Perhaps we had become spoilt. We had become used to close title battles, but not since 2004 had a title fight been wrapped up so early, and been so inevitable for so long before that. We had become used to ebbs and flows in drivers and teams' forms, but not for a very long time had performances become so entrenched so early in a season. In the first half of the season, we had also become used to exciting races even if predictable outcomes, but even that tapered off as the season wore on.

It would be a very hard taskmaster who would not give Pirelli points for trying to make their tyres an ingredient for action aplenty. And at the start of the year, from a fan's perspective they exceeded expectations, with teams dreading the spectre of tyres 'falling off the cliff'. But revised compounds only proved ever-more conservative, and drop-off rates hardly became noticeable. At least Pirelli's attitude of being willing to listen, learn and experiment proved a marked contrast from their predecessors at Bridgestone.

The teams also contributed to once again turning the intent of the tyre regulations into a bit of a damp squib. Teams and drivers taking gambles with unorthodox tyre strategies were few and far between, and the more common strategy was for people to rush for new tyres and for their rivals to react - in other words, far more wanted to hares, and few wanted to try being tortoises. Plus the issue of tyre allocations, and the rule that the top ten on the grid had to start on their Q3 tyres, ruined the third segment of qualifying.

On the whole, the DRS was a positive innovation and it started brightly. Yes it was artificial in a sense but, as we wrote in our editorial comment earlier in the season, F1 needed that to combat the effects of extreme reliability and professionalism. But the FIA never really got the balance right. Some DRS zones were too long, others were too short, and double-DRS zones turned out to be counter-productive if they were on consecutive straights with two separate detection points.

At times, the effect of the DRS also got scuppered by the relentless search for cornering speed - which was at the very heart of the season's most debated technical issue, off-throttle exhaust gases and blown diffusers. Teams sometimes preferred wing and gear ratio configurations which hindered top speed on straights and meant that they could not take advantage of the DRS. Remarkably, only Toro Rosso seemed to tweak to the notion that it might be useful to maximise straight-line speed to increase overtaking potential.

Ultimately, the premise behind KERS, DRS and the Pirellis was that cars would be well-matched, and teams would be prepared to gamble on tyres, set-up or strategy. The Chinese GP early on, when things weren't quite so set in stone, was the prime example where that occurred, but as the season wore on neither became the case. The stability in the regulations led to a hierarchy down the grid - with some surprising lap-time gaps between teams - and minimal risk-taking which hardly anyone was able to shake.

There were also too many drivers and teams having frankly average seasons. For example, the first few drivers in our rankings and the last few picked themselves, but the rest were ordered based on how they ranked relative to each other. It wasn't as if they particularly deserved to be ranked 5th or 20th. It was a similar story amongst the teams; it was that kind of year. It meant that the one combination that did maximise their potential - Sebastian Vettel and Red Bull - romped away with the championship.

Meanwhile, there was too little intrigue and too little controversy to keep up the talking points on dull days. Marketing gurus put publicocrap spin on everything, but an English teacher will tell you the best dramas involve heroes and villains. Issues like off-throttle exhausts and resource allocation agreements were hardly going to stir emotions. There were no intra-team rivalries to speak of, and the only on-track grudge involved the bumbling antics of Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa. A Shakespearean plot it was not.

So at year's end, how have different teams have responded to the staleness? The top teams, with the most to lose, haven't changed anything. Mercedes have aggressively recruited tech staff. But in several midfield teams the drivers have - in some cases most undeservedly - been made the fall-guys even though they have not been the issue. It's a token gesture until the sport recognises that a real shake-up won't occur until the sport re-emphasises unpredictability over professionalism, and passion over PR.

Whilst the overall interest in the sport remains high, it's not all bad news and we simply hope for more of the variables - like how evenly-matched the cars are, how the Pirelli tyres and DRS zones operate, how teams approach strategy, how the performances of drivers and teams might fluctuate over a season, and even what the weather is like - to swing back to create a closer, more thrilling 2012. But might there be rumblings that will soon force the sport to look at itself in the mirror?

The troubles struck by some of the 'new world' destinations like Bahrain, Turkey, Korea and Texas show that the success of F1 is not just gauged by how many optimistic promoters are prepared to throw millions at Bernie Ecclestone regardless of the cost-benefit analysis. The decision to shift the most important English-speaking viewership to pay-per-view for 2012 risks alienating a generation of fans. Is F1 commerce or sport, or both? The annual challenge to find the balance resumes again soon.

Finally, in case you may not have caught the announcement in the F1 Rejects forum, after the Japanese GP this year we stopped producing our regular race reviews. Thank you to all of you who have read the reviews over the years. In 2012, we intend to cover current F1 via a mixture of a season preview and review, podcasts, the forum, and some topical articles, but as promised here is our 2011 season review including our review of all the teams and drivers, and of course the reject podium. We hope you enjoy the read.

Back to the top.