“Boring” races aren’t a problem for F1 – Vettel

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Sebastian Vettel believes Formula One mustn’t chase ever-higher levels of overtaking in the belief it is the solution to creating better races.

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix build-up in pictures
The Ferrari driver says the sport must learn to accept some races will be “boring” and others will be better. Vettel said in today’s FIA press conference one of his “wishes for next year” is that “everybody calms down”.

“Some races are boring, so what? I don’t see the problem in that,” he said. “I don’t think we need another record every race to have more overtaking and more overtaking.”

“It’s true that overtaking sometimes, especially if you’re behind and you’re fast and you can’t get past for those reasons, it annoys you. But then again if you make the move there is a massive reward inside the car, sometimes out the car. What I want to say is that overtaking should be an achievement and not handed to you.”

“There’s a difficult balance but as I said, sometimes just relax and calm down and accept a boring race or a boring two races in a row and then there will be another great race after that and another one. There are some things we can’t foresee even if it’s a time when we want to control everything, some things are good if they are not in our control.”

Lewis Hamilton said the sport needs to focus on allowing cars to run close to each other without suffering as much from turbulence. “Being able to follow each other is really what the sport needs,” he said.

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

47 comments on ““Boring” races aren’t a problem for F1 – Vettel”

  1. I think less differences in the money allocation would produce closer racing. It would allow the gap between the front and back of the grid to close up. Then maybe we could kill off drs… .I think Seb is wrong. F1 should be intrinsically exciting. It should not rely on gimmicks or hype.

    1. @darkstar I think this is pretty much the greatest and longest living misconception in F1. A close field provides an interesting Championship but the actual racing is mostly processional. And that isn’t even all that surprising: If all cars are capable of going the same speed how is one going to overtake the other? It doesn’t work that way. Reference: Any pre DRS season ever.

      1. @darkstar I don’t think Seb is saying it shouldn’t be intrinsically exciting, nor that he wants or likes gadgets like DRS, just that the odd boring race shouldn’t bother people as that is going to happen sometimes.

        @mrboerns I think you are referencing the BE era of F1 that has had an addiction to aero downforce, which is the real cause of processions. I hope that Liberty, with Brawn, will work toward a new era where mechanical grip is the greater factor over aero grip. Teams have simply not been motivated to do anything but more and more aero and the new regime has a chance to change that. And all cars are not likely going the same speed all the time based on hundreds of factors like setup, state of tires, some cars are just better than others from one stint, race, and season to the next. Many factors, including no less the drivers, affect how one is going to overtake the other at any given opportunity. Bottom line…there doesn’t need to be processions. There just needs to be better direction from the new owners, less weight to the top teams that have all the resources and too much power to serve themselves, and a genuine effort to reduce the harm of dirty air which I don’t believe they have been truly motivated to change for decades.

        1. @robbie, the reason why teams have focussed on aero for so many years is, as Willem Toet has discussed in his online presentations, because the potential gains which can be made in that area are so much higher than can be achieved in any other area.

          Moreover, the laws of aerodynamics are power relationships, so at higher speed the benefits of aerodynamic performance will always become significant. The adhesion between the tyre and the track surface cannot increase at speed – that effectively remains a fixed constant – so the only variable that can be adjusted at higher speed will be the normal force acting on the tyre, and in that respect aero will always remain a dominant factor because of fundamental physical laws.

          1. @anon Oh for sure. It is a fascinating science and no question it gets a car around a track more quickly. Of course as you know the problem is that aero depends on clean air to work optimally, and hence the problems that arise as soon as a car is in dirty air. Great for getting cars lapping quickly…not great for close racing. F1 needs to decide. And there are compromises. Less aero through the regs, more mechanical grip through the tires, throw in some ground effects, work on differently shaped wings, etc etc. Cars can still lap quickly without it all being about aero downforce. The teams know this but are resisting because there hasn’t been any motivation to do otherwise in the past, and hence they don’t want to see their huge money and r&d ‘wasted’ or diminished. The have teams particularly would sooner keep spending and try to be the one’s in front so dirty air becomes less their concern and more that of the trailing cars. Case in point Mercedes who seem to need clean air more than the others, and therefore seem a little more handcuffed in dirty air. That’s the compromise they’ve made and it’s been working for them. But does it work overall for F1 as a whole anymore? I say not when the ‘solution’ is DRS which is a bandage and not a good solution at all.

        2. will work toward a new era where mechanical grip is the greater factor over aero grip

          The problem with mechanical grip is open wheels generate lift at speed, so grip deteriorates (I believe it is proportionally) with speed. A car needs something to counter the lift, and wings are an easy and acceptable answer. Another solution is to use ground effects.
          I don’t know if it would be possible to measure the air turbulence of a car at speed, but if it was possible to do this easily and accurately then maybe there’s a place to have rules to set a maximum limit, after which offenders can start at the back of the grid in the hope they can annoy as few people as possible.

      2. If all cars are capable of going the same speed how is one going to overtake the other?

        @mrboerns

        there’s a little difference maker called “the driver”. some are better than others, or have varying strengths and weakness.

        Reference: most motorsport series outside of F1

      3. @ MrBoerns: Exactly. People always want what they don’t have and/or think it’s better if things are different. We had tyre manufacturers wars, we had more consistent tyres, no DRS, the cars could follow each other… but it was the same stuff in the end, maybe worse. Most races in the 90s, 2000s were just as processional. Even if the teams are given the same amount of money (it’ll never happen tho), pretty sure things will remain mostly the same. The big teams/manufacturers will still attract the best people, will still have the best ideas etc, prevailing in the end.

    2. @darkstar DRS has to stay at least as long as the way the cars are designed Aerodynamically makes following another car closely through the corners very difficult.

      1. @jere What a sensible argument for drs on current cars. I actually agree with you.

      2. I think DRS ‘has to stay’ also because the cars right now are designed for it, and as Brawn hinted, he wants to get away from knee jerk decisions that can catch smaller teams out, who can’t react as quickly to change. For sure aero needs to be changed for closer racing, but I sure struggle with the phrase ‘DRS has to stay’, because we have processions as it is anyway. The vast majority seems to think DRS passes are fake and not noteworthy anyway, so the sooner the better, and frankly if they can’t or won’t diminish the aero addiction, I’d still rather have my processions without the presence of DRS than with. After all, even with DRS, there are some passes that take place away from the DRS zones. Less aero dependency, more mechanical grip, closer racing, no DRS.

        1. @robbie ”Less aero dependency, more mechanical grip, closer racing, no DRS.” +1.

          1. One of the problems is that if you reduce aerodynamic dependency you cannot regain the high corner speeds by any other means. When this happens drivers complain that cars are too slow in the corners (Max Verstappen has said this a lot, Hamilton has said this a lot). They complain that it doesn’t feel Like F1 anymore, “Toy cars” etc. They want it both ways but it’s just not possible.

          2. @Michael I think they can retain high cornering speeds through good stable tires that drivers can lean on for more laps than currently is the case, without fear of ruining them. They can use ground effects as well. Now if that isn’t enough, and drivers still think cornering speeds are too slow, I say too bad if it means actual close racing and a driver confident in the car and tires even in dirty air. I think they’d take that confidence over a little more cornering speed any day. I think they can have it both ways and it is possible, and I’m sure F1 hasn’t tried hard enough to make it so.

      3. I’d rather have 0 overtakes due to DRS being removed, than 100 overtakes of which 90 were due to DRS.

        If everything is extraordinary, then nothing is.

        Look at Imola 2005/06. The only reason I remember those races, are because the battle for the lead was raging for almost half the race, even though there were no overtakes. That’s much more exciting than having a battle diffused within 5 laps due to DRS.

  2. I particularly don’t care about the number of overtakes. But the absence of any meaningful strategy differences is appalling . I mean, after the first few corners the row is set, cars must keep 2 seconds from each other (lest they ruin tires), and there is very little to be done. Worst, any attempt to try to overtake a similar car in front is mostly fruitless and usually damages tires and will probably cause the undercut by a car in a lower position.
    I am not for or against gimmicks but I would like to see anything that allowed car to show different perfomances during different moments during the 300km. Today all the cars lose/again performance at the same moment. So, from the team point of view, it is only rational to prefer a conservative approach.
    I do not necessarily need to see an overtake. I need to see a driver trying something to chase a better position (not only keep it) and see an opponent’s answer. A set of time intervals exchange can be as exciting as a close braking dispute. The actual rules mostly do not allow for that.

    1. Amen to that.

    2. I particularly don’t care about the number of overtakes.

      I do not necessarily need to see an overtake. I need to see a driver trying something to chase a better position and see an opponent’s answer.

      Extremely well said, could not have expressed it better.

    3. I do not necessarily need to see an overtake. I need to see a driver trying something to chase a better position (not only keep it) and see an opponent’s answer. A set of time intervals exchange can be as exciting as a close braking dispute.

      I see a lot of people say this, or something similar. I really doubt they actually believe it. Just last race was proof of the contrary.

      The nr. 44 Mercedes started from the back and was involved in a lot of on-track action. The driver of the car mostly overtook inferior cars, often with a tyre advantage and always with the aid of DRS. His drive was ‘fun to watch’ or better. On this blog at least the drive was highly appreciated and the driver voted driver of the weekend.

      The nr. 77 Mercedes was in second place the entire race, never more than a few seconds off the lead. The driver relentlessly pressured the leader of the race, never allowing a single moment of reduced focus. This drive was considered ‘very disappointing’ at best.

      I think the “I rather see a real fight without overtakes, then a hundred DRS passes” argument is constantly disputed or proven false when people are asked what races they liked, which drives they admired or enjoyed. It may sound like an argument for the ‘real motorsport fanatic’, but in reality it is the kind of thing that will people turn away from racing.

  3. The time spent watching a wheel-to-whell battle is more exciting than the time spent cars following each other at the 2-second barrier of dirty air.
    So far, the idea on how to maximise that time was mainly to maximise the number of overtakes by making overtaking easier. As an unfortunate side-effect, this has lead to overtakes being short and predictable, the action is often over within the span of one straight, and we often know who will be ahead at the end of that straight before it begins.
    The alternative idea would be to try and maximise prolonged battles (like the famous Villeneuve/Arnoux-battle in Dijon ’79, or more recently Vettel/Alonso Silverstone ’14). Prolonged battles fill screentime with exciting action, do not cause inflation in the meaning of overtakes, and viewers won’t be able to predict the outcome nearly as reliable as with one-straight-passes.

      1. I agree @crammond.

        More and easier overtaking is not the answer. We need the cars to be able to follow each other closely and for the overtake to be a real challenge when the cars are closely matched. But not an unachievable challenge.

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      23rd November 2017, 20:55

      I got that feeling when watching the 2010 season, actually. No easy overtakes.

    2. Agreed. Also once an overtake has eventually happened, it would be nice that the overtaken driver may have a chance to come back rather than just fade away as is normally the case. A proper battle, not just a driver struggling to get past a slower car.

  4. I completely agree with Seb, as an F1 fan we need to accept that not all races can be close and entertaining.

    On track drivers with immense talent are batting it out for the one-tenths, one- thousands, but we also need to keep in mind the brilliant engineers that come with great ideas that can make a difference of a second, take Force India for instance or Mercedes back in 2014. A great dominance comes with a great idea that went into the car, no amount of limitation of resources can lessen this impact.

  5. Michael Brown (@)
    23rd November 2017, 20:57

    I recall this discussion came up in 2014. China was an incredibly boring race, but the next round, Bahrain, was a classic.

  6. I completely agree with him.

    I think the obsession on close racing/overtaking has been nothing but detrimental to the sport over the past 15 years or so.

    I mean the cars have been changed to improve the racing several times & all that did was make them slower (And at times uglier).
    Several great corners have been ruined in the name of creating better overtaking spots (Turn 10 at Barcelona, Bus Stop at Spa, Final few turns at Magny-Cours, Turns 1 & 12 at Hungaroring, 1st China at Monza, Variante Alta at Imola, Triangle chicane at Suzuka, Rascasse at Monaco to name a few).
    Modern circuits are designed with overtaking in mind that has resulted in the slow corner/long straight/slow corner sequence on just about all of them with the circuits been about 5 miles wide to make racing more possible.
    Several old circuits as well as new one’s have come up with these ‘stadium’ sections to try to encourage closer racing at slow speeds for fans to see the cars for longer (New 1st section at Nurburgring, The similar section at Hockenheim, The new loop at Silverstone, turns 12-17 section at COTA & I guess you could add the Mexico baseball stadium).

    And on top of that we have had gimmicks like DRS & high degredation tyres introduced with other proposed & stuff like double points to try to keep the championship alive to the final race because it ending earlier is ‘boring’.

    1. In terms of DRS, Yes there would probably be less overtaking without DRS but I don’t see that as a negative because I don’t think overtaking that is so easy everybody can do it with relative ease in specific zones at the push of a button is all that interesting to watch anyway. If you took away DRS & overtaking was a bit harder then every overtake you saw would stand out, Every overtake you saw would be exciting & you would know that every overtake you saw was more down to pure driver skill & bravery.

      After the Brazilian Gp Lewis Hamilton made a comment that was similar to what Mark Webber said way back in 2011. He had driven through the field & passed a lot of cars yet because DRS helped make a lot of that passing fairly easy it didn’t feel that satisfying & none of the overtakes really stood out. And there right, In the past a drive through the field like that would be truly special & memorable as would there various overtakes (Kimi @ Suzuka 2005 for instance), Yet how many remember similar drives today? How many of Webber’s overtakes in China do you remember, How many of Hamilton’s in Brazil will we remember? Heck how many DRS overtakes will anyone remember?

      And that to me is the biggest problem, Yes DRS creates significantly more overtakes….. But none of them stand out, none of them are memorable & I don’t feel any of them are that interesting or exciting to watch because most of them are too easy.

      DRS is quantity over quality but it’s quality that is more important because that is what is more exciting & what stands out more than the number.

      1. Absolutely…been saying it all along too. No DRS pass is remembered beyond it’s completion. Meanwhile it harms the sport’s integrity imho.

        I think we just have to hope that this has all happened because of BE’s knee jerk reactions in the last decade to try to maximize profits for CVC, the orchestration of the MS/Ferrari elephant before that, and now a new entity is in place, and were it not for many of the things Brawn has said, I’d have more concerns, but he has said all the right things. They just need time to fix everything, which we cannot expect perfection on either, and we all need to be patient and understand it’s complex, and there are problems that they simply can’t ask the teams to react to overnight. Especially not the lesser teams.

  7. Yes, Seb, everyone calm down.

  8. Agree with Vettel that processions are okay once in a while. But does anyone else have the feeling that the VSC is taking away some excitement? It seems that most of the 9 and 10 rate the race scores over the years almost always had at least one or more SC’s to close things up IndyCar style (maybe someone has the stats?).

    While not always fair or pure, I never minded it all those years. Now they are such a rarity, especially later in the race when the field is spread out. Bit of a shame actually.

  9. It seems a lot of fans want the cars to be equal, in terms of engine, electronics and components and let the drivers be the only difference. However, you look at every other series that has a homologated cars, such as V8SC, Nascar or Indycar. Those series provide a different winner every other race, and while that seems exciting to others, that isn’t what draws me to F1. I enjoy the development race throughout the season, I enjoy the fact that designers have to get really creative to out do another team, I enjoy the fact that F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing and that every other series on the planet looks to emulate what F1 does. Ultimately, F1 is at the pinnacle because it is forever advancing.

    1. If that is what you interpret F1 to be, it will continue to loose the fans that want to see racing and gain fans that desire what you enjoy.

      The market (as in paying TV subscribers or race track attendees) will decide if F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport racing or the pinnacle of restrictive rules where more money is spent on “creative” design.

      Maybe, just maybe the two are not compatible?

      You just need to get enough of people that think like you, to go and pay to enable what F1 is today.

      Those who want to watch motor racing (not just watch cars being driven fast in an indian file, follow the leader procession), will switch to whatever gives them the cut and thrust or dice and spice they desire.

      And if F1 does not fit the bill other series will.

      It is grandiose to think that F1 is the pinnacle of motor sport. It is not, it is in competition with a host of other series.

  10. So, Vettel is maturing nicely.

    1. He has been on the 1 day anger management course that HR sent him on after his road rage incidents.

  11. If your bored, go watch something else. Simple. Theres never going to be wheel to wheel racing throughout the whole race, never has been like that.

  12. If you have more over taking you devalue over taking.
    As Ron said, its not overtaking thats exciting, its the anticipation of overtaking that’s exciting.
    The only problem as I see it, is the inability of cars to get close to each other because of the aero. Instead of solving the problem, we get fake DRS. Why is no one governing the sport talking about solving the aero problem?

    1. Brawn has started to talk about it, is no fan of DRS, and I hope and believe will be able to do something about it post-BE era, given some time.

  13. For me, F1 would be far more fascinating if there were no engine limitations, less aero, use any tire-any time you want, and more importantly- more cars on the grid. I realize $$$ and the current mindset stand in the way of this fantasy.
    That makes it a dream… what a dream it is.

  14. I agree with Seb. Processional racing is not what bother me, it’s the impossibility of overtaking that I think the main problem. Some of them is because the track design, but I think only Hungaroring, Singapore, Monaco, and Catalunya that has that problem.

    The other and primary culprit is the extreme car handling changes when following another car. I don’t say dependence on the aero is the problem, but rather the wrong focus of aero development. Current aero restriction makes the car too dependent on clean air and many solution that work in dirty air is banned. I think F1 need to legalize some of the solutions in the past like FRIC, inertial dampener, blown diffuser (with current fuel limit it’s still make F1 cars “green”), rim fairings, etc. Of course it’ll be regulated to minimize the negative factors like sharp edges on rim shrouds. FIA could also release technical data of the best implementation of those technologies (FRIC from Mercedes/Lotus, dampener from Renault, blown diffuser from Red Bull) to make a level starting field for adapting it to current regulations, reducing the cost needed to research it. I personally think moveable aero device rule is too restrictive and F1 could gain a lot if that rule is a bit relaxed.

  15. I absolutely agree with Vettel. If F1 goes out of its way to make every race exciting, it will turn itself into a show, a fiction. Sadly, I believe it is just the way the popular culture is today. I recently watched a presentation where a high level manager mentioned that consumers were not interested in any technical details; all they want is to press a button on their smartphones to get what they need. For sure, such a consumer will prefer scripted five-minute races over, let us say, the 2015 F1 season. So I can only hope that F1 will be able to at least partly resist the increasing demand for more short-time satisfaction.

  16. I’d like to hear what he would say if he ever participated in Dijon battle and without aero gimmicks and DRS and how he would compare against Gilles Villeneuve swinging his Ferrari into craziest lock-ups and slipstreams and craziest Renault turbo rocket Rene Arnoux managed to tame and fight against the one of the all-time greatest racer.
    This is what legends are made from.
    To make a legend you need that narrow Dijon track and two mad drivers fighting each other against all odds and laws of physics. Not even knowing the words – boring races, so what?
    To make a boring race you need Tilkedrome, Vettel and Newey’s car.

  17. The problem, as Brawn knows well is that Engineers will exploit the rules in order to gain even the smallest advantage. The areas in car design that offer the most speed rewards are Aero performance and Venturi.

    That this does not make for interesting races is not the engineers concern, it is the engineers job to make a fast car, faster than the rest that keeps going as long as it needs to.

    Mathematically, it is faster to under fill the fuel tank and have the driver lift and coast than it is to fill the tank to full and have the driver floor it for the whole race.

    It is faster, to have the driver back off and save tires than it is to pit and put fresh ones on.

    The unenviable task ahead is to create rules by second guessing what the team engineers will try to exploit. For this they have one of the best men for the job as he used to do this for a living and let us not play around here, it is the engineers that make the sport this way not the FIA or FOM.

    A fresh look at things is needed and that is what they are doing but you can´t get away from the fact that this is not an easy thing to fix and naturally one of the obvious options to improve this is to look into penalising teams that opt to lift and coast or save tyres instead of changing them or use massive amount of down force and venturi effect.

    There has to be some tangible incentive to not do these things anymore.

  18. I tend to ignore the drivers in discussions such as this because they don’t have to watch F1…

    1. It’s hardly boring when you are being paid “unboringly” sums of money.

  19. That’s a very easy thing to say for someone who won 4 titles out of F1 being utterly boring. Huge differences in cars make it boring. A merc starts from the bottom of the grid and people think it’s awesome it overtakes every lame car on the track like they aren’t there. I think it’s ridiculous. Take a FI instead, or a Williams, give them a 5 grid position penalty and you’ve just ruined their race.

Comments are closed.