Well, maybe not the particular numbers, but similar dominance has happened regularly in F1. Williams in 1992 & 1993, the Italians in the early 50's, Mercedes when it entered its first year in the 50's, etc. Seasons and rules were different in those days though, so it's not really even possible to compare things over ten years ago. That said, I think an interesting point has been demonstrated this season. I think the age-old question of whether it's the car or driver that matters most has some new evidence. If you look at this season, you see over and over again a qual field set up in twos: The two Mercs, followed by the two Williams, followed by the two McClarens, etc., back through the pack. Punctuating this has been a couple of cars that move around in qual, like Ricciardo and Alonso. the races also seem to finish this way, with slightly more variation accounted for by car troubles and mistakes. What this tends to illustrate, I think, is that F1 has largely become about the car, at the expense of the driver. the Mercs, if they held up and the drivers didn't crash them, tended to always be in front. Was this because they two drivers were the best, or even better than anyone else? I don't think so - since it came out the same way over and over and over. I think this season suggests very strongly that the ability of the car overrides everything else and that whoever is in the best car will become champ, so long as he doesn't screw up. Put ANY of the top drivers in that Merc and THEY would be in first or second place. I think this theory is strengthened by seeing that a couple of drivers, Ricciardo and Alonso, moved all over in Qual and races. I think this happened because both are outstanding drivers, not just good ones, that were able to take advantage of situations and outdrive their car's limitations. Put Ham or Nico in the Red Bull or Ferrari, and neither would be winning three times and/or outdriving the Williams cars. This year wasn't about Hamilton, because he was really only competing with Nico. It came down to the last race BECAUSE the Mercs were so will matched and neither had to worry about anyone else. The result was almost random chance. This season was boring because of this, even if there were some exciting moments. The end result, in all but details, was apparent by the third or fourth race. EVERYONE knew the Mercs would win the season and that Ham or Nico would be it. Each race ended with both on top, followed by the Williams cars, followed by the McClarens, with Ric and Alo somewhere random in the pack... Exciting moments, with predictable sameness of outcome. I've been saying it, and I'll say it again: If F1 wants to save itself, it MUST remove the ability for one constructor to dominate by producing a car that creates the champion. It must reduce predictability and the sense of inevitability. Racing is and should be about the driver. The best season have always been the ones where there is real rivalry between teams. I'm not suggesting spec cars by any stretch, but ALL technological advances should be available to all teams all the time, so whatever Merc is doing right, should be copiable by anyone else after some very reasonable time. Extreme advances should be limited in time-frame for dominance. Technological advances should be ENCOURAGED by the rules, not stopped by them. The great cars of the old days would never get made under rules like today. Do you think the Ford-Cosworth DFV would ever have been developed if F1 had the conservative nature it has now? We'd all still be seeing 50's roadsters in F1, if the FIA were as rule-bound as they are now. And the tracks should be made more difficult and no-nonsense. get rid of all these long runoffs that allow a driver to just re-enter the race like nothing happened. I'm NOT saying move the fences back up to the track, but put back the gravel. Make it COST something to run wide.