Purist vs Spectacle?

[Fat_T0ny]

Jenson Buttons World Championship year results:

1 1 3 1 1 1 1 6 5 7 7 Ret 2 5 8 5 3

Why was he so inconsistent in the last half of the year? Car development, tracks, conditions, quali, strategy, setup, accidents, penalties, etc......

Should we take away his championship because he wasn't consistent? Sometimes things go wrong when racing. The fastest car is not guaranteed a win. If racing is too unfair, lets do a time trial, fastest lap is the winner on the weekend.

The cars & rules were different every year you mentioned. Maldonado caught a break. Hamilton should of started 1st if it weren't for the penalty. Raikkonen had the wrong strategy. Alonso had the wrong strategy. Vettel couldn't do Q3 due to a car problem & had a penalty and front wing problem. See Cam, lots of variables you can't control

Maybe. I could keep going back through more races over the last couple of years, but I reckon there's a trend there. Over the past 5-6 years, I can't recall seeing a car come from back of the field to win a race. If Mick won, or Kimi, yep, I would not have mentioned a thing - as they (teams) have consistency.

[raymondu999]

That hasn't happened in a while. Kimi's 2005 Suzuka win is the last one in a long while. Honestly? Winning from the back is a myth really. There have only been a couple in the last couple of decades.

[Cam]

Jenson Buttons World Championship year results:

1 1 3 1 1 1 1 6 5 7 7 Ret 2 5 8 5 3

Why was he so inconsistent in the last half of the year? Car development, tracks, conditions, quali, strategy, setup, accidents, penalties, etc......

Should we take away his championship because he wasn't consistent? Sometimes things go wrong when racing. The fastest car is not guaranteed a win. If racing is too unfair, lets do a time trial, fastest lap is the winner on the weekend.

Sorry, I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing. I have seen consistent results from teams of the last couple of years and as such the top teams have been in the top positions (give or take). Now, a mid to back team has won a race. My comment was on how weird that was and how, for me, doesn't sit right in F1 if it was not down to a technical advancement but rather a fluke on setup that could not be replicated.

[Cam]

Regarding my dream of different manufacturers back in F1. Responses after a question about 2014 engines and costs.

Seems my dream my may not be alone.

Ross Brawn: "They (manufacturers) will only come in with this new engine, so we want to attract manufacturers back into Formula One and this new engine is very important (in doing that)."

I like Frank. He knows cost isn't an issue in F1. The cost is the teams problem to overcome - if they can.

Frank Williams: "I’ve always been a competitor, like everybody else here, and my own position is that as long as we get the very best engine - whether it’s a fair price or not - as long as we can find the money to pay for it, we’ll go and buy that engine, and our present geography - I mean that bloke behind (J-FC), who we are with presently, we know that they will supply us - if we can afford it - with a very fine winning engine next year and that’s what we intend to do, and if we have to find more money, we’ll find the money."

[myurr]

Sorry, I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing. I have seen consistent results from teams of the last couple of years and as such the top teams have been in the top positions (give or take). Now, a mid to back team has won a race. My comment was on how weird that was and how, for me, doesn't sit right in F1 if it was not down to a technical advancement but rather a fluke on setup that could not be replicated.

But they appear to have built a solid car this year, a year when the main innovation that the front runners used (EBD) to gain huge advantage over them has been removed and levelled the field. The Williams looked like a solid car in Australia before Maldonado binned it, had top 10 finishes in Malaysia and China, won the last race, and look solid again in Monaco. As with any race where there isn't a massive car advantage there is an element of luck involved, but we're talking about luck moving cars around by a couple of places not promoting a back of the grid car to the front. This is always the case where there is as close a field as we are lucky enough to have this year.

Lest we forget that Maldonado was quick enough in qualifying for a second place starting position before Hamilton was demoted - and in qualifying tyre degradation plays little role. That car was well set up and working very well on track that day, with a driver who (as much as I dislike the guy) was driving at the top of his game.

[Cam]

Horner:

I think that consistency at the races that you can’t win - to score the maximum points possible - will do it. Consistency after 20 races will prevail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2012 F1 World Champion is - Mr Consistency! He mainly scored lots of 3rd and 5ths. Hooray!

For whatever reason - Shumacher dominated. Button dominated. Senna dominated. Vettel dominated. We all watched in awe and wished to be them. Truly worthy of the prestige title of F1 World Champion. It rewarded the best for being the best.

Mr Consistency is not someone anyone wishes to emulate. Mr Average is not a beacon that others are drawn too. So why dumb down this category so that is rewarded?

Look at Mercedes new advertising campaign - 'The best or nothing'........... It doesn't say "Average and consistent, we're number 1'.

[myurr]

Horner:

I think that consistency at the races that you can’t win - to score the maximum points possible - will do it. Consistency after 20 races will prevail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2012 F1 World Champion is - Mr Consistency! He mainly scored lots of 3rd and 5ths. Hooray!

For whatever reason - Shumacher dominated. Button dominated. Senna dominated. Vettel dominated. We all watched in awe and wished to be them. Truly worthy of the prestige title of F1 World Champion. It rewarded the best for being the best.

Mr Consistency is not someone anyone wishes to emulate. Mr Average is not a beacon that others are drawn too. So why dumb down this category so that is rewarded?

Look at Mercedes new advertising campaign - 'The best or nothing'........... It doesn't say "Average and consistent, we're number 1'.

So you're saying that a World Champion who battles through to win in a closely fought season is less worthy than one with a massive car advantage who can dominate? Consistency has always helped in closely fought seasons, not just this one.

[Cam]

Horner:

I think that consistency at the races that you can’t win - to score the maximum points possible - will do it. Consistency after 20 races will prevail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2012 F1 World Champion is - Mr Consistency! He mainly scored lots of 3rd and 5ths. Hooray!

For whatever reason - Shumacher dominated. Button dominated. Senna dominated. Vettel dominated. We all watched in awe and wished to be them. Truly worthy of the prestige title of F1 World Champion. It rewarded the best for being the best.

Mr Consistency is not someone anyone wishes to emulate. Mr Average is not a beacon that others are drawn too. So why dumb down this category so that is rewarded?

Look at Mercedes new advertising campaign - 'The best or nothing'........... It doesn't say "Average and consistent, we're number 1'.

So you're saying that a World Champion who battles through to win in a closely fought season is less worthy than one with a massive car advantage who can dominate? Consistency has always helped in closely fought seasons, not just this one.

There's been many F1 winners we've watched as it's come down to the wire to determine who they are. Sure, their lower results over the season played a part. But they didn't do that with one win and 15 mid field placings. They knew they had a good package, I could see that and understand it. I knew why they were good even if they had a bad race result. Now, who knows. I have no idea why a team wins one week and is 14th the next. Neither does anyone else - which is why now it's no longer about winning, it's about 'damage limitation' and 'just try and get a good points haul' all the time, not just in the one or two races you underperformed in. So the best won't win - Mr Consistent will. As a purist, that flies against everything F1 was.

[myurr]

There's been many F1 winners we've watched as it's come down to the wire to determine who they are. Sure, their lower results over the season played a part. But they didn't do that with one win and 15 mid field placings. They knew they had a good package, I could see that and understand it. I knew why they were good even if they had a bad race result. Now, who knows. I have no idea why a team wins one week and is 14th the next. Neither does anyone else - which is why now it's no longer about winning, it's about 'damage limitation' and 'just try and get a good points haul' all the time, not just in the one or two races you underperformed in. So the best won't win - Mr Consistent will. As a purist, that flies against everything F1 was.

But the best drivers will be the ones that can consistently extract the most from the car. That's always been the way in F1 and there have been many seasons where a driver has not had the best car but has been able to extract the most over the season. If a driver does the best job over a season then why are they not the best!? Why can they only be considered the best if they have a car advantage so can win week in week out with ease? There is less skill in that.

You've also made an assumption that the winner of this years world championship will only have one win. In reality they're more likely to have three or four wins at least.

[Cam]

But the best drivers will be the ones that can consistently extract the most from the car. That's always been the way in F1 and there have been many seasons where a driver has not had the best car but has been able to extract the most over the season. If a driver does the best job over a season then why are they not the best!? Why can they only be considered the best if they have a car advantage so can win week in week out with ease? There is less skill in that.

You've also made an assumption that the winner of this years world championship will only have one win. In reality they're more likely to have three or four wins at least.

I have no idea how many wins the final champ will have, no-one does, but it would be horrendous if that situation occurred.

To know where we're going, it's good to see where we've come from. Show me where a 'average Mr Consitency' won the F1 title previously. I've picked a few titles at random here, so happy if you can demonstrate where a less than winning driver/car/team has come through for the win.


1951
FANGIO, JUAN MANUEL

Grand Prix Date Team Grid Race Position Points Total
Swiss 27 May 1951 Alfa Romeo 1 1 9 9
Belgian 17 Jun 1951 Alfa Romeo 1 9 1 10
French 01 Jul 1951 Alfa Romeo 7 1 5 15
British 14 Jul 1951 Alfa Romeo 2 2 6 21
German 29 Jul 1951 Alfa Romeo 3 2 7 28
Italian 16 Sep 1951 Alfa Romeo 1 Ret 0 28
Spanish 28 Oct 1951 Alfa Romeo 2 1 9 37


1963
CLARK, JIM

Grand Prix Date Team Grid Race Position Points Total
Monaco 26 May 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 8 0 0
Belgian 09 Jun 1963 Lotus-Climax 8 1 9 9
Dutch 23 Jun 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 1 9 18
French 30 Jun 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 1 9 27
British 20 Jul 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 1 9 36
German 04 Aug 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 2 6 42
Italian 08 Sep 1963 Lotus-Climax 3 1 9 51
United States 06 Oct 1963 Lotus-Climax 2 3 4 55
Mexican 27 Oct 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 1 9 64
South African 28 Dec 1963 Lotus-Climax 1 1 9 73



1987
PIQUET, NELSON

Grand Prix Date Team Grid Race Position Points Total
Brazilian 12 Apr 1987 Williams-Honda 2 2 6 6
San Marino 03 May 1987 Williams-Honda DNS 0 6
Belgian 17 May 1987 Williams-Honda 2 Ret 0 6
Monaco 31 May 1987 Williams-Honda 3 2 6 12
United States 21 Jun 1987 Williams-Honda 3 2 6 18
French 05 Jul 1987 Williams-Honda 4 2 6 24
British 12 Jul 1987 Williams-Honda 1 2 6 30
German 26 Jul 1987 Williams-Honda 4 1 9 39
Hungarian 09 Aug 1987 Williams-Honda 3 1 9 48
Austrian 16 Aug 1987 Williams-Honda 1 2 6 54
Italian 06 Sep 1987 Williams-Honda 1 1 9 63
Portuguese 20 Sep 1987 Williams-Honda 4 3 4 67
Spanish 27 Sep 1987 Williams-Honda 1 4 3 70
Mexican 18 Oct 1987 Williams-Honda 3 2 6 76
Japanese 01 Nov 1987 Williams-Honda 5 15 0 76
Australian 15 Nov 1987 Williams-Honda 3 Ret 0 76

2000
SCHUMACHER, MICHAEL

Grand Prix Date Team Grid Race Position Points Total
Australian 12 Mar 2000 Ferrari 3 1 10 10
Brazilian 26 Mar 2000 Ferrari 3 1 10 20
San Marino 09 Apr 2000 Ferrari 2 1 10 30
British 23 Apr 2000 Ferrari 5 3 4 34
Spanish 07 May 2000 Ferrari 1 5 2 36
European 21 May 2000 Ferrari 2 1 10 46
Monaco 04 Jun 2000 Ferrari 1 Ret 0 46
Canadian 18 Jun 2000 Ferrari 1 1 10 56
French 02 Jul 2000 Ferrari 1 Ret 0 56
Austrian 16 Jul 2000 Ferrari 4 Ret 0 56
German 30 Jul 2000 Ferrari 2 Ret 0 56
Hungarian 13 Aug 2000 Ferrari 1 2 6 62
Belgian 27 Aug 2000 Ferrari 4 2 6 68
Italian 10 Sep 2000 Ferrari 1 1 10 78
United States 24 Sep 2000 Ferrari 1 1 10 88
Japanese 08 Oct 2000 Ferrari 1 1 10 98
Malaysian 22 Oct 2000 Ferrari 1 1 10 108

[Cam]

Let me put it another way. I cannot see where a driver, who on previous form of being mid to back pack with low points and frequent DNF - come through for a win - like old mate Maldonado.

Let's take PM further. Let's say, through his 'consistent' efforts rallied by the way the sport runs now with the specatacle, and he wins the title....... IMO he's not the best driver, in the best car, in the best team, yet he could take it out. Would this make the fans happy?

[myurr]

Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove, but I'll bite.

1982 season - 11 different race winners with Rosberg winning the championship with a single win (less than some other drivers).

1961 season - Phil Hill won with two race wins, the same as second and third placed men, with consistency winning the championship.

You can even look at 2010. You had four drivers going into the last race with a mathematical chance to win the championship. In the end it was Vettel who took the win, but it was his consistency that beat out the others. 2007 Raikkonen had an unspectacular year where the McLaren was the better car, but he was more consistent in the second half of the year than Hamilton or Alonso. Alonso said that when he won his world championships it was down to consistency. He had a good start to those years, took the wins when he could, but made sure he was consistently scoring points when he couldn't win.

So what exactly was your point?

[myurr]

Let me put it another way. I cannot see where a driver, who on previous form of being mid to back pack with low points and frequent DNF - come through for a win - like old mate Maldonado.

Let's take PM further. Let's say, through his 'consistent' efforts rallied by the way the sport runs now with the specatacle, and he wins the title....... IMO he's not the best driver, in the best car, in the best team, yet he could take it out. Would this make the fans happy?

But that's pure conjecture. He's not leading the world championship, nor is he likely to win.

I've also addressed in a previous post, which you've ignored, your point about Williams being a mid to back pack car. This year that is simply not true. Since the EBD was taken away the Williams has been a solid car performing well in all but one race. They've been in the top 10 all year except Bahrain. With such a close grid, look at Q2 yesterday to back up the assertion that the cars are closely matched, then why is it so inconceivable that the small variations in pace that have always happened are allowing different drivers to win races?

[Cam]

Let me put it another way. I cannot see where a driver, who on previous form of being mid to back pack with low points and frequent DNF - come through for a win - like old mate Maldonado.

Let's take PM further. Let's say, through his 'consistent' efforts rallied by the way the sport runs now with the specatacle, and he wins the title....... IMO he's not the best driver, in the best car, in the best team, yet he could take it out. Would this make the fans happy?

But that's pure conjecture. He's not leading the world championship, nor is he likely to win.

I've also addressed in a previous post, which you've ignored, your point about Williams being a mid to back pack car. This year that is simply not true. Since the EBD was taken away the Williams has been a solid car performing well in all but one race. They've been in the top 10 all year except Bahrain. With such a close grid, look at Q2 yesterday to back up the assertion that the cars are closely matched, then why is it so inconceivable that the small variations in pace that have always happened are allowing different drivers to win races?

Yes, I see, I'm not defining exactly. This is about the purist vs the spectacle. Take Brawn GP for an example. 2008 they were no where. In comes a tech innovation and they smash it. Awesome. I'll pay that. They knew what it was, I knew what it was and the results fell in line with the best team. The win came from within the team and everyone else played catchup. RB took it further and smashed it with tech innovation while everyone played catchup - now, it seems no-one wants that. The tech is dead. We haven't moved forward, the top teams have take a step back. So yes, Williams is still a back marker team that has won from eveyones hobbling. As a purist, this is not what I thought F1 was all about.

[Cam]

Rather than a true champ coming forwards, it's now - Tonya Harding (back markers) and Nancy Kerrigan (top teams) and the metal bar is Pirelli.