, but specially for race wins. The solution is simple, give everyone a spec car and engine. Unfortunately, that would strike at the heart and soul of Formula 1, where traditionally nearly always every team had to build its own chassis. And the engines are far from spec. This issue is what’s ballooning the costs and introducing so much inequality into F1 races.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    It shouldn’t be a surprise that F1 drivers aren’t considered the best. They actually pull from a remarkably small pool, when you look at the money involved in progressing from karting through open wheel junior series. We’ve been seeing nepotism of even half talented families for decades now. It isn’t a wonder that Juan Pablo Montoya, who made such a huge splash in F1, couldn’t cut it in NASCAR. NASCAR has a few hundred thousand short track competitors to draw from, while F1 draws from a few money laundering enclaves and 2nd generation legacies.

    As for the cars, they’ve tried to make the sport interesting for people who aren’t interested at the expense of people that understood what they were watching. The result is unworthy of the real fans and it’s pointless to try to hold the attention of people defined by their lack of attention span. When rule changes have worked, it has been by accident. Grooved tires were a travesty, but when the two best tire companies were battling, they produced sticky tires that didn’t ruin the racing with off-line marbles. Needless to say, the FIA then ordered no tire changes and ruined the racing again. Everything they’ve done since has been negative.

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      NASCAR’s been heading the same way in terms of nepotism and a driver pool more based on money than talent over the last decade or so.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      I think your Montoya example is a bad one. Just look at what Montoya is doing this season in IndyCar. He already won Indy 500 and he will probably win the championship. It’s one of the greatest come back stories in all of motorsports. Yes, he hasn’t been a good NASCAR driver, but since when has NASCAR been a good yardstick for judging racers overall? There have been many instances of open wheel drivers changing successfully between IndyCar and F1, but not so much between open wheels and NASCAR. NASCAR is just a very different type of racing. I’d say, a real good honest series outside of F1 that would be good to judge the drivers who didn’t make it in F1 would have been DTM or Formula E.

  • avatar
    anomaly149

    The problem I have with F1 is it’s an engineering competition (a lot like Formula Student), not a racing league. Aussie V8s, Indycar, Sprint Cup, they all have rigid enough rules,and enough decoupling between manufacturers and teams, that there is competition between drivers, not strictly manufacturers. There are still better and worse teams (Penske vs KVM for example), but at least the smaller guys have a fighting chance.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Up to 2013, there has been a pretty good “decoupling” between the engine manufacturers and the teams in the sense that most engine development was frozen and most teams had access to a race winning engine. Nonetheless, this still allowed for dull seasons like 2011 or 2013. The rich teams or manufacturers simply poured more money into chassis development.

      But I see what you’re seeing. Until all core components of the car are effectively spec, F1 will not achieve an equal competition. But going spec would go against F1’s heart and soul. Historically, most seasons, F1 teams had to build their own chassis, and that’s what open the opportunity for so much inequality. I think what needs to happen is a possibility of purchasing a customer chassis instead of going spec. 3-4 rich manufacturers can spend hundreds of millions on chassis development, then they must sell this chassis at the cost of manufacturing it to the fab-less customer teams. Then we could see a good competition without going with entirely spec series.

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    Almost every recent F1 rule change has made the racing more artificial in the misguided belief that this will make races “more exciting” for non-existent casual fans. Nascar suffers from the same problem, BTW.

    Now drivers have to press a magic button to pass, they have to drive part of the race on the wrong tire, they get penalized any time they make a passing move outside of the designated passing lanes, they are deliberately held-back for 80% of the race in order to save their fuel/engine/tires, they get complex penalties for mechanical failures.

    Basically, FIA and Ecclestone have made F1 into “boxing without all that hitting.” They are too proud and/or stupid to roll-back their innovations, so they add more useless rules instead of repealing old ones.

    I still like watching it, but it could be so much better if the rules didn’t get in the way of the racing.

  • avatar
    SomeGuy

    I didn’t think I’d comment after Baruth took a step back, but I’m so passionate about F1 I have to say something.

    First Aaron, I read the other article, welcome to the site. I said in my last comment I was going to take a break from coming here after Baruth was “quitting,” but it seems he still is here very often and still posts good content and his brother has a knack for it too. Compared to Jalopnik this place is far superior for a quick update.

    Anyways, this survey, from a person who conducts surveys for a living, says the F1 survey was poorly done:

    http://www.formula1blog.com/f1-news/the-real-problem-with-f1-surveys/

    I took the survey. It was very, very long. The questions were poorly worded at times too. Frankly, I don’t know if fans should have a say in how F1 is ran, as the base is too divided on certain issues. We have MORE THAN ENOUGH passing in this sport. I don’t want it becoming NASCAR where you can start 40th and be 13th in 10 laps if you hit the draft just right.

    I’m torn on DRS. I don’t like it because it makes the passes more artificial, but with the way aero is setup on the cars right now, you cannot be within two seconds of the car without having to worry about massive tire degradation from the disrupted air hitting the front of the following car (this is due to the large diffuser on the back of F1 cars).

    I agree with the fan concern that F1 isn’t the pinnacle of motorsport. In my opinion, it has changed to WEC. WEC LMP1 class is doing some wild stuff with technology that F1 just cannot replicate due to concerns about costs.

    The #1 thing I think the fans are right about at the end of the day though is the SOUND. These cars sound like garbage compared to the V8s of 2013. Turbo cars can sound good, we just need either to remove the fuel flow restriction of the cars or have a 6 speed (versus an 8 speed) gearbox to force higher RPMs. They shift at 11.5k to 12k RPMs right now. These motors will sound great in the 15k range.

    I’m rambling now, but I love F1 discussion and hope TTAC has more it.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      The gearbox isn’t going to change the revs they run at. The revs are artificially low because of the fuel flow restriction. At the given fuel flow rate cap, the most efficient power generation is around that 12k RPM level. You need a higher fuel flow rate to run higher RPM without starving the engine.

      Personally I wish that F1 would get rid of the formula for engine size and layout entirely and emulate the WEC setup where you can use a given amount of electric energy per lap and a given amount of fuel. Then design whatever type of engine you please that you think makes best use of that fuel amount. Even without adding the option of diesel like WEC has, you’d still see some different ideas and thus get some engines that sounded different without resorting to gimmicky exhausts designed specifically for noise.

      As for aero, they need to get rid of or severely limit what teams can do with the wings and let teams design the floor in a way that allows them to get enough downforce to keep reasonable amounts of total grip. The rear wings generate a huge amount of turbulence behind the car and the front wings are too adversely affected by turbulent air. This is what makes it so hard to pass and what makes DRS necessary. A car that generates its downforce via the floor will generate less turbulence and in turn be less affected by turbulence.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    The issue in F1 (and other series) is you can make the racing exciting by adding power while limiting traction. This increases braking distances and the time spent under braking so a bigger passing window opens up. Conversely, big power and low traction on corner exit opens opportunities for drivers to pass there. where it all falls apart is in the board-rooms where the powerful teams and sponsors fight tooth and nail to protect the status-quo. They’d rather spend zillions on wind-tunnels and software than trust the racing to the drivers themselves and their skill and daring.

  • avatar
    El Hombre

    Go back to the 1967 spec; no aero, hard, treaded tires, 3 litre V-8 or V-12. Then you’d see them actually throwing the car into and out of the turns; that was the way to a quick lap. Because of the aero package that won’t work if you yaw the nose more than about 5 degrees from dead ahead, you can’t tell if somebody is really hauling the mail or just cruising; it looks the same. So it’s boring.

    The hard tires are the key; no reason to spend the money trying for 600hp+ when all you do is make tire smoke off the corners. The tires would be the restrictor in performance; not much grip, not too fast.

    When Speedvision actually showed vintage racing from the ’60s, watching somebody chucking the car in sideways, catch the slide, and power out was a lot more interesting than the slot car dynamics of the current stuff.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    Ooops – please my comment about, in response to “JMII”

    =======================

  • avatar

    As the sport’s overlords became richer and richer they tried more and more to control the situation…and they killed it. Sounds like the ruling class in ‘Murrica.

  • avatar
    Baldpeak

    1989-1991 were the best years. The cars were still very analog. Turbos and fuel economy racing were eliminated for 89. Things got boring in 92 when Williams dominated with traction control and active suspension, but before that, most of the cars had manual gearchange, including McLaren, which won the championships in 89 and 91. The cars all had widely differing characteristics. Differing construction techniques, visually obvious differences in aerodynamics, V-8’s, V-10’s, V-12’s, W-12’s! and there was a need to take care of tires, but not in an artificial gimmicky way, so there was lots of passing because different cars performed better at different points during the race. The tracks were still extremely bumpy, and they had high curbs until 1992, so the cars were thrilling to watch skittering over all the bumps and curbs, and the drivers needed to have some seriously rally-driver-like skills to make the best out of it. Today they’re more like technicians and spokesmodels than sportsmen.

  • avatar
    NeilM

    All these calls for “no aero” are poorly thought out. Every shape has aero. A brick has aero — it’s just really bad aero. Race cars have always had aero — just look at the pre-WWII streamliners! — it’s just that they didn’t know what they were doing, so they drew swoopy shapes and hoped for the best. Sometimes they had lift, sometimes downforce, sometime either one, depending on the conditions.

    Today the engineers know pretty well how aero works, so that particular genie can’t be put back in the bottle. For an example you only have to look at NASCAR, where alleged Fords and Toyotas all have the same body shapes and aero appurtenances, right down to the officially verified last sixteenth of an inch. Even then there are unwanted aero effects galore, especially when running in close quarters on the high speed ovals.

    Aero is a fact of life, and for that reason I applaud DRS, at least in principle (you can certainly argue about the details of how it’s applied). In the absence of any real way to suppress the byproducts of aerodynamics, at least DRS re-establishes passing that’s otherwise suppressed by aerodynamic wash. We may think DRS an inelegant solution, but at least it works, so I’ll take the two wrongs making a right.

    As for going back to manual shifting, sure, let’s do that, right after we go back to chain driven rear axles. Guess what, the gearbox technology genie doesn’t go back in the bottle either. Hell, my daily driver has a paddle-shift DSG transmission — get over it.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      I agree that tech isn’t the problem… it’s the politics, the cost, the way the tech is applied. It’s the leadership, and it’s the racing. F1 will continue to falter until Bernie passes on.

  • avatar
    7402

    It’s akin to college basketball being more fun to watch than pro; they seem to work harder and enjoy it more and there’s more of a sense of watching talent in development rather than at it’s apex.

    Here in the USA the best place to get this feeling is at local drag races where anyone who can pass a tech inspection can race. The problem, for me, is that drag races aren’t much fun to watch compared to races over a road course.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    F1 has often alternated between mediocre, good, and great seasons. Arguably, in this decade the bad (boring) or truly bad seasons were 2011, 2013, and 2015. On the other hand, 2010, 2012, and yes, even 2014 would be considered pretty good.

    The main issue right now is not the costs, engine sounds, etc, but the fact that the Mercedes car-engine package is vastly superior to everybody else. Renault is struggling and McLaren is serving as an obstacle for other cars to pass. If you somehow cap the costs/expenditures or give a little more money to poor teams like Sauber, it won’t change the dynamics of the current competition. To make things worse, the within-team competition is still quite weak. I’ll give Rosberg a big credit for not lagging behind Hamilton, the way Webber was lagging behind Vettel at Red Bull, or Massa behind Alonso at Ferrari, but the last 30 GPs are showing that in the absence of technical failures, pit crews, or Rosberg’s mistakes (like last year in Monaco or Spa) Hamilton will be consistently beating him. And that of course, adds a bit of predictability to the outcomes of most GPs.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    F1 is simply boring, why do I want to watch people drive cars that are basically all running the same boring configuration as everyone else. It’s one thing if it takes skill to do the race, but everything needed is predesigned into the vehicle. Major changes need to come, end fuel restrictions, end engine restrictions, end tire restrictions, just race.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jalop1991: “I’ve had two cases of the infotainment not booting up, and when that happened the last time the...
  • conundrum: Bought Mazda steelies for winter for my 6. Instead of solid black crap, they look like cheap alloys and...
  • conundrum: Exactly what I did. Went over mine before delivery and it was physically flawless so far as I could tell...
  • Kenn: “And major props for non-turbo motors and regular old automatics.” Along with Toyota’s...
  • nitramaj: I’ve been driving for 22 years now, and I’ve only had three Hondas during that time. My experience is that...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States