I'm not into Formula 1, but they have a Grand Prix in Azerbaijan?? I would think after the whole Crimea-style annexation they would be persona non grata to the Western world, who I'm also thinking are some of the biggest sponsors, participants, and spectators of Formula 1.
Azerbaijan is an ally of Turkey, whereas Armenia has historically been more aligned with Russia. As a result, the west (NATO) is fairly lenient with Azerbaijan when it comes to conflicts between the two countries, or is at least hesitant to intervene.
F1 isn't picky about it's partners and race locations.
I mean they raced in Russia until the war escalated in 2022, unbothered by the literal crimea annexation. They also race in Saudi Arabia with it's terrible human rights record. They even raced in 2022 when a huthi(?) rocket exploded not too far from the track.
They have zero morales regarding such things, only sanctions can stop F1 from dealing with shady nations paying for some sportswashing.
But, both your examples prove they do have morals about these things. They no longer race in Russia. And afaik, the West are big supporters of Saudis fight against the Houthis. Saudi also never annexed any land recently
They no longer race is Russia because it's no longer possible due to sanctions. Their hand was forced in this case.
The SA case just shows a complete disregard for the safety of everyone involved. Telling personnel to either perform as usual or be denied an exit visa is quite the statement.
South Africa under apartheid - sporting sanctions were no issue for F1. I'm sure they didn't stop cigarette ads from a sense of morality. In fact anything deliberately associating itself with F1 is pretty suspect - maybe not everything but load your prior as you see fit.
I wonder how long it has been since the drivers' championship was decided by a contest of driving superiority rather than the engineering the competing drivers were sitting in?
Would AI win yet? Has to be an easier problem to solve than driving in traffic.
Firstly, drivers' ability is still very, very important. But secondly, and more importantly, F1 has always been about the engineering more than the driving. If that isn't for you, there's plenty of other racing leagues where they're driving equal(ish) cars.
As for AI... they're trying that. It isn't working out well yet. https://a2rl.io/
Look at Red Bull last race, Verstappen as one of the best drivers managed to eek out a second place and has been consistently scoring well despite having a slower car than McLaren. Compare that to Perez who is nowhere near.
The differences in performance between these cars is so small that in fact the driver makes a lot of difference in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.
> The differences in performance between these cars is so small that in fact the driver makes a lot of difference in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.
You're discounting the human variable there. We're not machines. Look at other sports and you can see other athletes be dominant for years, then "magically" become non dominant after a single bad season (sometimes after a single bad game!). Factors like age and confidence play a huge role in human performance.
I don’t disagree. But in these cases I’m more inclined to believe teams bridged large engineering gaps between competitors or teams failed in adapting to new rules. My core argument is that if the engineering deficit was small, domination would be a rarer trait in F1
> I wonder how long it has been since the drivers' championship was decided by a contest of driving superiority rather than the engineering the competing drivers were sitting in?
I’ve been following F1 since the mid 90’s. It has always been about both the engineering and the driving. That’s what makes it fun (to me).
If you put a great driver in a bad car, they won’t do well because the car limits them. If you put a bad driver in a great car, they won’t do well because they limit the car. If you put a great driver in a great car that doesn’t fit their style, they’ll do okay but not great. You need a great car and a great driver and they have to fit.
But here’s the thing: A great driver will be able to outperform the car and is more adaptible to variance in car performance.
You also have to keep in mind F1 margins are incredibly tight. The first 7 qualifying times were within 1 second in Baku this weekend. 1 second for 7 drivers. The difference between first and last was 2.3 seconds.
Over the whole grand prix the distance between first and last amounted to 148 seconds. That means the slowest driver was just 3seconds per lap slower than the fastest driver on average.
The margins are absolutely ridiculous when you think about it.
Driving superiority is absolutely still an important factor. It's probably more important, since an inferior driver will kill himself in the best engineered car on the planet.
It's like saying that because of the new high tech swimsuits and caps, the olympics is a contest of clothing superiority. Technique is still king, but a couple percentage points of advantage from your equipment is absolutely huge at those levels.
At least in F1, I would say that the variance in constructor performance matters more than variance in driver performance. There are plenty of instances of drivers doing test runs with other teams and achieving competitive times.
No, it absolutely is not - the opposite actually. F1 history is full of mediocre drivers getting catapulted into top spots by rocket-cars, only to fall back into mediocrity once competing teams catch up on the engineering.
It's also why everyone knows that, outside the 2-3 top teams that dominate the table on any given year, the real competition is between drivers in the same team, because it's the only fair fight for drivers (since both have basically the same car).
Driver skill is definitely a factor, don't get me wrong, but F1 is 95% about the car.
In F1 there has been a lot of effort to make sure drivers don't kill themself, e.g. the HANS (Head and Neck Support) which prevents the heavy helmet from snapping the driver's neck on impact, or the "Halo" which protects the driver when cars flip over. And these are just two of the most visible safety measures. Not saying someone completely inexperienced couldn't manage to kill himself, but most people would probably not even get to that point, they would simply fail to get the car into gear without killing the engine...
Despite the improvements (the halo, most recently), freak accidents may yet happen. I mean, this is a scary pic of one of the best drivers on the circuit almost killing another: https://archive.fo/I6brp
You are 100% correct, but that’s a photo of Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who were each others primary competitors at the time, and each have rabid fan bases. Whenever they have an incident together the commentary is usually (or at least was at the time) completely unhinged. A lot of people seriously claimed Max was trying to kill Lewis after that incident at Monza.
2016 might be the most clear one. Hamilton and Rosberg were both driving for Mercedes. In 2021, Hamilton nearly won it in his Mercedes despite Red Bull having the better car for most of the season.
The thing is, the teams putting in the money and effort to build the best cars also want to hire the best drivers. I don't think it's too surprising that the best drivers in the best cars get the best results.
There is an autonomous racing league now. You can watch races on YouTube. The cars don't go nearly as fast, and they're much more prone to boneheaded mistakes than human drivers. It wouldn't be safe to have them race against humans. But I do expect them to improve.
There are racing series outside of Formula 1 that provide drivers with the same [1][2] hardware and aim to test their piloting skills, and there are yet other series where different cars are given handicaps to maintain a "balance of performance" between them. You may already watch a lot of motorsport, but for anyone who is interested to learn more: some spec series include IndyCar, F2, Super Formula, and Formula E.
[1] modulo some natural variance, leading to situations where a wealthy go-karting competitor can buy a dozen of the same go-kart and pick the engine with the most horsepower
[2] modulo differences in finding the setup of the vehicle, which can be done more effectively if you have the best engineering team or otherwise throw the most time and money at it
I think the best racing is even smaller, like TCRs, Mazdas, and Clio cup. The series you mentioned are great but they’re all open wheel formula racing, which is fast and tends to be less about car to car racing and more about perfection and absolutely sending it when others make mistakes. One make or multiclass races are the best, though, you are correct. GT racing and F1 are all different cars with different performance and you get hot cars with bad BoPs.
Aside from some especially uncompetitive seasons, driver skill has evidently always been a factor. The gap between Max and Checo has shown the importance of driver skill during the recent RedBull dominance, and during the Mercedes hybrid dominance, the gap between Hamilton and Bottas showed the same thing. Mercedes > RedBull > Mercedes was an incredibly common podium during that era. With Bottas and Checo are also both great drivers in their own right.
The only confounder is really that the top teams have the ability to attract the top driving talent, so it can look like driving skill matters less than it actually does at times.
Last time was probably 2008 when Hamilton won the driver's championship. Ferrari had a great car, came very close to the driver's, and won the constructors.
Might happen this year as well, with Verstappen still favorite to win, but McLaren having the best car.
Interesting article. It does include the word "scrutineering" which I found amazing. Is this F1 jargon? I haven't followed F1 since the year Nigel Mansell and Ricardo Patrasi came in 1-2 almost every race.
The term scrutineering isn't F1 specific jargon but largely used in most forms of motorsport where the vehicle/bike is inspected to ensure it complies to a set standard.
For example in another sport motocross, dirt bikes need to pass scrutineering to ensure the bikes are within specification. This often includes checking the riders gear to ensure it is safe.
The term 'scrutineering' arguably extends beyond adherence to technical specifications to include procedural regulations within the sport. I'm not sure if this also applies to 'tech inspection' in e.g. NASCAR.
I don't think it's that ingenious - many teams have been working on the wing flex for a long time. Red Bull famously in 2011 and 2017 for example.
The McLaren F-duct, the Mercedes toe-in reducing steering wheel, and asymmetric braking systems in the 1990s McLarens and supposedly this year's Red Bulls were examples of true ingenuity, I think.
Get the wing to yield exactly how they want it to from aero loads, but somehow lay up the carbon so it doesn't yield unacceptably under FIA static load tests? I think that's probably ingenious.
Maybe a similar challenge in some respects to how structural engineers had to use very clever composite design to make the X-29A's forward-swept wing's leading edge curl down when the wing flexed up, lest an increase in angle of attack become self-reinforcing to the point of a stall or catastrophic wing failure.[0] These kinds of designs are frequently asymmetric and unbalanced (meaning different numbers of +/-45 plies) which can create internal stresses during curing, sometimes making them difficult to produce and extract from a mold without breaking the part or the mold and still getting the shape you want in the end.
Anyone know more about that? Just curious