[Team] Mercedes: Will they ever dominate again?

[Richard C]

As to the source... A little digging and it sounds like it was via an interview Lewis did with Sky earlier today. Then Max was asked for his thoughts regarding what Lewis said and clearly he wasn't a fan. Later Lewis said his comments were not targeting Max/RBR.

I mean I guess he was talking hypotheticals here.

It's not like Mercedes is not currently dominating and Red Bull are. I just can't suspend disbelief on that.

While I am not a fan of his idea, it's not so far out there that it couldn't be discussed. I mean, it guess it could be a solution to segment work on this year vs. next years car. I am not sure if that is even workable. Regardless, the real problem is... Lewis is absolutely the wrong person to be saying the words he said given his history and current situation. It will absolutely always sounds like sour grapes.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Right! at best he is conveniently forgetting his own journey and at worst being straight hypocritical about it…but it doesn’t mean he is wrong.

Perhaps the cap system does need to evolve in order to change the very nature of varying development cycles across teams and perhaps better enforcement that teams, like his own, are not using their current year’s allocation to get a head start on next year’s entry?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As to the source... A little digging and it sounds like it was via an interview Lewis did with Sky earlier today. Then Max was asked for his thoughts regarding what Lewis said and clearly he wasn't a fan. Later Lewis said his comments were not targeting Max/RBR.

I mean I guess he was talking hypotheticals here.

It's not like Mercedes is not currently dominating and Red Bull are. I just can't suspend disbelief on that.

While I am not a fan of his idea, it's not so far out there that it couldn't be discussed. I mean, it guess it could be a solution to segment work on this year vs. next years car. I am not sure if that is even workable. Regardless, the real problem is... Lewis is absolutely the wrong person to be saying the words he said given his history and current situation. It will absolutely always sounds like sour grapes.

Richard

Definitely not sour grapes.
Lewis has been around long enough to know how teams work, how F1 works, how teams gain an advantage, and how teams perpetuate an advantage.

And while he knows how great it is to have an advantage, he also knows that perpetuated advantages in the end do not do anyone any favour's.
It doesn't do the sport favour's, it doesn't do the fans a lot of favour's, it detracts from the spectacle of the meaning of each event, and he knows how much the distain of people's feelings can act against a driver's interests because he has seen it against Schumacher, against Vettel, and has experienced it himself in Mercedes domination 2016-21.

So it isn't sour grapes.
This is anage where everything is over-analyzed, nit-picked to pieces, and beaten to death by people looking to get internet clicks to justify their journalistic living and website existence.

Hamilton has experience, wisdom and understanding from a perspective gained across a decade and a half of racing at the pointy end of the field.
Should he have commented?
Why not?
Yes, he is a driver. But he is also the most successful driver in terms of wins and titles currently racing. An elder statesman of the sport if you like, so he has some credentials.

Is he correct?
Should the cap be regulated so that any team with demonstrative advantage cannot glide through the second half of a season and perpetuate their advantage into development for the following year?
If we wanted a more level playing field you could say yes we should. But how should you do it? Fairly. Not being unreasonable?

It is much harder than you think.
Doubled consecutive champions are rare historically. Ascari was the first.
Fangio was next but he used a variety of cars/teams so that really doesn't count in terms of the modern view.
But since then Brabham in 59/60, and not again until Prost 85/86, Senna in 1990/91, the Schumacher 94/95, Hakkinen 98/99 then the new era where Schumacher 2000/01/02/03/04 where the 'rot' if you can call it that actually began.

This is the era where technology became the most dominant theme and a team with a technical advantage could dominate technically across a span that maintained a seemingly perpetual advantage.

The Red Bull Vettel years 2010-2013 then the Mercedes years 2014 till 2020.
Rosberg took 2016 but then retired and Hamilton resumed service.

Is it good for the sport?
That depends on your thinking.
A WDC isn't dependent on driver skill, as much as it does on the team they are driving for, reaching a technical level where the car they have produced has reached the zenith level of that year's field.

Over the last two decades that has often seen one particular car have an outstanding level of technical excellence under the regulations that pertained at the time that enabled one particular make to achieve most of the wins.

If that situation persists beyond a couple of years is that perpetuation of the position good for the sport?
Or does there need to be some deliberate system to prevent that from happening regularly?

From a Liberty point of view the answer would be yes, because the more competitive a season is then the more likely eyeballs will peruse all media information and advertisers (and Liberty) will look on with glee.

And there is nothing wrong with the issue being raised and discussed because it is about the financial health of the sport from a business point of view and essential that it gets discussed to find a way forward for the future of the sport that is healthy and remains a competitive field where the WDC continues to be meaningful.

If not, should we just as well just have F2 cars. or IndyCars, LMP2 cars, or F4 cars to determine the WDC because the field isn't level enough to be meaningful?

There is nothing wrong with Hamilton raising the issue. No other current driver has as much authority or credentials to ask the question.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Definitely not sour grapes.

I generally don't think it is. Or if there is any, its not as large as it could be played up by his non-fans or press. But the point stands, it is 100% tone deaf to think it will be taken as otherwise and in effect actually drives the conversation in the wrong direction. If it is a good idea, he actually hurt it be supporting it. It's like in the movies when the idiot agrees with the hero and the hero looks at him and says "shut up" because his agreement actually is a negative.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

So it isn't sour grapes.
This is anage where everything is over-analyzed, nit-picked to pieces, and beaten to death by people looking to get internet clicks to justify their journalistic living and website existence.

Again it is totally tone deaf. And that is why it is being talked about. He made himself an easy target on this one.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Hamilton has experience, wisdom and understanding from a perspective gained across a decade and a half of racing at the pointy end of the field.
Should he have commented?
Why not?
Yes, he is a driver. But he is also the most successful driver in terms of wins and titles currently racing. An elder statesman of the sport if you like, so he has some credentials.

Is he correct?
Should the cap be regulated so that any team with demonstrative advantage cannot glide through the second half of a season and perpetuate their advantage into development for the following year?
If we wanted a more level playing field you could say yes we should. But how should you do it? Fairly. Not being unreasonable?

It is much harder than you think.

I chopped off a bit of your thinking here, but back to the validity of the idea in a second...

Originally Posted by Teretonga

And there is nothing wrong with the issue being raised and discussed because it is about the financial health of the sport from a business point of view and essential that it gets discussed to find a way forward for the future of the sport that is healthy and remains a competitive field where the WDC continues to be meaningful.

If not, should we just as well just have F2 cars. or IndyCars, LMP2 cars, or F4 cars to determine the WDC because the field isn't level enough to be meaningful?

There is nothing wrong with Hamilton raising the issue.

First, anyone can bring up the idea. And because Hamilton is Hamilton, he will get an audience. Even if the idea was fantastic, I think he is the wrong person to champion it for reasons that I think is clearly obvious to I would say.... most everyone. I know there are fans of his who feel otherwise, but if you step back and look at it from an emotional perspective he is clearly the wrong person to champion this idea. I can imagine the PR team is privately groaning as he said it.

As to the validity of the idea. I think it is wrong for two main reasons. First, it would be messy if not impossible the enforce. How exactly are you able to define work on old vs. new car? Lets jump into Red Bull's shoes. They have a great car. Lets say the rules state that start "new car" development can't start until August 1st. Can they continue to improve the current car? If the rules say you have current car budget until August 1st, then you should be able to continue to improve the current car. Can improvements for the current car not carry over to the next car. It would be impossible to determine what is "current" vs. "new" car development. I think the ONLY workable solution to the problem I call out above is ZERO development work for the team(s) that have the target painted on them until the August 1st deadline. Do I think that is fair? Absolutely not.

The second reason is that this is knee jerk reaction. The F1 world is still fighting the last battle. Mercedes see themselves flipped upside down and can't right themselves just like other teams were during the last set of regulations. Or the righting action is slower than they like. So they want faster relief by trying to handicap those who are performing better. The problem is the new regulations are supposed to let this work itself out on it's own. They are designed to address situations like this. You can go back and look at my posts on this and I have been consistent in that I feel that someone is going to get these new regulations right and others wrong. Some badly wrong. And it is going to take a few seasons to see teams figure it out. This is likely to be via coalescing around specific solutions and we should see less performance gaps. It is insanity to think this will work itself out in two or three seasons. I do think the CapEx topic is real and that needs to be fixed and that should help drive more parity as well.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

No other current driver has as much authority or credentials to ask the question.

I respect your thoughts a great deal, but IMHO, this is way off target. Hamilton has a ton of records and is one of the "greats" and I guess that could be your metric for deciding nobody but him as as much authority, etc. But frankly the above reads like a love letter.

I am trying to create an analogy that doesn't paint Hamilton in poor light (as that is not my intention). I will do my best.

Imagine two people were told by a third, we will randomly give one of the two $1000 dollars a day for 15 days. And then on the 16th day, we will do another randomly selection one of the two $1000 dollars a day for the last 15 days of the month. Both are confident in their luck and also think they have two chances to win. They might win neither, both or split 50/50. But the odds are good they will get at least one of the two prizes. Person A happens to be selected for the first 15 days. He enjoys his 15 days of prizes and is very happy. Person B is not happy and complains, but Person A says that is how the game work and they both agreed to the rules. On the 16th day Person B happens to be randomly selected. Now just a few days into the second half of the month, Person A is missing their $1000 a day winnings and wants to change the rules as he feels it is unfair. He wants a more equitable sharing of the money.

Maybe Person A has good reasons. Maybe he is starving and has no food. Maybe Person B also starved during the first fifteen days and Person A didn't realize their pain, but he does now. Maybe Person A feels they should split the money evenly each day and both are "winners". Regardless of the validity of any argument that Person A now makes, he will be viewed as someone who reaped the initial benefits of winning, but is not willing to suffer the consequences of loosing.

I don't dislike Hamilton. All I am pointing out (as I said earlier) is that regardless of the validity of the idea (which I do think is dumb), it was dumb of him to champion it given his prior and current situation. Its looks like I am posting a lot on this because maybe I like to kick Hamilton while he is down. That is not true, what I find interesting about this, and why I am posting, is that it is so obviously an indefensible position that I am amazed he took it. And I also find it fascinating that others defend it as strongly as they seem to be doing. Again, step aside from the purely logical view and look at this from a PR optics perspective.

Richard

[chillibowl]

I would counter with if we refuse to listen to people who have been through it then we are the ones who are tone def?

And second, we all once thought a budget cap would be impossible to enforce also. Once implemented tho was it really that messy? While an increased level of oversight could indeed pose its own set of challenges and problems is it really an insurmountable challenge?

It may be uncomfortable for the teams but a lot of fans are still buying some very expensive tickets for the latter half of the season in races where it is increasingly looking likely that 9 out of the 10 teams have already decided to shift focus to the next season already. That in and of itself is inherently uncompetitive.

I am reminded of an earlier thread where (Adam I believe) was making a point where development cycles/new rule sets should be introduced at a greater frequency. While he may have just been making that point to progress the discussion but there is a very appealing aspect to the idea.

One in fact that I recall was a common feeling in the how to fix F1 thread….too much to development time, too much set up time, too much data that allows the race to be run before they ever even hit the track…is at the heart of many of our issues with modern F1.

Why not look to take those ideas forward as the sport evolves?

[Mike Harte]

Firstly, I think that the Autosport/Motorsport report was possibly more accurate than the Pitpass one in that there was more editorial comment that we don't know if they were attributable to Hamilton. And it didn't come across as sour grapes in either article, although I am sure that some will consider it to be, even though he did acknowledge his and Mercedes dominance over many years.


But one point not made in either of those two articles is that the Mercedes domination era was one were a teams budget was only restricted to the amount of funds that could either be raised through sponsorship, or the teams' owners' willingness to fund, etc. it as opposed to currently teams being mandated to a limited budget that is the same for all teams.

And I certainly understand the point he made about a dominant team being in a position to switch attention and budget to the next year's car far earlier. And the same point was made in both articles about teams that are struggling also switching their resources to the next year's cars early. However, that doesn't always provide the answer and we have seen that even the next car wasn't a panacea.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Firstly, I think that the Autosport/Motorsport report was possibly more accurate than the Pitpass one in that there was more editorial comment that we don't know if they were attributable to Hamilton. And it didn't come across as sour grapes in either article, although I am sure that some will consider it to be, even though he did acknowledge his and Mercedes dominance over many years.

Sorry to disagree, Mike, but it does come across as a little bit sour grapes, and, even more, as hypocritical.
As one of the great drivers his words do carry weight but they should have been spoken in 2016, after 3 years Mercedes domination. Or in 2017, or 2018, or 2019, or 2020 - years where his silence was deafening.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

I would counter with if we refuse to listen to people who have been through it then we are the ones who are tone def?

I think saying those on the receiving end are tone deaf is the wrong application of that term, but I understand your point. I will say that fair or not, who speaks to a topic matters. It is an uphill battle for someone who is a key figure in a controversial topic to advocate a position on that same topic that on the surface looks to be self serving. It might be unfair if the speaker is not trying to be self serving, but this is just human nature. The topic would get more traction IMHO if it was to come from someone like a McLaren or Williams who may not directly have so much divisive history on the topic of recent dominance. To be clear, I think any positions on this (good or bad) from Red Bull would also be looked upon with suspicion.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

And second, we all once thought a budget cap would be impossible to enforce also. Once implemented tho was it really that messy? While an increased level of oversight could indeed pose its own set of challenges and problems is it really an insurmountable challenge?

Nothing is insurmountable. The question is how invasive, fair and destructive to the spirit of F1 the changes would be. I have been a fan of the cost cap system for years and advocated for it and said it would be workable. But a key is that it is a top down approach. And while it does reach down deeply at times, it is "mostly" doesn't say much about "how" or "where" you spend your money, but rather about ensuring overall limits exist and the appropriate oversight to monitor, etc. In fact, I think freedom of how or where you spend your money is part of the core concept of the cost caps that keeps the sport from being fully spec. The entire point is that it is hoped that the creativity and innovation in F1 can be expressed in how or where you spend your money.

There are a few cases where big ticket items that can be carved out have specific limits such as fixed power unit costs or CFD/tunnel time. That is because those are probably much easier to measure. But if you try to take it to the next level and say how much of CFD, tunnel, or any expense is for current vs. new car in a sport that allows for mid-season development would be a challenge. So much so that I think the "juice is not worth the squeeze". I am not even convinced there is much juice there anyhow.

Now, if the cars were frozen at the start of the season and didn't allow for any ongoing development, then you could relatively easily break out season operational costs vs. development costs because by definition ALL development would be for the next car. But that is so far away from what we want F1 to be that I don't think that is realistic.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Now, if the cars were frozen at the start of the season and didn't allow for any ongoing development, then you could relatively easily break out season operational costs vs. development costs because by definition ALL development would be for the next car. But that is so far away from what we want F1 to be that I don't think that is realistic.

Agreed that would be going way to far.

[Tourer]

Saw an interview with Lewis on the Sky coverage where he was spruiking this idea. Seemed to be a different interview from the one quoted in the articles in this thread, so don't think it was taken out of context or a gotcha type interview - more like a theme that Lewis was on.

Impractical idea that wouldn't actually achieve what he's suggesting even if it could be policed (which it can't). It's a facet of Lewis' personality that he likes to play the victim at times (at least publicly) and this is just another example of it.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I mean if you ignore the entire irony and entitlement of the entire thing, to me its an indication that F1 probably is not much fun for Lewis now that he is no longer winning.

Surely racing in the upper midpack is much tigher and more exciting than racing at the front? Aston Martin, Ferrari and Mercedes are having quite the scrap really! It's jolly good stuff.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Surely racing in the upper midpack is much tigher and more exciting than racing at the front? Aston Martin, Ferrari and Mercedes are having quite the scrap really! It's jolly good stuff.

Yes and i'm sure he's said a few times that he enjoys the scrapping even though he's not winning all the time at the moment?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I generally don't think it is. Or if there is any, its not as large as it could be played up by his non-fans or press. But the point stands, it is 100% tone deaf to think it will be taken as otherwise and in effect actually drives the conversation in the wrong direction. If it is a good idea, he actually hurt it be supporting it. It's like in the movies when the idiot agrees with the hero and the hero looks at him and says "shut up" because his agreement actually is a negative.


Again it is totally tone deaf. And that is why it is being talked about. He made himself an easy target on this one.


I chopped off a bit of your thinking here, but back to the validity of the idea in a second...


First, anyone can bring up the idea. And because Hamilton is Hamilton, he will get an audience. Even if the idea was fantastic, I think he is the wrong person to champion it for reasons that I think is clearly obvious to I would say.... most everyone. I know there are fans of his who feel otherwise, but if you step back and look at it from an emotional perspective he is clearly the wrong person to champion this idea. I can imagine the PR team is privately groaning as he said it.

As to the validity of the idea. I think it is wrong for two main reasons. First, it would be messy if not impossible the enforce. How exactly are you able to define work on old vs. new car? Lets jump into Red Bull's shoes. They have a great car. Lets say the rules state that start "new car" development can't start until August 1st. Can they continue to improve the current car? If the rules say you have current car budget until August 1st, then you should be able to continue to improve the current car. Can improvements for the current car not carry over to the next car. It would be impossible to determine what is "current" vs. "new" car development. I think the ONLY workable solution to the problem I call out above is ZERO development work for the team(s) that have the target painted on them until the August 1st deadline. Do I think that is fair? Absolutely not.

The second reason is that this is knee jerk reaction. The F1 world is still fighting the last battle. Mercedes see themselves flipped upside down and can't right themselves just like other teams were during the last set of regulations. Or the righting action is slower than they like. So they want faster relief by trying to handicap those who are performing better. The problem is the new regulations are supposed to let this work itself out on it's own. They are designed to address situations like this. You can go back and look at my posts on this and I have been consistent in that I feel that someone is going to get these new regulations right and others wrong. Some badly wrong. And it is going to take a few seasons to see teams figure it out. This is likely to be via coalescing around specific solutions and we should see less performance gaps. It is insanity to think this will work itself out in two or three seasons. I do think the CapEx topic is real and that needs to be fixed and that should help drive more parity as well.


I respect your thoughts a great deal, but IMHO, this is way off target. Hamilton has a ton of records and is one of the "greats" and I guess that could be your metric for deciding nobody but him as as much authority, etc. But frankly the above reads like a love letter.

I am trying to create an analogy that doesn't paint Hamilton in poor light (as that is not my intention). I will do my best.

Imagine two people were told by a third, we will randomly give one of the two $1000 dollars a day for 15 days. And then on the 16th day, we will do another randomly selection one of the two $1000 dollars a day for the last 15 days of the month. Both are confident in their luck and also think they have two chances to win. They might win neither, both or split 50/50. But the odds are good they will get at least one of the two prizes. Person A happens to be selected for the first 15 days. He enjoys his 15 days of prizes and is very happy. Person B is not happy and complains, but Person A says that is how the game work and they both agreed to the rules. On the 16th day Person B happens to be randomly selected. Now just a few days into the second half of the month, Person A is missing their $1000 a day winnings and wants to change the rules as he feels it is unfair. He wants a more equitable sharing of the money.

Maybe Person A has good reasons. Maybe he is starving and has no food. Maybe Person B also starved during the first fifteen days and Person A didn't realize their pain, but he does now. Maybe Person A feels they should split the money evenly each day and both are "winners". Regardless of the validity of any argument that Person A now makes, he will be viewed as someone who reaped the initial benefits of winning, but is not willing to suffer the consequences of loosing.

I don't dislike Hamilton. All I am pointing out (as I said earlier) is that regardless of the validity of the idea (which I do think is dumb), it was dumb of him to champion it given his prior and current situation. Its looks like I am posting a lot on this because maybe I like to kick Hamilton while he is down. That is not true, what I find interesting about this, and why I am posting, is that it is so obviously an indefensible position that I am amazed he took it. And I also find it fascinating that others defend it as strongly as they seem to be doing. Again, step aside from the purely logical view and look at this from a PR optics perspective.

Richard

Hi Richard

Im surprised by the length of the reply, but I can understand how difficult it can be to write short ones.

I'm not taking sides in the discussion, nor is there any love affair with Hamilton. It wouldn't have mattered to me who had spoken out from the drivers, whether it was Alonso, Gasly, Hulkenberg or Sainz or anyone else.
I would support any of them making such statements because I believe they should be free to do so.
What Hamilton uttered may not have been an original thought but one being discussed privately amongst some people in some teams.
All Hamilton did was raise the discussion in the public arena.
Nor does it mean he is going to champion the idea, nor would it matter to me personally if he did or did not.

Is there any merit in the idea? I can see positives and negatives but let the discussion take place and the owners of the sport, the teams, the FIA and the fans can talk, discuss, theorize, and decide.
If nothing comes of it and it dies, then it has been raised and went nowhere.

It is only an idea, nothing more.
What I dislike in fandom is toxicity in discussion (I'm not accusing you of this) and I think there is too much of it floating around in F1.

If people can't express ideas and concerns about aspects of the sport, even the competitors themselves, then something is wrong, or to paraphrase Hamlet, 'There is something rotten in the state of F1'.

I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Im surprised by the length of the reply, but I can understand how difficult it can be to write short ones.

I suffer from a condition that I think Stephen King has called "diarrhea of the pen". Mark Twain also had the same problem (see my paraphrased quote in my forum signature). For me it's easy to churn out text and takes time to edit it down. It is a constant struggle for me.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.

In an attempt to battle my affliction, I will just say... Yep, I get it. I see your points. I heartily agree on the toxicity point as well.

Richard

[GTRMagic]

Meantime.. Team Tyrrell didn’t give a good account of itself so far this weekend in Austria…

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Meantime.. Team Tyrrell didn’t give a good account of itself so far this weekend in Austria…

At least Russell's gamble paid off

[Born Racer]

Bringing up the thread again, but I think I can just add that I don't think it comes as sour grapes at all. If anything, having been in that position, he has one of the widest perspectives of all, because he's been dominant and not at all dominant.

But there's something else that we have to take into account - when he was dominant, Hamilton often spoke about how he wanted to see other people challenging them. In soundbites, when other teams performed well in Friday practice, for example, he would say how he hoped they would join the fray because he wanted more of a battle.

[crmalcolm]

Apparently, neighbours are not happy about the expansion plans for Brackley.

[GTRMagic]

Ummmmm…

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Ummmmm…

Love a good Story

Interesting times.

[broadrun96]

So he's taking the Alonso approach to changing teams. Worked out well before so....

[billy bleach]

Time for Mercedes to write a new Chapter

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

So he's taking the Alonso approach to changing teams. Worked out well before so....

lol Alonso for sure has that tendency to always be at the wrong team at the wrong time…Ham seems to be the other way to some extent all be it with far fewer seat changes.

Don’t want to read too into the move but is this a commentary on where Ham thinks Merc will be for the next couple of seasons? A team currently unable to give him a car to win his 8th title with?

[billy bleach]

Good news for reserve driver Schumacher?

[bjohnsonsmith]

The 2024/25 silly season will be interesting.