planetf1.com

And was it?

I'm reading a lot of stuff from the motorsport press - and some fans - about how terrible the Italian GP supposedly was. The one that set me thinking was this article by Autosport (paywall, but I think I get to post a few lines):

"If therefore the tifosi had nothing obvious to celebrate in the result, neither had there been much to savour in the hour and a quarter of alleged 'racing' they had witnessed. This Italian Grand Prix, sad to say, was frankly dire, with little of the wheel-to-wheel action with which Monza was once synonymous."

I'm honestly puzzled, because I didn't think it was unusually bad. Yes, there was a boring Mercedes 1-2 at the front, but the race up and down the field was pretty average. What was supposedly so horrible about it that people are jumping up and down and tearing their hair out? I'm not one who gets bored easily by F1 races, but I certainly have been a time or two, and I wasn't left with any of that feeling of malaise after Monza that I get with a truly bad race.

So I guess the question is - if you think the Italian GP was unusually terrible, why?

_________________
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

Ferrari fans might not have enjoyed it.

It was boring at the very front, but Ricciardo made it a GP to remember.

The only thing about it that bothered me is the concern that Mercedes is going to win that easily at every "engine/power" track from this point onwards after that engine upgrade. I found the race itself quite entertaining with Stroll and Ocon up the front with Ricciardo charging through.

_________________
Raikkonen Bottas Ricciardo

Thanks for the memories Nico

We have been spoiled this year, every race has been close for the win with the exception of Silverstone that had Bottas coming through and Vettel involved in some great battles with Bottas and Max also recovering. Also no race for the win in Canada but again we had Vettel coming back from P17.

Wrong driver/team won whilst Ferrari had a bad day at the office.

A forumer went to the Spa race who would be a Vettel supporter and he had a similar view of that race.

Meanwhile we had great entertainment from the Red Bull drivers, we can't say there was no overtaking.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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

Apart from Malaysia, I believe Ferrari will be much closer, if not at par with Mercedes.

Ferrari as a total package can't be underestimated. Monza was always destined to be Ferrari's worst track.

_________________
Feel The Fourth

Ah so you have to like every race that Hamilton happens to win, otherwise you're an anti-Hamilton Vettel fan.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

I couldn't even watch the race and I thought it was great!

I hope that you are right and Spa is the worst case from here on in performance wise.

_________________
Raikkonen Bottas Ricciardo

Thanks for the memories Nico

I'm pretty sure that post was with respect to the tifosi. Ferrari did not have a great weekend, off the pace from quali forward.
Personally I did not think it was at all dire. Yes, the Mercs had a clear advantage. But the race is made up of more then two cars and there were some interesting battles through the field, if not an awful lot of actual overtaking. If you're a Riccardo fan, it was a positively entertaining race!

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

It was average but certainly not terrible.
Frustrating thing for me is you never see the top 2 overtake each other...ever. They either go off into the distance like Merc or if its for example Hamilton 1st Vettel 2nd. Vettel gets within a second then...nothing. Thats it for the rest of the race. Dirty air etc.
YET...further down the field they all manage fine to overtake.

The RBR drivers tend to make it more fun. Their race package seems better than their qualifying one and the result is going forward (including penalities).

If you are a Ferrari fan you may not have enjoyed it at all. As a Lewis fan - the front was dire. Lewis was gone, easily and that was it.

For the rest though (again other than Ferrari) it was fun - even seeing Vettel gain up to 3rd was good to see. Ric was brilliant and saw a few great moves. The mid pack gave it's usual place switches.

Don't get me started on the penalty system and Max's unreliability/problems.... perhaps that's what they talk about dire. If cars were not out of position thanks to qualifying/penalty system we might have had a great race - perhaps again that's why they talk dire.

Dire races tend to be the ones where the podium spots have all been taken from the get go after the first corner or winning thanks to strategy.. This race was what a call a normal F1 race. Not the boring one of the season (we get a few) but certainly not the best ones.

so may I infer from that that you believe the definition of an interesting race is "your" driver winning? Where do you come up with this stuff?

+1

Yes I think it makes a difference for some especially the tifosi.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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

From reading posts on here.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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

Which ones say that a race is only interesting if a specific driver wins? I may have missed them

It's just pure observation of what seems to construe being a good race and a bad race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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

I define a "good" race as one that manages to keep me awake through the whole of it!

This was a good race.

If I decided a race was poor due to the team I support's success (I don't support drivers per se) - pretty much every race would be classed as dire (Williams supporter since circa 1985).

I never find any race to be bad, there is always something I can find interest in, that's not to say I might not be disappointed in the result.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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

I think you might be making assumptions here. I'm guessing you may be confusing disappointment with a result with disappointment in a race (for example). Or drawing conclusions about people's reasoning without actually knowing that to be the case. I think you also may be guilty of dismissing others because they don't share your love for Hamilton?

For instance, who said they thought the Spa GP was terrible because Vettel didn't win, as you've stated above? Can you quote the post?

In all seriousness, that's pretty much the same for me (although I honestly do end up having a 10-20 min nap at some point during a lot of races ).

Not being a massive fanboy (well not since I first started following and Supportng Mansell I guess) of any driver I think allows you to look at the bigger picture and enjoy all aspects of the sport and races, even all the politics surrounding F1!

Before poker gets totally slated for his response, it's worth noting that Ferrari had a relatively poor weekend at the home of the tifosi, seeing their biggest rivals increase the gap in the WCC and one of the rival drivers take the lead in the WDC. I believe that's the context of 'wrong driver/team...'
I'm pretty sure I recall someone mention that he (she?) had attended Spa and mentioned that the two leading drivers pretty much ran nose to tail with no overtaking. from my perspective, that isn't necessarily boring but I can understand that others may disagree. Whether that person is a Vettel fan I have no idea. Worth noting that I don't have the urge to trawl through other threads to find this out for sure!
I would agree that the Red Bull drivers gave us a few eye-opening moments.
Essentially, we saw one team dominate the race but some, at least half-decent, action elsewhere. Personally I wouldn't write off that GP as 'so bad.'

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

Teams further down don't put nearly as much resources into kicking up as much dirty air as they possibly can from the back of their cars.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

On topic I didn't think it was that bad to be honest. The Bulls kept me entertained enough.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Are more people starting to see these areo regs for what they are, something which was pointed out by some when they were announced, and again during the first few races when the top teams struggled to overtake cars further back despite having just pitted for much fresher tyres.

Don’t get me wrong, races where overtaking is difficult can be equally fascinating, and with better tyres I think this was somewhat refreshing at the start of the season. But it is a balance, and the fans need to know that if a driver is at the top of his game there is a chance he can force an overtake with the right opportunity. Once it becomes clear that it is not possible, then I think the balance is wrong, and overtaking has probably become too difficult. Perhaps more people believe that is now the case.

Ricciardo overtook Kimi in one of the top two cars, and I fully believe he would have got Seb too, if he'd caught him. A top driver at the top of his game can overtake in these cars, given the right opportunity. But it's far from easy.

_________________
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

That’s true, to be honest probably had other races in mind a little more the Monza, which is going off topic a little I agree. Monza and Spa present as good opportunities for overtaking as anywhere though, and it is good that it is still possible at these tracks. I still think it is a little harder than it should be and that goes someway to hinder the spectacle we get from different strategies and such. Seems that the current owners and Ross Brawn share this view – don’t get me wrong either, I don’t think that drastic changes are required and that overtaking should be made to easy. It’s great that we are still seeing the odd overtake towards the front – just wondered if this was playing a part in people’s perception of the races.

I am sure that seeing Mercedes apparently as dominant as they have been all season was a big part of the problem though, given many supporters of these rule changes (aero specifically) had been those who wanted to see that dominance broken.

Well I wasn't exactly on the edge of my seat but I don't feel like I wasted my Sunday watching it either.

It does puzzle me a little how Formula 1 seems to be the only sport I can think of that gets this level of scrutiny in the press about how 'exciting' it is. All televised sports need to provide some level of entertainment to maintain a viewing audience (aside from cricket, it seems), but when Manchester United and Chelsea play out a dour 0-0 draw I don't see any headlines declaring it a 'farce'.

F1 is somewhat unique though in that the rules change quite significantly through the years. Cricket is an interesting example though, given the somewhat recent introduction of 20-20.

I think the explanation of that phenomenon is that there are higher expectations for each individual Grand Prix than there are for an individual football (or hockey, basketball, etc.) match. People accept that during a full season, some matches will be poor. I think a GP is more analogous to a championship match, or an elimination match in a bracket system; because each one is such an event in an of itself, people expect them all to be excellent.

In the USA the Superbowl gets the same treatment, and is extremely scrutinized and criticized if it fails to deliver.

_________________
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

Ok lets first get some things right.

The argument that because Ferrari didnt win this excuse is being made is total rubbish. Ferrari hasnt won here since 2010. This result is not different than last years. So lets move on from there.

Now this could just be setup issue for Ferrari but if that is not the case 2 things became very clear in this race.

Both FIA and Mercedes downplayed the effect of excess oil burn and because they took their 4th engine before the ban Mercedes now has engines which will have significant advantage in power tracks.
And we have lot of power tracks coming up ahead. Mexico, Austin ( it has some twisty bits but it is power track with 2 straights), Brazil, Malaysia are all power tracks. Even Yas Marina is power tracks. It is not twisty and tight. has 2 long straights and bunch of right angle turns.

If what we saw here is an indication of things to come, the title race has just ended. 2 or 3 wins in remaining races for Vettel wont challenge Hamilton.

The race at the midfield wasnt boring but it was boring at the sharp end. By making in season clamp down of regulation loopholes which one team managed to escape anyway might have killed the title fight. And realising this might have had more impact on how the race was perceived than the actual entertainment value of race on its own.

The new Merc engine is running to the new rules regarding oil burn (specifically, the 0.9l limit). It's been heavily speculated that Ferrari are the team that have made the most gain via the oil burning rather than Mercedes (Ted has a good video out on the net about this, has some speculation that Mercedes are introducing the oil into the engine in a different way to the rest and thus benefit just as much from lesser fuel, but it's something that wont ever really come out until the whole process is banned/obsolete).

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ2Z-JX-EsQ

James Allen seems to think all the talk of Mercedes having the engine turned down is either a lie, or that Ferrari had it turned down even more, and has some pretty convincing figures to back it up

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/ ... rand-prix/

He goes on further on that position in the comment replies, suggesting that Mercedes gave it everything at Monza in order to embarrass Ferrari at their home race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2019:
Current positon: 5th | 3 Podiums | 4 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion

No, Mercedes specifically introduced new engine at spa to get around this. It is 1.2L consumption engine. They deny that they did it specifically to get around the clampdown, but its very clear. Any engine introduced at Spa or before can continue using 1.2L / 100km oil. FIA had to clarify this specifically because mercedes is running the higher oil consumption engine. All their 4 engines were used before the regulation clampdown took effect.

They can live with 0.9L limit but anyone who will be using more oil and have the mechanism to benefit from it will have an upper hand. 1 or 2 tenth a lap is huge benefit in F1. Its big. Very big. Specially if you are starting in clean air. Not to mention it will be bigger impact during qualifying when they have maximum boost pressure on turbo.

You do realise that the Ferrari engines were running with the 1.2L limit?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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

I know that very well. They were planning to use new engine for Italian GP but looking at weather forecast and the fact that Mercedes were using fresher engine with higher oil flow, they decided against it.
The engine they used had raced Silverstone, Budapest and Spa and they were at significant disadvantage at this race considering the engine had done 2 power circuits and another race but still decided to go ahead with these engines.
Also Mercedes didnt offer new engines for their customer teams for this as well as previous race. Force India were quiet unhappy and vocal for a change about it.

If you ONLY care about positions 1 & 2 in a race - you are missing the race in it's entirety. There are contests for more positions than just the winner.

_________________

Mercedes have said (Cowell and Wolff iirc) that the new engine adheres to the new 0.9l limit and runs as such.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2019:
Current positon: 5th | 3 Podiums | 4 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion

Not sure I buy that to be honest. It would defeat the point of bringing the upgrade early to Spa and putting yourself at a disadvantage with having an older PU at the end of the season if you weren't getting some benefit from it.

Nothing wrong either way of course but I just don't see the point of adhering to a rule you don't have to. And considering what the rule is basically about it would be a strange time, right in the middle of a tight fight, to suddenly grow a conscience about oil burning.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Yeah I'm with you on that 100%. Bottom line is they would be perfectly entitled to run at the higher limit, which is supposed to give a benefit after all. So I don't see any benefit to Mercedes to running at the lower, inferior one with a new unit if they didn't have to. I'm filing this one in the flying pigs folder