Good analysis, thank you.
And we (well, I) can’t have a discussion including “borderline recklessness (or the rather petulant reaction to it sometimes)” without mentioning Vettel, can we? He is much worse than Verstappen in this regard, as far as I have seen. Very lucky (cough, FERRARI, cough) not to have been suspended last season.
Formula I is too restrictive for my tastes. Narrow, winding tracks make passing and high flat out speeds almost non existent. I much prefer Indy style racing, though Formula I seems to be the rage in Europe.
Ah, it’s the old high-scoring vs low-scoring argument (a bit like, say, basketball vs soccer). The low number of overtaking manouevres in F1 is precisely what makes them so exciting when they do occur. And if someone pulls off a win from a low place on the grid, that’s a real achievement. Whereas in Indy and NASCAR, I assume winning the race despite starting in (say) 20th position is reasonably commonplace, because overtakes happen every lap.
Don’t get me wrong, oval drivers are also incredibly skilled and brave, and the racing is exciting in a different way. But there’s a reason that more F1 drivers have made a successful transition to Indycar than vice versa, and that when we discuss “greatest driver ever” it is exclusively about F1 drivers - Dale Earnhardt and Richard Petty (for example), while great in their field, don’t get a look-in.
Sadly true, and it is a shame because outside of the car he seems like a really nice guy.
He is a very quick driver in the right circumstances and you don’t win the thing four times without being a real talent but when things are against him he cracks.
Just a little, just now and again, but in a sport of tiny margins and huge consequences for tiny errors or tiny fluctuations from optimal performance, it is enough to affect his performances.
That happens less and less these days to Hamilton and that’s one reason why he dominates.
And the rest of the world!
I think actually that the top speeds reached in F1 and oval racing are close enough to not make a real difference but of course on the oval it is kept up for longer.
Mind you, the fact that the speed and direction varies little on an oval means that the speed ceases to be of interest to me after a while. At tracks such as Spa you are tiptoing round a hairpin at 40 and blasting down the straights at 200.
There is greater racing variety in F1 overall and demands more of the drivers, that is what holds my interest.
Too restrictive, yet you like IndyCar in which you are restricted to 1 type of car, a Dallara, and restricted to either a Chevy or a Honda engine. And you can design and build your own anything. IndyCar is damn near a spec series.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll watch IndyCar if I happen upon it. But the engineering aspect of F1 is one of the huge reason I go out of my way to watch every practice, qualifying, and race.
I mean, one also has to take into account the difference in position they are in. Hamilton can easily decide to fight another day because Mercs will be in a prime position to win the race every week. So being less aggressive doesn’t impact Hamilton all that much. Verstappen doesn’t have that same safety net. And Verstappen’s aggressiveness also gets him better positions as much as it causes him to spin out from time to time.
I would argue that if Verstappen was in a Merc, he’d be a bit less aggressive simply due to the fact that he doesn’t HAVE to be as aggressive to be in the mix for WDC.
Interestingly enough, 7 time NASCAR Cup Champion, Jimmie Johnson, is going to be racing IndyCar next season. Will be interesting to see how he does.
NASCAR and IndyCar both have flying starts, which are boring as hell. I think both would be improved with grid starts like F1. Hell, it might make the stupid stage race format in NASCAR somewhat more interesting. Might require a six car wide grid though to make turn 1 exciting.
That’s a damn interesting idea. I wonder if it might be tough to do on a banked track, though, like a tri-oval. If you spin the rear tires, the back end of the car starts sliding down the hill. If one of the drivers at the front of the grid gets it wrong, he could wind up sideways and blocking most of the track.
What are the downsides, though? 
In other words, business as usual. Might be a lower speed crash than the drivers are used to.
Even a more reasonable 4 wide grid will still have 9 or 10 rows in NASCAR. Still ought to be fun. And if they do grids starts three times per race due to that stage race silliness, all the better.
[quote=“Novelty_Bobble, post:112, topic:914544, full:true” He’s taken 90% of Senna, 90% of Prost, 90% of Schumacher and most of that missing 10% was the bad stuff.[/quote]
That’s a pretty good analysis. He also has something none of them had, which is the ability to have “safe” contact. In 2015 and 2016 with Rosberg, and in 2017-2018 with Vettel, Hamilton showed an amazing ability to maintain control of the car when he made contact with another car, and to avoid punctures and wing damage. This was particularly impressive because it was usually the other guy running into him, though I do recall it being the other way once or twice (USA and Canada 2015 spring to mind).
A bright future for him in banger racing once he gets bored of breaking F1 records .
More seriously, that’s a really good point that I hadn’t considered before, thanks.
I love Formula 1, it is currently by far my favorite sport. But, I seriously wished that there was a way for drivers to force themselves into better cars.
F1 would be so much better if there was any kind of real competition for the title and not only for Formula 1.5. Despite Mercedes being as dominant as this season in 2014 to 2016, Rosberg at least really tried (and eventually succeeded) beating Hamilton, whereas Bottas is quick but no real threat for Hamilton. Mercedes is very happy with the peace in its garage - I, on the other hand, would love a little more drama. There is a reason why fans blissfully remember the Prost/Senna years, as well as the pairings of Hamilton/Alonso, Hamilton/Rosberg or even Vettel/Webber (Multi 21). If Schumi would not have had a complying Barrichello as his team mate but Villeneuve, Montoya or young Räikkönen or Alonso this would have been so much better for Formula 1.
I would love a system where e.g. the first placed driver of a team could challenge the second placed driver of another team for his seat (in an order ruled by the final standings of the world championship). That way Verstappen could have the chance to challenge Bottas for his place in the Mercedes team. If Verstappen choses not to challenge Bottas then the next-best “first” driver would have the chance to challenge Bottas (with the current standings this would be Perez, Leclerc or Ricciardo, maybe even Sainz).
The challenge should then involve some kind of after-season shoot-out over a week-end with identical cars. E.g. this could be the car that is at stake - so the Mercedes F1 car in the case of a dual between Bottas and Verstappen (or Perez/Leclerc). Bottas would still have the advantage of familiarity with the car and team but at least Verstappen would have a chance. If Bottas wins, each driver stays at his team. If Bottas lost this dual, the two drivers would be forced to change teams for the following season. This theme could then be cascaded downward the order of the world championship final standings.
Arrangements should be made for teams to allow introduction of new drivers from outside of the current paddock (like young, new drivers like Mick Schumacher or drivers form other series or returning from sabbaticals like Alonso).
I am under no illusion:My proposal is flawed, no doubt. It would not work under the current arrangement where drivers are employed by the teams. And in particular, I am certain that most teams would be fiercely against this proposal. I simply like the thought that it would allow closer competition even if a single team is as dominant as Mercedes for the past few years (or Ferrari was in the early 2000s or Red Bull in the early 2010s).
There’s a seed of a great idea here though.
That might make for more competition within a team, but I think it would hurt the racing overall. If the two best drivers could challenge their way into the two best cars, that would be great for Mercedes but would put Red Bull even further behind. Then the second-best team would get the third- and fourth-best drivers, and so on. You’d have the potential for battles between teammates, but almost nothing between teams. If a back-of-the-grid team couldn’t even discover a great driver and groom him for a few seasons, that’s one less reason for them to stay in the sport.
I don’t think it is as clear cut as this. Of course, there would be a diffusion of good drivers towards the better performing teams.
a. If the top team (currently clearly Mercedes) had two “alpha”-drivers they would cost each other points (compare ROS/HAM). I think Mercedes would hate that situation.
b. It is never clear cut which team will prepare the best car in the coming season. Remember Ricciardo who left Red Bull and invested into a future development of Renault (and now the same with McLaren).
c. It might be unclear if the “best” car suits the driving style of a potential challenger.
d. With midfield teams or even struggling teams it is probably similar to b. There are vast differences in performance between years. A potential top driver might chose to stay at a team because he might believe that the team can deliver a vastly better car in the following season.
Discovery of future drivers is not the business model of typical back marker teams. Either they act as de facto junior teams or they employ experienced drivers who are expected to assist in bringing car development further or the employ pay drivers or drivers who come with lucrative sponsorship money.
Horrendous crash yesterday in Bahrain. I’ve seen very little to compare with it in the past couple of decades. Full marks to the design teams that made it survivable and to the on-track teams that were there in a flash.
Incredible that he gets out of it with just a few minor burns and perhaps some broken ribs.
Seeing as he is OK I also think it is OK to say that it appeared to be 100% Grosjean’s fault. He was lucky it was only himself that he dumped into the barriers and didn’t collect Kvyat as well.
The viewers gave him driver of the day which seems more than a little sarcastic seeing as it was his dangerous manoeuvre that caused the crash. “well done, you managed not to quite kill yourself or anyone else, have driver of the day”
I agree, it was the sort of reckless sudden change of line on a fast straight which Grosjean has been guilty of numerous times before. But so pleased he escaped without major injury - he really does appear to be a genuinely nice guy - although that’s not a measure of whether I’m happy to see somebody escape injury!