planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:00 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Pick the top two immortal Teams
McLaren (1988-1991) 20%  20%  [ 8 ]
Williams (1992-1997) 15%  15%  [ 6 ]
Ferrari (2000-2004) 30%  30%  [ 12 ]
Red Bull (2009-2013) 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Mercedes (2014-2018) 33%  33%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 40
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Am not sure why the stats arbitrarily stop in the late '80s.
F1 teams total WCCs:
Ferrari - 16
Williams - 9
McLaren - 8
Lotus - 7
Mercedes - 5
Red Bull - 4
Cooper - 2
Brabham - 2
Renault - 2
No one else has more than 1 WCC.

It's explained above, there were no periods of domination before then. Teams never won more than 1 or 2 WCC's in a row before then


Personally I would have included Ferrari 75-79 as well. They won the WCC for 3 consecutive years. 75-77 and again in 79.

They would have won in 1974 had Lauda not had his near fatal crash.


You mean 76 and they did win the WCC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What's interesting is that in the last 31 years we have had only 6 years of none domination, so what we see presently is more normal than not, yet F1 is apparently now broken?

You know it is not that simple, I think you are being slightly naughty with this remark.

Today's problem is slightly different as others have mentioned, rules that make new teams joining completely uninterested, engines that are over-complicated, etc., we've been over this many times in the forum.

And no, F1 is not broken, in fact F1 was never perfect and there were always complaints through the years, it is not just today's issue.

New teams that joined in recent years folded because of the revenue systems created by Bernie who only wanted 10 competitive teams not a F1 littered with teams hardly any better than F3000/GP2/F2 teams.

That being said Haas joined during the hybrid era so what you said is not entirely true and going forward the 2021 regs being laid down were said to be looking to encourage new teams to join but it seems even 2021 is already being written off?


I wish you would stop ending your sentences with these little questions that seem to just aim to upset the conversation... No one said F1 is broken, no one said that 2021 is written off, I'm not sure how you got this idea and in fact these are your additions to the conversation. It makes it quite difficult to hit a proper conversation when you do this.

And Haas is a special case, they got the Marrusia's old HQ, they spent an extra year of free F1 testing (not an F1 team at the time so they had unlimited testing) and they pioneered the low cost model, by that collaboration with Ferrari that didn't really go down quite well in the paddock, still doesn't. Can you see VW or any other team entering with the same terms?

VW will join F1 if they can have the engine rules exactly as they want them and if they can't then that's seen as the existing engine manufacturers protecting their positions when it relates to F1.

VW recently made a request to join Indycars but they wanted hybrid engines to be introduced to the series, the other two manufacturers declined, why should manufacturers that have invested countless years into a series be allowed to be railroaded by a new manufacturer?

I'm guessing a lot of people might hot know that but then again Indycars is not as politically sensitive as F1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The statistics show Mercedes as being the most dominant team in F1 history, so that's not really true? ;)

Not sure how it relates to the broken point you were making?

Maybe F1 has always been broken because it's not changed that much to me apart from it being far more professional?

Well broken is your word of course but if you haven't taken onboard the various facts that people have already outlined to demonstrate that F1 is very different now to how it used to be then I don't think anything I say will make a difference.

I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What's interesting is that in the last 31 years we have had only 6 years of none domination, so what we see presently is more normal than not, yet F1 is apparently now broken?

You know it is not that simple, I think you are being slightly naughty with this remark.

Today's problem is slightly different as others have mentioned, rules that make new teams joining completely uninterested, engines that are over-complicated, etc., we've been over this many times in the forum.

And no, F1 is not broken, in fact F1 was never perfect and there were always complaints through the years, it is not just today's issue.

New teams that joined in recent years folded because of the revenue systems created by Bernie who only wanted 10 competitive teams not a F1 littered with teams hardly any better than F3000/GP2/F2 teams.

That being said Haas joined during the hybrid era so what you said is not entirely true and going forward the 2021 regs being laid down were said to be looking to encourage new teams to join but it seems even 2021 is already being written off?


I wish you would stop ending your sentences with these little questions that seem to just aim to upset the conversation... No one said F1 is broken, no one said that 2021 is written off, I'm not sure how you got this idea and in fact these are your additions to the conversation. It makes it quite difficult to hit a proper conversation when you do this.

And Haas is a special case, they got the Marrusia's old HQ, they spent an extra year of free F1 testing (not an F1 team at the time so they had unlimited testing) and they pioneered the low cost model, by that collaboration with Ferrari that didn't really go down quite well in the paddock, still doesn't. Can you see VW or any other team entering with the same terms?

VW will join F1 if they can have the engine rules exactly as they want them and if they can't then that's seen as the existing engine manufacturers protecting their positions when it relates to F1.

VW recently made a request to join Indycars but they wanted hybrid engines to be introduced to the series, the other two manufacturers declined, why should manufacturers that have invested countless years into a series be allowed to be railroaded by a new manufacturer?

I'm guessing a lot of people might hot know that but then again Indycars is not as politically sensitive as F1.

BIB: you're drawing conclusions that are purely your opinion but which are, in no uncertain terms, wrong.

VW's conditions for entry are entirely separate from the existing manufacturers protecting their positions. There is a connection in that both are manufacturers looking to dictate terms to F1 but the cause and effect connection you're making is just plain mischievous, and that's being kind.

The situation in Indycar is not the same as in F1. There is no technical barrier to entry in Indy so there's no reason to accomodate change, whereas in F1 it's widely acknowledged that manufacturers have been put off entering by both the exorbitant cost and Honda's pitiful experience, combined with the fact that it would take them years to get on a par with the existing club.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

yes I'm inclined to agree, unfortunately


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

I agree so much with you. I have some sarcastic come backs but I'll refrain from commenting!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

And, for you, the difference is that there are three teams locked into the top 6 positions rather than just one team locked into the top 2? Just want to be clear. I'd hate to be insincere or wilfully blind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

And, for you, the difference is that there are three teams locked into the top 6 positions rather than just one team locked into the top 2? Just want to be clear. I'd hate to be insincere or wilfully blind.


It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I see a F1 history littered with dominant teams so what is happening now is little different.

yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

And, for you, the difference is that there are three teams locked into the top 6 positions rather than just one team locked into the top 2? Just want to be clear. I'd hate to be insincere or wilfully blind.


It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.

I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...


I agree with all that really. Poor reliability is a blessing and a curse. It was sometimes hard to buy into a race where you knew the leading cars were likely to break down. On the other hand it did keep you on the edge of your seat in races like Monaco 97 where you had Barrichello on for an incredible result but driving a car that had never completed a race distance (as far as I can remember).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
yeah I'm afraid we're back to context again


Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

And, for you, the difference is that there are three teams locked into the top 6 positions rather than just one team locked into the top 2? Just want to be clear. I'd hate to be insincere or wilfully blind.


It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.

I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...

I mostly agree, however I think that McLaren had arguably an equal car to Ferrari in 2003. So did Williams.

Also, Benetton took the fight to Williams twice in their dominant era, as did Ferrari in 1997. In 1996 they lost races to a car that was basically a bathtub on wheels!!!

Anyway, only at the RBR years (not all) did I feel the same hopelessness that I feel today where "no one can reach that rocketship", and even that is nowhere near to what we see today. Partly because of the Merc dominance and partly because of Ferrari's inability to capitalise in a good car the last two seasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1093
1995 is very hard to analyse, the Williams was quick enough for 12 out of 16 poles but it was also very unreliable and Hill/Coulthard made so many mistakes. Hill ended up with 7 DNFs in 16 races, Coulthard 8 DNFs.

Schumacher would have easily won the title in either car that year, if he was in the Williams, he likely would have won every race he finished.

Hill was also a little unlucky and statred the season well, he should have won the first 3 races and had a very nice lead in the championship but he blew up from the lead in the first race. It was only later in the year when he was playing catch up that the pressure got to him and the errors came in. He could have easily had a 20 point lead after those 3 races and if he did, I think he might have won the title.


Last edited by Johnson on Wed May 22, 2019 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
Johnson wrote:
1995 is very hard to analyse, the Williams was quick enough for 12 out of 16 poles but it was also very unreliable and Hill/Coulthard made so many mistakes. Hill ended up with 7 DNFs in 16 races, Coulthard 8 DNFs.

Schumacher would have easily won the title in either car that year, if he was in the Williams, he likely would have won every race he finished.

Depending on his team mate!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1093
Siao7 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
1995 is very hard to analyse, the Williams was quick enough for 12 out of 16 poles but it was also very unreliable and Hill/Coulthard made so many mistakes. Hill ended up with 7 DNFs in 16 races, Coulthard 8 DNFs.

Schumacher would have easily won the title in either car that year, if he was in the Williams, he likely would have won every race he finished.

Depending on his team mate!


No driver on the 1995 grid could touch Schumacher, except maybe Hakkinen..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.

I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...

I mostly agree, however I think that McLaren had arguably an equal car to Ferrari in 2003. So did Williams.

Also, Benetton took the fight to Williams twice in their dominant era, as did Ferrari in 1997. In 1996 they lost races to a car that was basically a bathtub on wheels!!!

Anyway, only at the RBR years (not all) did I feel the same hopelessness that I feel today where "no one can reach that rocketship", and even that is nowhere near to what we see today. Partly because of the Merc dominance and partly because of Ferrari's inability to capitalise in a good car the last two seasons.

I'd point out that, likewise, Ferrari were absolutely competitive with Mercedes in 2017 and arguably superior (at least in terms of just the car) in 2018.

Taking a step back, I think the real difference is the times we are in. The information age and the culture of over-analyzing and being overly critical. Everyone is a critic these days. People can't buy a book on Amazon without writing a 3 paragraph review about why it's so great or crappy. Back in the day, you tuned in on Sunday to watch the race and that was the last you saw of F1 until the next race weekend. Now there are forums, Youtube videos, countless online articles and blogs, etc.

We just have more of a culture of finding fault with things and expecting things to be perfectly tailored to our preferences. When you watch that Youtube video, an algorithm immediately puts 10 other videos similar to it into your recommendations. When you buy that book on Amazon, your homepage recommends other books from the same genre or author. We are used to things being tweaked almost instantaneously to perfectly anticipate and placate our desires. F1 is really bad at that lol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.

I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...

I mostly agree, however I think that McLaren had arguably an equal car to Ferrari in 2003. So did Williams.

Also, Benetton took the fight to Williams twice in their dominant era, as did Ferrari in 1997. In 1996 they lost races to a car that was basically a bathtub on wheels!!!

Anyway, only at the RBR years (not all) did I feel the same hopelessness that I feel today where "no one can reach that rocketship", and even that is nowhere near to what we see today. Partly because of the Merc dominance and partly because of Ferrari's inability to capitalise in a good car the last two seasons.

I'd point out that, likewise, Ferrari were absolutely competitive with Mercedes in 2017 and arguably superior (at least in terms of just the car) in 2018.

Taking a step back, I think the real difference is the times we are in. The information age and the culture of over-analyzing and being overly critical. Everyone is a critic these days. People can't buy a book on Amazon without writing a 3 paragraph review about why it's so great or crappy. Back in the day, you tuned in on Sunday to watch the race and that was the last you saw of F1 until the next race weekend. Now there are forums, Youtube videos, countless online articles and blogs, etc.

We just have more of a culture of finding fault with things and expecting things to be perfectly tailored to our preferences. When you watch that Youtube video, an algorithm immediately puts 10 other videos similar to it into your recommendations. When you buy that book on Amazon, your homepage recommends other books from the same genre or author. We are used to things being tweaked almost instantaneously to perfectly anticipate and placate our desires. F1 is really bad at that lol.


You don't see the differences I pointed out?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.

I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...

I mostly agree, however I think that McLaren had arguably an equal car to Ferrari in 2003. So did Williams.

Also, Benetton took the fight to Williams twice in their dominant era, as did Ferrari in 1997. In 1996 they lost races to a car that was basically a bathtub on wheels!!!

Anyway, only at the RBR years (not all) did I feel the same hopelessness that I feel today where "no one can reach that rocketship", and even that is nowhere near to what we see today. Partly because of the Merc dominance and partly because of Ferrari's inability to capitalise in a good car the last two seasons.

I'd point out that, likewise, Ferrari were absolutely competitive with Mercedes in 2017 and arguably superior (at least in terms of just the car) in 2018.

Taking a step back, I think the real difference is the times we are in. The information age and the culture of over-analyzing and being overly critical. Everyone is a critic these days. People can't buy a book on Amazon without writing a 3 paragraph review about why it's so great or crappy. Back in the day, you tuned in on Sunday to watch the race and that was the last you saw of F1 until the next race weekend. Now there are forums, Youtube videos, countless online articles and blogs, etc.

We just have more of a culture of finding fault with things and expecting things to be perfectly tailored to our preferences. When you watch that Youtube video, an algorithm immediately puts 10 other videos similar to it into your recommendations. When you buy that book on Amazon, your homepage recommends other books from the same genre or author. We are used to things being tweaked almost instantaneously to perfectly anticipate and placate our desires. F1 is really bad at that lol.


You don't see the differences I pointed out?

Sure but wouldn't you say that Ferrari in 1999-2004 had some unique elements as well? Biggest budget, private test track, unlimited testing mileage, very cozy relationship with Bridgestone and no actual teammate battle allowed between drivers. That certainly paints a very bleak picture, doesn't it? How about Williams in the 90s; essentially changing F1 by introducing vastly superior aerodynamics and suspension technology and routinely setting pole position by more than a second in years like 92', 93', 96' and 97' (sometimes 2+ seconds)?

There are elements of what is happening now that we haven't seen before but the same can be said of past generations and the gaps that the dominant teams had in the past were actually much larger. The main difference is us; not the racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
[quote="sandman1347"]
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.


Oh, don't get me wrong I found 2001 and 2002 really dull years of F1. I wouldn't argue in favour of that either. We still had a lot more ebb and flow in the sport though so you believed things could get better. Like in 2002 I couldn't tell you who would be competing for race wins in 03.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.


Oh, don't get me wrong I found 2001 and 2002 really dull years of F1. I wouldn't argue in favour of that either. We still had a lot more ebb and flow in the sport though so you believed things could get better. Like in 2002 I couldn't tell you who would be competing for race wins in 03.

I see, and in 2014 did you think Ferrari would be the second strongest team the next year? Honestly your complaints about today's F1 as being in some kind of especially serious crisis do not resonate with me at all. I don't see anything particularly special about the drawbacks of today's F1. There have always been drawbacks and F1 has only rarely presented close competition between many teams for victory. I'd argue that the second half of seasons like 2017 and 2018 provided many races where 3 teams could fight for wins at the front. Not sure what more you could want (other than having that from Round 1 in the season).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.


Oh, don't get me wrong I found 2001 and 2002 really dull years of F1. I wouldn't argue in favour of that either. We still had a lot more ebb and flow in the sport though so you believed things could get better. Like in 2002 I couldn't tell you who would be competing for race wins in 03.

I see, and in 2014 did you think Ferrari would be the second strongest team the next year? Honestly your complaints about today's F1 as being in some kind of especially serious crisis do not resonate with me at all. I don't see anything particularly special about the drawbacks of today's F1. There have always been drawbacks and F1 has only rarely presented close competition between many teams for victory. I'd argue that the second half of seasons like 2017 and 2018 provided many races where 3 teams could fight for wins at the front. Not sure what more you could want (other than having that from Round 1 in the season).


At least some of the things I listed above?

You surely can't deny there are far fewer avenues of interest at the moment? I don't understand what 2014 has to do with it? I do know that across the Ferrari dominant period Williams, Renault and BAR were all able to break from the midfield and challenge for wins.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7141
Location: Michigan, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
I'd argue that the second half of seasons like 2017 and 2018 provided many races where 3 teams could fight for wins at the front. Not sure what more you could want (other than having that from Round 1 in the season).

Not having those same three teams locked in, season after season, as the only three with a chance at competing for wins?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I'd argue that the second half of seasons like 2017 and 2018 provided many races where 3 teams could fight for wins at the front. Not sure what more you could want (other than having that from Round 1 in the season).

Not having those same three teams locked in, season after season, as the only three with a chance at competing for wins?

3 is more than the 1 or 2 that can compete for wins in most seasons in F1 history. I do agree that the other teams in the field seem to reach a glass ceiling if they become 4th best. That's not a good thing but, as I mentioned before, there are unique drawbacks to every era. To suggest that this is the worst thing that's ever happened simply doesn't resonate with me at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6694
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.


Oh, don't get me wrong I found 2001 and 2002 really dull years of F1. I wouldn't argue in favour of that either. We still had a lot more ebb and flow in the sport though so you believed things could get better. Like in 2002 I couldn't tell you who would be competing for race wins in 03.

I see, and in 2014 did you think Ferrari would be the second strongest team the next year? Honestly your complaints about today's F1 as being in some kind of especially serious crisis do not resonate with me at all. I don't see anything particularly special about the drawbacks of today's F1. There have always been drawbacks and F1 has only rarely presented close competition between many teams for victory. I'd argue that the second half of seasons like 2017 and 2018 provided many races where 3 teams could fight for wins at the front. Not sure what more you could want (other than having that from Round 1 in the season).


At least some of the things I listed above?

You surely can't deny there are far fewer avenues of interest at the moment? I don't understand what 2014 has to do with it? I do know that across the Ferrari dominant period Williams, Renault and BAR were all able to break from the midfield and challenge for wins.

Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...

I mostly agree, however I think that McLaren had arguably an equal car to Ferrari in 2003. So did Williams.

Also, Benetton took the fight to Williams twice in their dominant era, as did Ferrari in 1997. In 1996 they lost races to a car that was basically a bathtub on wheels!!!

Anyway, only at the RBR years (not all) did I feel the same hopelessness that I feel today where "no one can reach that rocketship", and even that is nowhere near to what we see today. Partly because of the Merc dominance and partly because of Ferrari's inability to capitalise in a good car the last two seasons.

I'd point out that, likewise, Ferrari were absolutely competitive with Mercedes in 2017 and arguably superior (at least in terms of just the car) in 2018.

Taking a step back, I think the real difference is the times we are in. The information age and the culture of over-analyzing and being overly critical. Everyone is a critic these days. People can't buy a book on Amazon without writing a 3 paragraph review about why it's so great or crappy. Back in the day, you tuned in on Sunday to watch the race and that was the last you saw of F1 until the next race weekend. Now there are forums, Youtube videos, countless online articles and blogs, etc.

We just have more of a culture of finding fault with things and expecting things to be perfectly tailored to our preferences. When you watch that Youtube video, an algorithm immediately puts 10 other videos similar to it into your recommendations. When you buy that book on Amazon, your homepage recommends other books from the same genre or author. We are used to things being tweaked almost instantaneously to perfectly anticipate and placate our desires. F1 is really bad at that lol.


You don't see the differences I pointed out?

Sure but wouldn't you say that Ferrari in 1999-2004 had some unique elements as well? Biggest budget, private test track, unlimited testing mileage, very cozy relationship with Bridgestone and no actual teammate battle allowed between drivers. That certainly paints a very bleak picture, doesn't it? How about Williams in the 90s; essentially changing F1 by introducing vastly superior aerodynamics and suspension technology and routinely setting pole position by more than a second in years like 92', 93', 96' and 97' (sometimes 2+ seconds)?

There are elements of what is happening now that we haven't seen before but the same can be said of past generations and the gaps that the dominant teams had in the past were actually much larger. The main difference is us; not the racing.


There were unique elements in this era too. Token system, tight rules and lets not forget the secret tyre testing. It was so bad that they had to allow Renault to bypass the token system to get some kind of parity.

In the Ferrari years other teams had tracks, other teams had special relationships with tyre manufacturers and unlimited testing. Anyone could have done what Ferrari did, but not many could do what Mercedes did recently. It was when the token system went away after 2017 that we saw Mercedes falling backwards, until now that is.

I agree with the last of your sentences, but I said above, it is the first time that it really feels like the rest have no chance in hell of getting a win. In all these dominant periods before it took some reg changes to change that; Mercedes just brushed it off. The difference is astonishing really.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
sandman1347 wrote:
Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Williams did challenge for the championship in 03. But that's not the point. The point is we had the excitement of at least the prospect of some unpredictability. I couldn't tell you who would be up front competing in 12 months time.

Over a 4 year period they had to really fight for it once. Merc it's been 2 out of 6 and even then we didn't get close to the final race.

In Mercedes 2 most vulnerable years they only won 12% fewer of the races than Ferrari's two most dominant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3506
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Williams did challenge for the championship in 03. But that's not the point. The point is we had the excitement of at least the prospect of some unpredictability. I couldn't tell you who would be up front competing in 12 months time.

Over a 4 year period they had to really fight for it once. Merc it's been 2 out of 6 and even then we didn't get close to the final race.

In Mercedes 2 most vulnerable years they only won 12% fewer of the races than Ferrari's two most dominant.


That's a very disingenuous was of presenting the information given that the there are far more races today. When done as a percentage of races, Ferraris 2002 season is superior to all but Mercedes's 2016 season, and their 2004 season equivalent to the 2014/2015 seasons (given that one race is worth 5.8%, that's the closest they can be)

Likewise, Mercedes 2017/2018 seasons are in the same ballpark as Ferrari's lesser seasons, and Mercedes worst season is only saved from bottom of the table by Ferrari's 2003 season. (This table is sortable by clicking on the the column headers)












TeamYearWinsRacesPercentage
Mercedes2018112152.4%
Mercedes2017122060.0%
Mercedes2016192190.5%
Mercedes2015161984.2%
Mercedes2014161984.2%
Ferrari2004151883.3%
Ferrari200381747.1%
Ferrari2002151788.8%
Ferrari200191752.9%
Ferrari2000101758.8%


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Williams did challenge for the championship in 03. But that's not the point. The point is we had the excitement of at least the prospect of some unpredictability. I couldn't tell you who would be up front competing in 12 months time.

Over a 4 year period they had to really fight for it once. Merc it's been 2 out of 6 and even then we didn't get close to the final race.

In Mercedes 2 most vulnerable years they only won 12% fewer of the races than Ferrari's two most dominant.


That's a very disingenuous was of presenting the information given that the there are far more races today. When done as a percentage of races, Ferraris 2002 season is superior to all but Mercedes's 2016 season, and their 2004 season equivalent to the 2014/2015 seasons (given that one race is worth 5.8%, that's the closest they can be)

Likewise, Mercedes 2017/2018 seasons are in the same ballpark as Ferrari's lesser seasons, and Mercedes worst season is only saved from bottom of the table by Ferrari's 2003 season. (This table is sortable by clicking on the the column headers)












TeamYearWinsRacesPercentage
Mercedes2018112152.4%
Mercedes2017122060.0%
Mercedes2016192190.5%
Mercedes2015161984.2%
Mercedes2014161984.2%
Ferrari2004151883.3%
Ferrari200381747.1%
Ferrari2002151788.8%
Ferrari200191752.9%
Ferrari2000101758.8%


I did it as a percentage? But I compared Ferrari in 2001/02 with Mercedes 2017/18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3506
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Williams did challenge for the championship in 03. But that's not the point. The point is we had the excitement of at least the prospect of some unpredictability. I couldn't tell you who would be up front competing in 12 months time.

Over a 4 year period they had to really fight for it once. Merc it's been 2 out of 6 and even then we didn't get close to the final race.

In Mercedes 2 most vulnerable years they only won 12% fewer of the races than Ferrari's two most dominant.


That's a very disingenuous was of presenting the information given that the there are far more races today. When done as a percentage of races, Ferraris 2002 season is superior to all but Mercedes's 2016 season, and their 2004 season equivalent to the 2014/2015 seasons (given that one race is worth 5.8%, that's the closest they can be)

Likewise, Mercedes 2017/2018 seasons are in the same ballpark as Ferrari's lesser seasons, and Mercedes worst season is only saved from bottom of the table by Ferrari's 2003 season. (This table is sortable by clicking on the the column headers)












TeamYearWinsRacesPercentage
Mercedes2018112152.4%
Mercedes2017122060.0%
Mercedes2016192190.5%
Mercedes2015161984.2%
Mercedes2014161984.2%
Ferrari2004151883.3%
Ferrari200381747.1%
Ferrari2002151788.8%
Ferrari200191752.9%
Ferrari2000101758.8%


I did it as a percentage? But I compared Ferrari in 2001/02 with Mercedes 2017/18.

You said Ferrari's two most dominant (which are 2002/2004) compared to Mercedes two most vulnerable (2017/2018) and said these are within 12%? Ferrari won 85% of the races in 2002 and 2004. Mercedes won 55% of the races in 2017 and 2018. But even if we looked at 2001/2002 (to do consecutive seasons) then Ferrari's won 71% of the races, which is 16%. But if you were to take an equivalent 'slice' of Mercedes, 2016/2017, you get 78% of the races, which is in a much closer ballpark, especially considering the improved reliability of modern cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15588
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Williams did challenge for the championship in 03. But that's not the point. The point is we had the excitement of at least the prospect of some unpredictability. I couldn't tell you who would be up front competing in 12 months time.

Over a 4 year period they had to really fight for it once. Merc it's been 2 out of 6 and even then we didn't get close to the final race.

In Mercedes 2 most vulnerable years they only won 12% fewer of the races than Ferrari's two most dominant.


That's a very disingenuous was of presenting the information given that the there are far more races today. When done as a percentage of races, Ferraris 2002 season is superior to all but Mercedes's 2016 season, and their 2004 season equivalent to the 2014/2015 seasons (given that one race is worth 5.8%, that's the closest they can be)

Likewise, Mercedes 2017/2018 seasons are in the same ballpark as Ferrari's lesser seasons, and Mercedes worst season is only saved from bottom of the table by Ferrari's 2003 season. (This table is sortable by clicking on the the column headers)












TeamYearWinsRacesPercentage
Mercedes2018112152.4%
Mercedes2017122060.0%
Mercedes2016192190.5%
Mercedes2015161984.2%
Mercedes2014161984.2%
Ferrari2004151883.3%
Ferrari200381747.1%
Ferrari2002151788.8%
Ferrari200191752.9%
Ferrari2000101758.8%


I did it as a percentage? But I compared Ferrari in 2001/02 with Mercedes 2017/18.

You said Ferrari's two most dominant (which are 2002/2004) compared to Mercedes two most vulnerable (2017/2018) and said these are within 12%? Ferrari won 85% of the races in 2002 and 2004. Mercedes won 55% of the races in 2017 and 2018. But even if we looked at 2001/2002 (to do consecutive seasons) then Ferrari's won 71% of the races, which is 16%. But if you were to take an equivalent 'slice' of Mercedes, 2016/2017, you get 78% of the races, which is in a much closer ballpark, especially considering the improved reliability of modern cars.


As I said, I did Ferrari in 2001/2002. Perhaps I was wrong to say most dominant years when I meant most dominant period?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Am not sure why the stats arbitrarily stop in the late '80s.
F1 teams total WCCs:
Ferrari - 16
Williams - 9
McLaren - 8
Lotus - 7
Mercedes - 5
Red Bull - 4
Cooper - 2
Brabham - 2
Renault - 2
No one else has more than 1 WCC.

It's explained above, there were no periods of domination before then. Teams never won more than 1 or 2 WCC's in a row before then


Personally I would have included Ferrari 75-79 as well. They won the WCC for 3 consecutive years. 75-77 and again in 79.

They would have won in 1974 had Lauda not had his near fatal crash.


You mean 76 and they did win the WCC.

Yeah I got my years mixed up.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
You know it is not that simple, I think you are being slightly naughty with this remark.

Today's problem is slightly different as others have mentioned, rules that make new teams joining completely uninterested, engines that are over-complicated, etc., we've been over this many times in the forum.

And no, F1 is not broken, in fact F1 was never perfect and there were always complaints through the years, it is not just today's issue.

New teams that joined in recent years folded because of the revenue systems created by Bernie who only wanted 10 competitive teams not a F1 littered with teams hardly any better than F3000/GP2/F2 teams.

That being said Haas joined during the hybrid era so what you said is not entirely true and going forward the 2021 regs being laid down were said to be looking to encourage new teams to join but it seems even 2021 is already being written off?


I wish you would stop ending your sentences with these little questions that seem to just aim to upset the conversation... No one said F1 is broken, no one said that 2021 is written off, I'm not sure how you got this idea and in fact these are your additions to the conversation. It makes it quite difficult to hit a proper conversation when you do this.

And Haas is a special case, they got the Marrusia's old HQ, they spent an extra year of free F1 testing (not an F1 team at the time so they had unlimited testing) and they pioneered the low cost model, by that collaboration with Ferrari that didn't really go down quite well in the paddock, still doesn't. Can you see VW or any other team entering with the same terms?

VW will join F1 if they can have the engine rules exactly as they want them and if they can't then that's seen as the existing engine manufacturers protecting their positions when it relates to F1.

VW recently made a request to join Indycars but they wanted hybrid engines to be introduced to the series, the other two manufacturers declined, why should manufacturers that have invested countless years into a series be allowed to be railroaded by a new manufacturer?

I'm guessing a lot of people might hot know that but then again Indycars is not as politically sensitive as F1.

BIB: you're drawing conclusions that are purely your opinion but which are, in no uncertain terms, wrong.

VW's conditions for entry are entirely separate from the existing manufacturers protecting their positions. There is a connection in that both are manufacturers looking to dictate terms to F1 but the cause and effect connection you're making is just plain mischievous, and that's being kind.

The situation in Indycar is not the same as in F1. There is no technical barrier to entry in Indy so there's no reason to accomodate change, whereas in F1 it's widely acknowledged that manufacturers have been put off entering by both the exorbitant cost and Honda's pitiful experience, combined with the fact that it would take them years to get on a par with the existing club.

VW don't want to join F1 because the hybrids are too complicated and expensive but they want to introduce more complicated and expensive hybrid engines too Indycars, although they wouldn't be as complicated and expensive as the F1 engines.

All I see is VW wanting to dictate terms to the existing engine manufacturers, I don't understand what you mean that there is no technical barrier to the engines in Indycar if they are able to block the hybrid engines?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...


I agree with all that really. Poor reliability is a blessing and a curse. It was sometimes hard to buy into a race where you knew the leading cars were likely to break down. On the other hand it did keep you on the edge of your seat in races like Monaco 97 where you had Barrichello on for an incredible result but driving a car that had never completed a race distance (as far as I can remember).

I remember the early years of the hybrids and some laughed at the unreliability of the engines and now that's a good thing, we want to wind back the clock to when F1 was less professional and more unreliable?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Anyone who claims they can't see the difference is either wilfully blind or being insincere.

And, for you, the difference is that there are three teams locked into the top 6 positions rather than just one team locked into the top 2? Just want to be clear. I'd hate to be insincere or wilfully blind.


It's a difference but there are others. The whole sports a lot more static with far fewer things to get excited about off the track that there has been in the past. It's that we know the domination of the 3 will continue, it's that we know no new teams are coming into the sport, it's that we know one of the lesser lights can't make a big jump and gain a second of lap time for the next race, it's that we know that it's impossible for anyone to tempt an engine partner to come on board to help push them toward the front, it's the increased reliability meaning that nobody apart from the big 3 will have a chance of seeing the podium, it's that the tarmac run off meaning a driver in those big teams making a mistake won't give the smaller teams a chance to gain positions

etc etc etc etc etc

Any other period of domination at least had the possibility someone could come from nowhere and design a great car for the next season. We've lost that.

I agree with some of that but I think the odds that either Red Bull or Ferrari will build a superior car to Mercedes next season are far greater than the odds that Williams or McLaren could have built a better car than Ferrari circa 2001-2004 (until the tire reg change for 2005). Certainly no one was going to build a faster car than Williams circa 1991-1997 until Newey left the team. So the strangle hold of a single team at the top has been stronger in the past.

I do agree that the odds of a team who is not among today's top 3 making a large enough improvement to compete with them seem to be close to zero. Even big budget teams like Mclaren and Renault seem to be in a different class from the big 3. I wouldn't bet any money on them catching up. The other teams can leapfrog each other but not the big 3. Reliability is an important factor as you correctly point out. It removes a lot of the unpredictability of the past but I'm not so sure that poor reliability is a good thing. I remember feeling like it turned things into too much of a lottery at times; often being the deciding factor in championships.

Most of this stuff is directly related to costs...

I mostly agree, however I think that McLaren had arguably an equal car to Ferrari in 2003. So did Williams.

Also, Benetton took the fight to Williams twice in their dominant era, as did Ferrari in 1997. In 1996 they lost races to a car that was basically a bathtub on wheels!!!

Anyway, only at the RBR years (not all) did I feel the same hopelessness that I feel today where "no one can reach that rocketship", and even that is nowhere near to what we see today. Partly because of the Merc dominance and partly because of Ferrari's inability to capitalise in a good car the last two seasons.

That's mainly because you had Schumacher racing against inferior drivers.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
Johnson wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
1995 is very hard to analyse, the Williams was quick enough for 12 out of 16 poles but it was also very unreliable and Hill/Coulthard made so many mistakes. Hill ended up with 7 DNFs in 16 races, Coulthard 8 DNFs.

Schumacher would have easily won the title in either car that year, if he was in the Williams, he likely would have won every race he finished.

Depending on his team mate!


No driver on the 1995 grid could touch Schumacher, except maybe Hakkinen..

Who I heard was later blocked from joining Ferrari?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.

Trulli train, Trulli train. ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what you list is different. They are reasons why those teams were dominant. I didn't talk about any of that. I brought up factors besides the domination that is making the sport dull.

Again, back during Ferrari's dominance cars couldn't overtake. Even the Ferrari could get stuck behind a Jordan for an entire stint despite being 2 seconds faster in qualifying. Funny how quickly we seem to have forgotten how boring everyone thought that was. The amount of action in today's races is much higher.


Oh, don't get me wrong I found 2001 and 2002 really dull years of F1. I wouldn't argue in favour of that either. We still had a lot more ebb and flow in the sport though so you believed things could get better. Like in 2002 I couldn't tell you who would be competing for race wins in 03.

I see, and in 2014 did you think Ferrari would be the second strongest team the next year? Honestly your complaints about today's F1 as being in some kind of especially serious crisis do not resonate with me at all. I don't see anything particularly special about the drawbacks of today's F1. There have always been drawbacks and F1 has only rarely presented close competition between many teams for victory. I'd argue that the second half of seasons like 2017 and 2018 provided many races where 3 teams could fight for wins at the front. Not sure what more you could want (other than having that from Round 1 in the season).

If Ferrari had won last year in slightly the better car and Mercedes been the team going down the wrong development path this year, this thread would not even exist.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Immortal Teams
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32110
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Yet none of them challenged for championships. BAR never actually won a race and, other than perhaps 2003, there was no season in which anyone really gave Ferrari a run for their money.


Williams did challenge for the championship in 03. But that's not the point. The point is we had the excitement of at least the prospect of some unpredictability. I couldn't tell you who would be up front competing in 12 months time.

Over a 4 year period they had to really fight for it once. Merc it's been 2 out of 6 and even then we didn't get close to the final race.

In Mercedes 2 most vulnerable years they only won 12% fewer of the races than Ferrari's two most dominant.

Well you can largely blame the Ferrari drivers for that.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group