The best parts of the race was near the start and in the 1st 1/2 of the race. If you missed that then yeah, I can see one complaining that it was boring as the last 1/4 of the race, I felt, wasn't as exciting to watch.

 

Oops my error it sounds like an entertaining race, petering out in the end as most do. A lot of credit to a track that allows overtaking. Overall I am not unhappy though. In a globalised sport we mostly watch from a distance I admit to having adopted a philistine attitude and only following the podium end. Perhaps I should invest more time in following the other end of the field. For sure it is an enormous ask, both financially and automotively, to get up from being a back-marker to the front of the field. Sadly I don't think the patience of the bean-counters is up to the task. The current trough that Mclaren are in makes you realise it is not easy even with money on tap no desperate dependence on 2nd party finance with pressure to deliver in a fixed time.

Without checking, off hand I can't remember when last there was a real contest between opposing teams at the front of the field, taking say the span of Lewis Hamilton's career in F1. Red Bull/Vettel and now Mercedes dominant. This must be taxing little Bernie's grey cells more than a little, though he keeps trying - and making $$$$. Hardest job in F1

 

2007/8 Ferrari vs McLaren.
2009 Brawn vs Red Bull.

 

2012 is the answer. The championship came down to the last race and was between Alonso and Vettel. In 2010 4 drivers from 3 different teams could have taken the championship at the last race.

Yesterday was all action for about the first 45 laps, and only the last 15 things calmed down. So far 2016 has been great; no doubt we'll have a snooze fest sooner or later, which will probably coincide with Hamilton winning again.

 

Is correct.

2012 saw a different winner in the first six or seven (I'm doing this from memory!) races, and a title battle until the end of the season.

It seems (sweeping generalisation based on this and other Forums) that those who consider Formula 1 to be boring are those who don't pay attention. Yesterday saw an excellent race, and 2016 has been enlivened by introducing the third tyre compound which adds an additional tactical option.

There are, however, one or two teams who will have the begging bowl out before long, and it was interesting to learn post-race that Williams appear to be struggling, and have only been able to produce one example of their new nose and front wing. Further back, Sauber are in desperate straits, and only an advance from Marcus Ericsson's sponsors meant that the staff could be paid. Although Sauber did a better job this weekend than Renault, who badly need some upgrades to avoid looking like the Ligier of old, with a large budget producing poor returns on track. Both Magnussen and Palmer had weekends to forget.

Although the race was defined by Lewis Hamilton's reliability issues which compromised his Qualifying, and the Kvyat inspired Ferrari interface at the first corner, tyre strategies (and Pirelli's insistence on higher than usual pressures) meant that there were always cars trying to come through the pack, so although the action at the front was a little processional, there was racing aplenty further back. The discussion between Vettel and Kvyat pre-podium was amusing, Kvyat more than holding his own. Rumour has it that he's under scrutiny from Dr Marko, so he needs some results.

Speaking of Russians, Sochi comes next. A place which makes the Chinese circuit look like Spa. Previously, the only interesting part of the weekend was watching Bernie toadying up to Putin. I can't really work up much enthusiasm for the track itself, which really is awful. Can Ferrari challenge Mercedes? Let's hope so, but I still think that Mercedes have something in reserve.

 

Is correct.

2012 saw a different winner in the first six or seven (I'm doing this from memory!) races, and a title battle until the end of the season.

It seems (sweeping generalisation based on this and other Forums) that those who consider Formula 1 to be boring are those who don't pay attention.
[/quote]
Criticism accepted. In the ten years or so of Hamilton's F1 driving, 2010 was a good season. 2007 and 2008 also. But other years less so. In 2012 a run of four wins (races 17-20) saw Vettel odds on going into the last four races and so it turned out. This is my source as my memory is not as good as some of you! Since Vettel/Red Bull and now Hamilton/Mercedes I make that six years of relative boredom with one manufacturer dominant.

To keep my admittedly diminishing attention henceforward the other teams need to get competitive with Mercedes. Mid grid, the lack of success of 'our own' - Mclaren and Williams mainly - is disturbing. Rosberg winning from front of the grid - or Hamilton for that matter - is boring to me and a disincentive to spending my remaining years on. Also, I find that going along to support MB in the VTEC challenge series is much more fun

That said, it is still true that motor racing is dangerous - and expensive

 

Is correct.

2012 saw a different winner in the first six or seven (I'm doing this from memory!) races, and a title battle until the end of the season.

It seems (sweeping generalisation based on this and other Forums) that those who consider Formula 1 to be boring are those who don't pay attention.
[/quote]
Criticism accepted. In the ten years or so of Hamilton's F1 driving, 2010 was a good season. 2007 and 2008 also. But other years less so. In 2012 a run of four wins (races 17-20) saw Vettel odds on going into the last four races and so it turned out. This is my source as my memory is not as good as some of you! Since Vettel/Red Bull and now Hamilton/Mercedes I make that six years of relative boredom with one manufacturer dominant.

To keep my admittedly diminishing attention henceforward the other teams need to get competitive with Mercedes. Mid grid, the lack of success of 'our own' - Mclaren and Williams mainly - is disturbing. Rosberg winning from front of the grid - or Hamilton for that matter - is boring to me and a disincentive to spending my remaining years on. Also, I find that going along to support MB in the VTEC challenge series is much more fun

That said, it is still true that motor racing is dangerous - and expensive
[/quote]


You're absolutely right. Formula 1 has had a succession of eras dominated by single teams - Williams in the mid 1980's, McLaren when they had such a power advantage with the Honda engines that they could stick wings the size of barn doors at each end of the car, Lotus when they discovered ground effect, through to Ferrari in the Schumacher years and then Adrian Newey designed Red Bulls and latterly Mercedes.

In most cases the men in control sought to clip the wings (pun intended) of the dominant team to try to engender closer racing and keep the fans interested, because Formula 1 is a global business first and foremost.

Right now, Formula 1 appears to be achieving the FIA's objective to push the boundaries of Hybrid technology, and investigating ways to obtain more power from the internal combustion engine part of the power units. Some of you may be interested in this: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/f1s-power-secret/

It's not just about the racing.

 

HCCI - very similar to SAD (Spark Assisted Diesel).

Perhsps we'll see tri-fuel F1 cars; electric, petrol and diesel, with ICE fuel changeover for specific operating conditions/requirements.

 

2014 was a dudd, but I enjoyed last year. People moan about huge run-offs and here's an example a modern track where the walls are still quite close, as Grosjean found out in particular.

Last lap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eL65wE6ZSU

I'm not sure the tracks make that much difference. Spa and Suzuka have had plenty of dull races; 2012 saw great races in Valencia and Abu Dhabi, two tracks nobody liked, and then we had Bahrain 2014. Sometimes the ingredients just fall into place.

 

Interesting. I think it was Paddy Lowe saying last week that F1 cars are now more green than electric cars, taking into account that electricity mostly comes from coal and gas. The whole road relevance thing has always been a little dubious, but who wouldn't want a car with double the MPG but the same power? If it happens due to F1 then all the nay-sayers are going to look a bit silly, as are all the manufacturers who didn't get involved in F1.