Positive Feedback Loops - the problem that's breaking F1 from the inside

[@chainbear]

Just to be clear: I don't think success ballast or reverse grids are the right idea, I just used them because they very clearly show a negative feedback loop in action. Something more subtle is better!

[@Formula1Madx]

What I'm more worried about is your video advocating the burning down of barns 🔥😱

[@topiasr628]

You want to see more barn burners. We get it

[@joshdavis9373]

I agree but disagree. It’s a touchy subject in general, but IMO reversing the prize pool/money gained for championships (most money going to the constructor with least points and less money going to the constructor with most points) wouldn’t be that of an bad idea. I do however, heavily disagree with implementing a rule that would effect some cars but not all (Like adding weights to faster cars) in order to try and balance the field which IMO would change the aspect of the sport. Doing so would turn F1 into a more strategically sport than it already is which I think the majority of fans would not like.

[@rekinhoo]

@@joshdavis9373 Why would you do that? It is just stupid to get the most money for being the worst. What is the motivation for the front-runners then?

[@bthommm]

I think reverse grids based on previous race results would work if we switches to a 2 race platform, similar to Formula 2. It’d also produce some unpredictable results assuming that the top teams get into battles while attempting to move up the field. With prize money distribution I think it’d make sense if the income went down by 2% so that the team that finished last in the constructors only starts with 20% less money than the team that finished first.

[@AndrewJJ-0114]

I've got a good idea for a negative feedback loop they could use in motor racing -- give drivers who are further behind in the pack blue shells and lightning bolts to use against their opponents.

[@ConnorJacquet]

Reverse grid at Monaco Williams gets 43 points

[@Cattytea]

What are we doing here? Racing or traffic jam? LOL

[@FallingPicturesProductions]

I distinctly recall a Red Bull machine coming from the back up to 6th or 7th last year at Monaco. Williams would still likely plummet through the field and you'd still see the same three teams up front at the end.

[@inertiadorifto5586]

But pitstops gonna mess them up

[@Silent_Shadow]

They need too have one last very special Monaco next season and for 2021 and on get rid of it. Time for real change.

[@sBinnotto]

@@inertiadorifto5586 Actually Williams pit stops usally are very fast. But they can lose, due to the strategy itself

[@Shubhmoy1]

Finally someone who actually adressed the real issue with Formula 1

[@EddieOtool]

Funny. I felt we're not even there yet. You know, as long as a system can provide its top dogs with what they're looking for, change is seldom seen. As long as F1's top dogs will shower in money, I doubt anything will change... Do remember that good will isn't the rule there where money is involved; it's mostly about exploitation... As long as they'll be able to siphon money from dying babies to feed their own overweight breeds, the show will go on unchanged... The change has to come from the pleb, because the managers will never have any of it.

[@Shubhmoy1]

@@EddieOtool You are right.. In most of the ways the sport is run by money.. And yes the change first needs to come from the F1 community but is that really happening? The internet is flooded with memes about the Williams Team, what these baby fanatics don't realize is that Williams have been through even worst phases throughout their long illustrous history, this is not their first hiccup and they will surely pick up and by all means we need to ensure that they remain in the sport, they are the last standing old school team with still their name on the board and are not automobile giants with deep pockets, they have always been in formula 1 for the racing part..

[@CRUISR-ib4nj]

Just enforce a cap

[@molexi6537]

Red Bull would probably kill to get 3 Toro Rosso cars in to free practice lol

[@depresseddude12]

2 of them for Verstappen

[@Bahamuttiamat]

As would ferrari. The problem with these "gimmicks" is teams are so use to finding advantageous loopholes. In the examples chain gave. Team will simply sandbag for a better grid position. Both mercedes and Ford abused those rules in wec/ gt racing.

[@JochemKuijpers]

@@Bahamuttiamat You could counter this by for instance giving out an additional point for finishing top 5 in qualifying. You wouldn't want to drag behind if you could score a point, right?

[@Ty4ons]

@@depresseddude12 Junior driver Vax Merstappen

[@李孙建]

Toro Rosso already have 3 cars

[@TheAshleyYoyo]

All these ideas would actually work to a degree and have their own successes, but the elephant in the room no one has been addressing is B-TEAMS! It’s no good giving Toro Rosso a load of advantages like extra testing or better CFD and wind tunnel complexities when it’ll just go straight onto the Red Bull car. Sauber would do the same with Ferrari (or Haas) and Mercedes might lean on Force India/Racing Point given enough money. So McLaren, Williams and Renault would be SOL because the structure from the ground up is rigged against them

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

What prevents those three from forming a likewise R&D coalition?

[@magicjack4076]

Ivan Pozdeev then they’d win everything and people would get bored again

[@TheRobidog]

I feel like the problem with B-teams largerly solves itself if you fix the feedback loops. They're currently stuck as B-teams because they can't survive without that. If the feedback loops are fixed, that should make it possible for them to survive on their own. Sure, Red Bull and Co. might still profit from that for a time, but I think the B-teams would start to disassociate themselves over time, because they'd get back into a position where they can legitmately contend for race wins or championships. And staying a B-team would make that impossible, because you'll always play second fiddle.

[@stenyak]

@@TheRobidog If you have the money, you can pay the B-team (or start your own) to be in losing positions, so as to use their negative-feedback-loop advantages on the the primary team. You artificially have a very bad team, so that you can also have a very good team. Which pays better than having two average teams in the middle of the grid.

[@BloodDerg]

@@stenyak The easiest fix to that problem is banning these working relationships between teams. But what is defined a "working relationship" is a good thing to argue about for years. Too many things to just quickly think about.

[@scottwilson4798]

16:00 wont make much difference if the bottom teams arrive late to testing 👀

[@stephencolbourne44]

Best comment ever

[@jamescruz8678]

oof

[@PaweStepien92]

MOM GET THE CAMERA!

[@doctorscoot]

Scott Wilson yeah but that’s part of the positive feedback of being at the bottom. Your testing is -curtailed- because you’re too useless to get your car ready!!

[@usamahattaymiyah8670]

If you’re that much of a mess, testing time is the least of your concerns. More testing will definitely help the midfield.

[@samcarpenter_]

In 2013, MotoGP allowed concessions for teams that won under a certain amount of races the previous year, such as much more engine development and more testing. It got Ducati to the front of the grid, and is getting Suzuki there too. Perfect way to do it in F1 if you ask me.

[@TheTeremaster]

Sadly that then gives Red Bull a massive advantage since they can tank Torro Rosso and reap the engine benefits to go into the Red Bull car, unless the rule was made in combination with a rule demanding reasonable seperation of teams

[@andraslibal]

Being behind == doing more work is the way to handle this! Both in racing and society. There should not be penalties for being successful nor handouts for poor performance, just opportunities to get better.

[@ollydavis2495]

"Prize money should be more equal" *Ferrari throws tantrum* Ferrari were my favourite team as a kid but with obnoxious team orders and threatening to quit over rule changes that would improve the sport, I now dislike them. Ferrari hate F1 but they love money

[@jakubstachon]

18:39 > "We need potential new teams!" > Proceeds to show clips of Audi, Porsche and... Skoda?

[@JUK3MASTER]

Probably not gonna happen...

[@jakubstachon]

@@JUK3MASTER Juuuust probably :P . Although if it did, then I'm rooting for them lol

[@JUK3MASTER]

@VERY EVIL PERSON FROM ILLUMINATI well you do have Ferrari and Alfa Romeo which are basically fiat vs fiat

[@muhammadshofwan5309]

He thought about VW, probably

[@flashpeter625]

Skoda Motorsport has built the best S2000/R5 rally car in the last 9 years. Of course they are not going to be chosen as Volkswagen's brand for F1 or any other top-tier circuit racing series, but what's so funny about Skoda Motorsport?

[@craigb2279]

Just want to say this is one of the best F1 videos I ever watched. I hope the management team of F1 watches this. Not just the ideas for improvement but the way you explained the concept itself. Great work. The concept is more important than any idea it is the base to start from

[@davidpiovesan1210]

Im sure F1 management knows this already but are too blinded by political bullshit and backroom deals.

[@Joeprijsman]

Looks like they did:)

[@johngrantcampbell9264]

The F1 board game at the beginning is Formula D. Great game. Would recommend.

[@CyrusdVulture]

I do enjoy it. Shame it only comes with Monaco and some random street racer track. I hope there's explansions for it.

[@johngrantcampbell9264]

Ember Storm I recommend getting expansions. I got got 2 today and have one more on the way

[@jubuttib]

I thought it was Formula Dé, has it been rebranded?

[@ValidAsian]

Lol, I just got finish with taking an electrical engineering exam and thought the title was about op amps, capacitors, and inductors

[@vshettyvs]

Haha you made my day. Hope your exam went well

[@baatour]

Preparing for one and that's exactly what I thought of .

[@dynamo4582]

Haha. I thought the same. All about that Non Inverting Op amp life

[@ChrisDied]

how do you know someone is an engineer?? thats the first thing they tell you

[@MikevanLieshout]

I really don't want to design a positive feedback amplifier

[@mugshotmarley]

Great ideas. It makes sense. Example, NFL (american football). Whoever did the worst the year before gets first pick at the next years draft. Its amazing how chainbear can bring up these obviously flawed aspects of F1 that hasnt been addressed (as much) in the past or currently. Lets make it more competitive and give the smaller, less successful teams atleast an opportunity to win or progess. Seems that once you get caught in a bad loop, its nearly impossible to get yourself out

[@Taziod]

Yeah it literally does nothing but make the sport more interesting for everyone. Hell even the better teams get some breaks considering they'll be forced to work less. It's WIN/WIN

[@Bahamuttiamat]

In theory, but not in practice. In the NFL, the pats remain dominant. In the NBA, the 70's celtics, then 90's bull, 00's heat and now the GSW. No matter what the sport, there will always remain a period of dominance.

[@h0sti1e17]

@@Bahamuttiamat But once that great player retires or changes teams the dynamic change. Brady will retire and he still only has 6 rings over 18 seasons. If merc won 1/3 of the time it would be more interesting. Golden State was an awful team years ago, but got good.

[@lightfeather9953]

@@Bahamuttiamat The NFL is much more broadly competitive than competitions without such rules leveling the playing field. You're cherry picking at the exception that proves the rule, and that exception of the Pats isn't even a good one as they're not that dominant at all compared to a Mercedes or Juventus. The Pats always start a season being at far under 50% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Same with the NBA, which has a salary cap and a draft. They're currently favored to win the next Super Bowl as 1st ranked team with only an 11% chance of winning according to betting & prediction markets. 11%!!! That's amazing compared to F1 where the favorite team starts the season above a 50% chance of winning the WCC. So yes both in theory and in practice... you're dead wrong.

[@cririshmidgetsmchs]

@@Bahamuttiamat Pretty sure you meant 60's Celtics.

[@inertiadorifto5586]

"F1 has a problem that needs fixing" **shows picture of Toto Wolff**

[@gg-gg-gg-gg]

Toto is bae

[@RideToLyf]

That really was my favorite part 🤣

[@sergemetral]

It was clear to me from the get go that this channel was full of extremely well thought out, very cleverly relevant and carefully crafted content. Sprinkle some clever bits of humor and some subtle self-deprecation and you have the recipe for a classic Chain Bear F1 video. I particularly enjoyed this one. Chase Carey, Ross Brawn, if you are listening, please do watch this! I think this challenges some fundamental assumptions we have come to accept and never question. Great stuff!

[@Pavankumar-oy3xz]

Wow, a 20 minutes chain bear F1 video!

[@jsnsk101]

qualifying should be done in a Mk3 escort, all drivers use the same car, 2 laps use the best time

[@Pavel_Engines]

Top Gear style in a compact saloon.

[@pnpgod7904]

In kid-sized go-karts 👌

[@NoTraceOfSense]

Pavel Osovets in a reasonably-priced car

[@gcarlson]

Make sure Jeremy Clarkson doesn't punch anyone.

[@dww34]

yeah but why not the race? Why not settle the winner with a beer and a roshambo?

[@BrotoGP]

F1 needs to learn from the negative feedback loops that are driving the closer competition in MotoGP

[@RegitYouTuber]

I think Forumla E Qualifying is a great implementation of the negative feedback loop idea - makes racing interesting but largely fair, as with a rocket lap time the previous winners *could* still get into Superpole

[@Reydriel]

That negative feedback loop is also itself kind of unpredictable, so while generally the top winners are disadvantaged, it's not always the case (it could start raining in the middle of qualifying, screwing over teams in groups which have not started their session yet). That definitely makes it feel less "artificial".

[@RegitYouTuber]

exactly, I guess we could call it *organically artificial* , if that makes any sense

[@RaianNSX]

Chaim bear: _Reverse grids, being more successful reduces your chance of success next time._ Alonso: *Hold my virtual Beer*

[@ne0wiz]

i think the lower 3-4 teams having more parts to work with so they can push what they have and not worry about suffering grid penalties would be a good start

[@invalid8774]

these parts cost and need to be paid. Might be a start though. For sure the fans dont have enough information about how the deals are to evaluate an idea properly.

[@mattwhelan13]

reverse grid might actually make Monaco exciting, that or it would be the same, but 2 seconds a lap slower lol

[@davidwillis7991]

once the pitstops were done we've seen Monaco won by a car that was many seconds a lap slower than it had been due to engine issues.

[@stijndeligt]

I knew what Positive Feedback was and was skeptical I would agree with you. However the options you proposed in the end we're a lot brighter than I expected. However it is hard to not let big teams abuse their small teams (RB/TR and Fer/Alfa) so they can let their parts get tested on the extra day, etc.

[@321rafwaf123]

Hoppa de Stijn weet wat een positive feedback loop is waar gaan we da schrijve

[@stijndeligt]

@@321rafwaf123 dankjewel butters, very cool

[@patrickbeart7091]

@@stijndeligt That was an interesting mix of english, dutch and meme

[@Sanmibor]

The negative feedback loop is already in place in MotoGP : the newer teams have more "developpement points" during the season than the older teams. Moto GP has many good ideas to balance the field

[@Bahamuttiamat]

Exists in formula one too. HAAS and any new team gets UNLIMITED CFD and wintunnel time leading up to their first race.

[@vincentfranzonello9248]

Love the videos. Wonder if you could do one covering some of the reasons teams might lose “race pace” on sundays. Obviously there could be many reasons but could be interesting to explain why Haas or Ferrari can look good in one lap or long stints on Friday/Saturday but struggle on Sunday

[@Formula1Madx]

06:09 For detailed instructions on how to burn down your barn🔥😱

[@Malwontae]

I think you'll find that the barn survived as it was inflammable, unfortunately it's contents weren't.

[@TotoDG]

How to sum up negative feedback loops in five words: DJ Khaled: Suffering from Success.

[@climaxhubbard]

we're suffering from his success too, he's incredibly annoying..

[@TotoDG]

I know. I hate him too, I was just beating a horse further into death.

[@aaranchauhan9997]

Conspiracy: your barn is actually a Marlboro chevron

[@brendangarvin7787]

Or MasterCard Lola?

[@Migs3]

Excellent video. Thanks for taking the time to film and edit it and of course for positing it for our benefit. Keep up the good work! -Migs

[@RomanHerbig]

Günther Steiner made some comments about building the Haas team different in the last Beyond the Grid podcast, to anyone interested.

[@Shaun.Stephens]

Excellent video Stuart! I've been thinking for decades now that there should be almost equal distribution of the prize money. Scrap legacy payments, there are enough other positive feedback loops in F1 without this big one being forced on the sport by the FIA.

[@970357ers]

Limit DRS opening the higher you are in the championship/last race. Less of the stigma of ballast and a similar negative feedback.

[@FightingTorque411]

Not very effective if the championship leader/previous winner starts the following race at the front as well, where DRS serves little purpose anyway

[@Klikkitse]

​@@FightingTorque411 Soo...it's perfect? Drivers that need DRS get more DRS?

[@Ruylopez778]

I think it's better to have the advantages for slower teams in practice, budget, development than make a fast car slower depending on the race. It's more confusing for casual fans. If the slower teams have an advantage in their design and setup they will be able to compete closer with the faster cars.

[@jaxwylde2139]

Wow, this is a fantastic video! Kudos to you, Chain Bear, for such a well thought-out and presented video. I enjoy watching F1, but have never delved deep into some of the intricacies/politics of this sport. As mentioned by some other posts, there are examples of other sports using negative feedback techniques (bottom finishing teams get first round picks in following season, etc.). Salary caps, which is also used in many American team sports, also helps. Salary caps is not negative feedback, but does help to ensure a rich team can only spend x number of $'s on players/coaches, etc. Of course, those ideas are specific to those sports, and wouldn't work on F1, but you do propose a few interesting ideas. It would surprise me if the people running F1 weren't aware of this issue. The question is whether or not they'll do something about it, soon!

[@Crosnertony]

This is why Formula E is gaining popularity. Not nearly the fastest cars, but every race and championship is competitive.

[@GlowingHorror]

Dude, Formula E is so freaking good. An amazing race is THE NORM.

[@cronushydra]

To put it in context with the video, the balance of positive feedback and negative feedback of the championship is nailed in. Top teams get the drivers and sponspors with an extra testing days if they are supplier. Bottom teams have the option to buy a powertrain from the top team at a capped price and a more favorable qualy group. 6 races, 6 winning drivers from 6 different teams so far. Can we make it 7? Nissan must win this.

[@johannsebastianbach3411]

Wow, i'm gonna show this video to my friends, instead of asking them to read the 1844 manuscripts. When talking about f1 teams and not actual people, the points is given across much easily :D Let's burn the barns of the kulaks!!

Imagine Škoda (shown in the stock footage after Porsche) joining F1.

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

I wouldn't underestimate them as a sporting team. A) they're owned by VW so have a massive corporation able to financially help and B) look at their rallying history. Even when Skoda was a joke on the road, they won a lot of rallies. And these days the cars are no jokes! Should they decide to go into open-wheel racing, they'd do it with a much better team in place than the majority of people would give them credit for. I'd like to see them on the grid (though I reckon they'd start in F3 or 4 for a few years and work their way 'up', as it were). Lara started doing well in tin tops on the world stage not so long back and got ex-world champs driving for them, so you never know, with a lot of Russian money and plenty of Russian drivers around, maybe they'd take the plunge!

[@aolson5795]

I actually would really enjoy it if, when it was "too wet" to run the F1 cars, they made all the drivers race in Skoda Fabias.

[@aaronvanzile3824]

It would be as silly as a small, publicly owned company known for small passenger cars and light duty commercial vehicles. Could you imagine a Renault in F1? Would they bring their clio then?

[@efthymis_mc34]

I'd imagine they would get quite competitive after a few seasons. After all, they are backed by the largest automotive group in the world...

[@viv30406]

For all the frustrating predictability in F1, you are literally injecting life into this sport. Excellent content. Thanks!

[@benjaminchasse5390]

The budget cap will be the first big step towards a more level field. Every major sport has done this in the last 20 years and hopefully it will make f1 more interesting in the future!

[@DaleBouwman]

Thanks Chain Bear for the informative video. Anyone can say "The system in F1 needs to change to invite more competition"....but most people don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. Most people need a simplified video like you have to understand your point. Good job!!

[@rohanthakrar7599]

Some of your argument can be likened to football. The top 6 in the premier league have far much more wealth that the other teams and it's certainly not a level playing field, with the richer clubs getting richer. However we still have smaller clubs beating the bigger teams. This simply doesn't happen in F1. Perhaps having a more equal playing field (in terms of money) isn't the solution, but a way to reduce the influence money has on results may be. I'm a bit stuck here on how this would be achieved though lol. Great vid Stu!!!

[@tomasnovicky6886]

The budget cap planned for 2021 is a possible answer to the very thing you describe

[@fattahrambe]

Football has transfer limit, sponsorship limit, etc.

[@rohanthakrar7599]

@@fattahrambe Manchester city psg etc all seem to get around this

[@TestarossaF110]

There is way more chance in Football then F1 in that regard...

[@Anon.G]

No salary cap?

[@daillyarran]

Where can I get that Monaco Street Circuit Board Game

[@lolbots]

amazon (formula d)

[@LeCharles07]

"Formula D" currently published by Asmodée

[@vitaobatera]

I've been saying this in the comment section for months now!! Thanks for this video!! Reverse grid, extra ballast, more power, Super Pole are just ideas that would help a LOT F-1 to become more enjoyable... If Ferrari doesn't like it, well they are not forced to stay... this will open doors to many good teams like Audi and Porsche, maybe bring Toyota and other teams back... would be awesome!

[@deus_ex_machina_]

Since you have a Game Maker's Toolkit card, I'll mention some examples of concessions from games, or more specifically, The Blue Shell Effect: Getting more powerful and sometimes OP stuff from question boxes in Mario Cart, and getting more money for consecutive round losses in CS:GO.

[@simonetaddia459]

Great video. In less of 20 minutes you explained Football in Europe and Life. Rich are getting richer and poor are getting......survivor.

[@Galastin]

As someone who is new to F1 and is an NBA basketball fan, when I learned about the compensation structure, I thought exactly of this. Why create bigger gaps between the best teams? Everything seemed so backwards. For example, in the NBA, the worst teams in a given season have the best odds to get the first overall draft pick. Which in turn gives them a better chance at getting more talent. To add to that, each NBA team has a salary minimum (to ensure they are spending enough and not ripping off their players/fans) and a salary cap. The cap is actually a "soft" cap in that you can spend above it, but there's a huge penalty. Still allows teams to spend a little more to keep a good team together, but completely ruins the idea of just throwing ludicrous amounts of money at players to "buy" a good team. I hope F1 seriously considers flipping these feedback loops into negative ones, as I think we can all agree a more competitive F1 season would be seriously exciting.

[@chadwickthezulu]

I think money should be rewarded in reverse championship order at the end of the season, but to dissuade lower ranked teams from tanking, the bottom 5 teams enter a lottery for prize money order. This is what the NBA does for their player draft and it works fairly well. Also, I actually like the idea of success ballast, but it would be more interesting to make it based on points in the driver's championship. For example, each point would add 100 g of ballast which could be placed anywhere in the car. (Tweak the amount of mass for best result. 100 g is just an example.) I don't think it would stop Mercedes or Ferrari from ultimately winning, but it would keep the scores much closer, ensuring that the championship wouldn't be determined before the final race.

[@LuisKachan]

On the third car idea you mentioned at the end. Its amazing, besides all of what you said sponsors would like to see 3 cars of theirs going around during practice. Your knowledge is amazing man. Keep it up

[@Ruylopez778]

Except how can Williams run a third car with a separate engine with the current regulations? How could they pay for that engine?

[@IchiroSakamoto]

The massive bonus money for Ferrari needs to go, and the prize money should be split evenly between all teams. It’s a shame F1 is being blackmailed by those bigger, winning teams

[@JG-ib7xk]

If the prize money was split evenly then why would you spend hundreds of millions on trying to win if you could spend nothing, finish last, and get the same amount?

[@David-ud9ju]

Why the fuck should the prize money be split evenly? What kind of communist sport do you want? If you do better than another team, you deserve to win more money; that's literally how everything in society works. If everybody got awarded the same amount of money, there'd be no incentive to actually develop a good car - I could enter with a budget of £100 and end up a multimillionaire.

[@grekiki]

@@JG-ib7xk Sponsors?

[@tijmen1871]

@@JG-ib7xk Free advertising? Merc got about 56% of the F1 TV showings last year and got about 1 BILLION worth of ads from it

[@nils7888]

@@David-ud9ju The prize money isn't the big thing, it's sponsors, fame and reputation that come with winning. If you think that a fair playing field is communism you really watched too much fox news...

[@LittleLampi]

This is hands down the most insightful and complete analysis on the problems of modern F1. Not only on youtube, but in general.

[@geekdiggy]

the only thing predictable about F1 is that vettel is going to spin under pressure.

[@masamainio1694]

Also, Vettel wins a race Vettel: Dont say it Vettel: Dont say it Vettel: Dont say it Also Vettel: *GRAZIE RAGAZZI*

[@jacktadema1692]

S🅱️inalla

[@lucde_ville4743]

Update.. Chainbear is actually an ascendent from Nostradamus. Windtunnel testing time as suggested will be implemented.

[@fireiz24]

if i remember correctly, MotoGP has concessions for lower engine suppliers like more engines per season and free development during the season. higher engine suppliers can't develop the engine mid-season and has less engines per season.

[@Sonder2030]

Awesome insights! I especially like the idea of giving lower teams more flexibility to increase development and testing allowing them to work for their gains.

[@AffirmingFoil7]

What is the name of that board game that he kept showing?

[@chrisc3825]

This. Looks like Monaco.

[@dan7845]

I think the game is called Formula De or something.

[@gruftschreck]

boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37904/formula-d

[@IndiBrony]

Formula D is the one in the picture. The game itself has been around for decades, known originally as Formula Dé.

[@fappylp2574]

Monopoly

[@1320crusier]

Every 2 years the 1st, second, and 3rd place teams must make their data and tech public. All of it. Problem with extra testing now is what Steiner talked about a year or so ago: They have a LOT of data. The problem is that they dont have the resources to analyze it all.

[@brekezek]

I like this idea, they would make their 2-year old data and tech public.

[@ConnorHoffman]

Oh man, this video is a work of art.

[@blitzz6745]

Really nice video, You think about solutions to problems AND point it out as well to try to make use of your solutions in order to try to change things. Continue to make video's like this. And i really do agree with you, i would love to see Daniel Ricciardo on the podium in his Renault alongside Robert Kubica in the Williams, and maybe a Mercedes or Ferrari in 3rd or 4th. F1 could be so much more fun if things were just, more random.

[@Yakhashe]

4:20 i'll come back in 5 years to this video just to comment "you didn't see that coming, did you?" ;)

[@lilpandaftw]

Dang you can make analogies between this phenomena in F1 and how op amps work in circuits.

[@AndrewGeierMelons]

17:33: "at some point F1 needs to acknowledge that they've got a problem." *Camera zooms in on Toto Wolff* Yep, I agree. Mercedes's dominance is a problem!

[@vernonbear]

Andrew Geier It’s how F1 is. It happens to be Mercedes at the moment but it was Red Bull, it was Ferrari, it was Williams, and on and on. Wait a year or two and another team will dominate. PS what’s the issue with Mercedes?

[@AndrewGeierMelons]

@@vernonbear Toto Wolff's the kind of guy to eat his newborn children because Hamilton finished second though. Sore loser. No glory. No honour. No dignity.

[@Japcsali]

@@AndrewGeierMelons where did he show such tendencies?

[@AndrewGeierMelons]

@@Japcsali - banging on tables, being upset in interviews... Long list

[@Japcsali]

@@AndrewGeierMelons banging on tables is a meme at this point, and why shouldn't he be upset in interviews if he has a reason for it? I am honestly curious, don't take this the wrong way, I don't know him too much

[@JoeMercersWay]

I get the underlying message, but ultimately the big teams will veto it because they have the power to control the direction. What I would like to see: 1. Race Weekend revamp Let's do away with excessive amounts of practice and setup/strategy tuning, let's create more uncertainty and unknowns to spice things up. We could try: Teams are no longer allowed to choose their tyre allocations for the weekend, instead Pirelli bring a set number of sets for each compound they've selected to each weekend. FP1 - 1 hour, using 1 compound of tyre that is not available for the rest of the weekend (more unpredictable). FP2 - 1 hour. Sets of tyres are split into packages with a mix of compounds. e.g. Package 1 - 1 set of softs, 1 set of mediums and 2 sets of hards. Package 2 - 2 sets of softs, 1 set of mediums and 1 set of hards. Package 3 - 3 sets of mediums. etc. In FP2 the FIA sets the teams a number of challenges, such as Fastest Lap, most consistent lap times over 10 laps, fastest entry speed into a certain corner etc. but then can set special challenges for say 5 minute windows, where in that window the person who sets the fastest sectors or lap wins that time challenge. When a driver wins a challenge, their team gets to pick a package of tyres which are allocated to the driver. This way, FP2 has huge strategic implications and competition and can hugely affect the weekend, and with unique challenges it means that different teams with different car strengths can compete. Say each driver can only win a maximum of 2 packages, it has huge strategic implications, do you go for packages with more softs and risk race strategy, or go for a package full of mediums to ensure you have race coverage? FP3 - This would become a reverse grid sprint race, based on qualifying from the previous race weekend. 2/3rds race distance and half points. Qualifying - I like the current format, but think we could spice things up with added jeopardy, so I propose a "head-to-head" knockout system. Qualifying 1: The bottom 8 drivers from qualifying in the previous race weekend go head-to-head in an 8 minute shootout. They both get a maximum of 2 runs. The drivers are drawn at random, so in Canada if we used Monaco's record it could look like: Kubica v Perez Stroll v LeClerc Grosjean v Giovanazzi Russell v Raikkonen The fastest driver in each "match" would go through and eliminate their rival. The 4 drivers knocked out are assigned 17th-20th based on their fastest lap-time. Qualifying 2: The remaining 16 drivers are drawn against each other at random, 2 runs each. The fastest 8 go through, the 8 drivers eliminated are ranked 9th-16th based on lap time. This is repeated in Qualifying 3 to reach a Final 4, who then get 2 runs each in the Pole Position showdown. How could this make it more exciting? Well, barring Ferrari levels of strategy the top 3 teams are pretty safe getting into Q3. However, it could be the case that in Qualifying 2 Hamilton & Verstappen are drawn together, or Bottas & Vettel, even team-mates, so there could be added jeopardy and pressure in a shootout situation with big names eliminated early. It also creates head-to-head rivalries, driving more interest and meaning to the midfield battle to the audience. Race: As normal, but with no practice on the race compounds and teams having compromised tyre allocations, it would really make strategy intriguing. I also like the idea of allocating testing miles and maybe having a quota on practice laps at race weekends based on the championship standings, but I also think there has to be more ability for everyone outside the top 3 to make competitive, independent cars and more engine manufacturers in the sport to help rid ourselves of the B class setup we currently have. I think weight related penalties would be a step too far, let teams and drivers at the top have to compete harder at the front, but let their gains be earned on the same car rules as everyone else.

[@zzyzxyz5419]

Mercedes, Ferrari and Redbull are teams that are supported by MASSIVE companies behind them, so prize money or not they can still afford the best talent out there cause they do other things besides racing.

[@mcraig]

True, but that said right now we're in a loop where the gap in wealth is accelerating even with just F1 in isolation. If prize money were more equal and lower teams were at least not in threat of bankruptcy, that's at least one step forward. I think this video gets it right that it's not a one big fix issue, but a few smaller ones that don't rip up the rule book but at least remove some of the loops that *are* in the control of the sport.

[@Bahamuttiamat]

You forgot mclaren and renault. Defeats your point because they're not doing so hot. Mclaren especially. It takes more than money and a massive company to be successful in f1. Porsche couldn't do it and neither did toyota!

[@lightfeather9953]

Renault and Honda in the hybrid era? Honda and Toyota in the 2000s? Ford in the past? Lots of examples of big companies failing to deliver in F1. Your description is not accurate regarding how F1 economics works. Big companies don't just put a limitless amount of cash into a team. They put in an amount they feel is worth the return in advertising and prize money. Big companies didn't get big by just spending a ton of cash on things that they won't get a return on.

[@keir92]

Renault are huge, seriously huge

[@MRDK6969]

@@keir92 Yeah, and state sponsored by The French government... 😮😮😮

[@Zubayer_Islam_Rezoan]

17:03 where can I find those set of F1 cars?

[@Shaun.Stephens]

You make everything interesting! That's the first time I haven't hit 'L' repeatedly in a youtube video when someone starts talking about Skillshare (or some other sponsor). Nice job my man.

[@aprilkurtz1589]

Your video could be used to describe the economic system of the country I live in, i.e., "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer." I never would have thought of it as a positive feedback loop, but I immediately made the connection. Great video, Chainbear. I kind of like the ballast idea, it works for race horses and their jockeys, so why not race cars and their drivers?

[@David-ud9ju]

Even if that is true, it should be "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle 90% of society stay exactly the same", which doesn't sound so bad.

[@aprilkurtz1589]

@@David-ud9ju I don't believe the poor should get poorer, just like I don't believe a team should be forced out because another team gets $70 million for showing up. As far as the middle goes, we know they've had stagnant wages for decades, which really means they aren't "staying exactly the same," they're doing worse, which also applies to F1 in some ways.

[@brod515]

I love the reverse grid idea. It doesn't mean mercedes will not be able to win it just mean they'll have to overtake to do it. the best part is that the fastest cars will be the farthest back which means they will be the most number of overtakes in that race

[@keisuketakahasi4584]

12:27 btw that was introduced by the ex fia president somewhat in the 2000s but was dropped quickly lol

[@FightingTorque411]

It may have been suggested at some point by Mosley or someone, but I don't recall success ballast ever getting near an actual F1 race?

[@blueroseworld8281]

Great negative feedback example is major sports draft. Worst teams pick best players as the better teams have to settle for the further ranked fellows.

[@existentialselkath1264]

What is that board game that keeps popping up in the video?

[@EmpererorMatt]

Formula D

[@LeCharles07]

"Formula D" currently published by Asmodée. First edtitions are "Formula Dé" published by Ludodélire and second editions are "Formula Dé" by Eurogames. I have the third edition (by Asmodée) and it's probably my favorite game. Asmodée also sells a wide variety of boards and the boards are double sided with a different track on each side giving you lots of options and replay-ability.

[@Liszka0]

Wow the animation was truly amazing this video! It's amazing to see you get better with every video! You're really keeping that promise yourself that you talked about in the q&a

[@nickh2935]

20 min video LETS GO thanks guy you da man now dawg

[@868CLOUD]

Great video and analysis...keep up your awesome work. I saw that you used an excerpt from the F1 rules on your screenshot @14:18-14:26. I kept 'pausing' the vid during that timeline, just to have a read . Is there a link to where I can get a copy/download of the entire F1 rules?...thanks

[@megalamanooblol]

Great video as usual. This is somewhat subjective but I always felt that F1 positioned itself as pinnacle of Motorsport, sort of "Unlimited" class of racing. Let other series be spec or BoP`ed to death, in F1 anyone can try and go straight to the top if you think you got the money and balls essentially (mostly money, like 99% of it is money). F1 is full loot, free PvP, hardcore no life kind of game, using the MMOs as analogy. Regarding the actual things you can do as negative loops, I think you would have to say NO to any kind of "more development/testing" scheme as this will make issue of B teams SO HOT. Unfortunately quite predictably I myself dont have any better ideas.

[@animan70]

This is the exact point missing from this video. In F1 we rebalance the field by changing the rules.

[@skyscall]

@@KevinJDildonik F1 drivers don't wear G-suits because G-suits (literally) don't work that way. They compress your lower body when under high positive Gs, such as pitching up in an aeroplane. You don't ever experience positive Gs in a car; just left/right and forward/backward Gs And hell, let's go further than removing the driver. Make the cars externally powered so they don't have to lug around a heavy engine. Remove tyres and roads and have them on rails. Actually no, have them magnetically suspended in a vaccuum tube. Then the cars could be smaller and lighter, and whoops - you've accidentally built a particle accelerator. (/s)

[@CandCForsyth]

Great video. I like the idea of freeing up the restraints on CFD and wind tunnel test for the lower teams simple change could go a long way along with adjusting the distribution of prize money that is definitely a critical change needed.

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

Small margin payments is a brilliant idea, much better than budget limits. I completely missed all the non-prize-money-related incentives to compete.

[@brod515]

I think the idea in general is that the more success you have the harder it should be to maintain that success. It shouldn't lead to failure but it should get increasingly harder to hold on to that success but in F1 it's just taking way to long.

[@Kocan7]

It would be fun to see 1-2 reverse grids on some boring races, like Abu Dhabi.

[@dielegende9141]

I'd like to see qualifying races (maybe 10-20% race distance) that are started in reverse championship order. That would give everyone the chance to start at least in the top 10, take out drivers that can only qualify but not race and mix up the grid a little

[@dielegende9141]

@Bstar_99 Sebastian the top teams might still end up on top but don't forget that the top drivers' starting positions would be mixed up as well which might contribute to a more interesting championship fight

[@munkytaint666]

you're totally right. something needs to be done to fix this positive feedback loop, and it should be something that doesn't seem heavy handed or unfair in its implementation. i hope people in the FIA are taking this seriously and looking to solve it

[@Thyberien]

reverse grids aren't really a thing because some drivers will intentionally come last, so they will be first afterwards

[@baranoid]

reverse grid by championship points might work

[@Excludos]

Then those drivers lose out points in the last race. I can see this effect if you're outside of points already tho, so it would probably have to be combined with distributing points to near everyone on the grid. That said, while it would be fun to watch, it's not a very good idea, no.

[@ErrorCDIV]

@@Excludos I have thought about this thing before, I just rationalized it by awarding points in qualifying to incentivize drivers to actually try, but then do the reverse grid based on qualifying lap times

[@Excludos]

@@ErrorCDIV You could also go the more complicated route that Le mans (I think? It might have been another endurance race) takes: Penalise faster cars from practice by giving them less boost or more weight. You'd think this would make people try less in practice, but they created some complicated algorithms which calculated the best possible runs if drivers were flawless. Sometimes it even ended up in the fastest cars actually being given an additional advantage because they spotted that the "slower" cars could have gone faster. The minus with such complicated systems is that the viewers don't understand wtf is going on, and conspiracy theories will assuredly go rampant.

[@chrisc3825]

Totally agree. Here's a few additional thoughts: 1) Salary caps. These are difficult to implement, but there is enough flexibility if done correctly to allow for the best drivers to make top dollar and good teams to not be significantly hampered, while allowing smaller teams to at least aspire to realistically reach the level of the best teams. When lesser teams have "spare money" in other sports, it allows them to at least attract a star who wants to cash in. The same applies here. It would be difficult for any team to stack 2 of the best 5 drivers. When there is a team with a bottom 5 paid driver, it becomes easier to attract the top drivers because they have the cap space. Veterans generally command more money and landing top young talent at a lower salary becomes increasingly important. Caps can apply to just drivers or entire teams from top to bottom. 2) Prize money isn't for teams to use for their team expenses, it is for employees and drivers in the form of bonuses. Other major sports do this. Teams don't need prize money with proper TV deals and advertising, rather their budgets come from revenue sharing, sponsors, apparel and the like. Teams can use this money how they'd like keeping in mind salary caps. 3) Sunset the Ferrari bonus. If they don't want to continue in F1 without it, to be rash, GTHO of here. Formula 1 is not Ferrari and Ferrari is not Formula 1. A league needs to survive with or without their best players. It cannot be dependent upon a single person or a single team. If it is, it will never succeed and always be hamstrung, as it is now. 10 teams competing evenly without Ferrari is preferable to 2 teams competing with Ferrari. The FIA talks about this relationship with Ferrari like the US talks about their relationship with Israel. It makes no sense and it reeks of corruption and conflicts of interest. 4) Continue the process of moving more and more parts to spec parts, within reason. Those parts can even cycle and change every few years. If a drive shaft doesn't seem like a place of focus for innovation, spec it. If it becomes one in 5 years, open it back up. This can help keep costs under control. 5) Consider hard if not soft caps on ALL spending. Soft caps can exist in the form of luxury taxes, for example, where if you spend more than you are allowed, you pay steeply increasing penalties as payments back to the FIA. You want a 50% budget advantage over another team? You're not going to pay 50% more but rather 100 or 200% more. Eeking out extra performance becomes less and less efficient. 6) Extra money, if there ever was such a thing, doesn't pour back into team budgets but leaves in the form of profit to team owners. That is an additional financial incentive to do well which does not impact a team's ability to perform in the future. Additionally, it disincentives paying the luxury tax and running over budget since that money can flow back to the owners. 7) If F1 is not going to lead the alternative energy race, let it lead the advertising race for existing car manufacturers. Again, we don't need Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, or whoever. We could easily replace them with Ford, Audi, and Lamborghini. Moreover, the fact that teams are car manufacturers is weird and not really the norm in other sports and should really be analyzed with scrutiny. If it works, great, but when F1 is in the right place, maybe something else would work better.

[@andrewisfree]

Yeah....sure...football is a FAIR game..........

[@romanpopyk]

Agree, it has the same problem as F1, big teams get more money and good players/drivers

[@Draven.G]

There are regularions like fair play in UEFA and policies relates to the distribution of TV money to teams depending of the country. That way a club cant inject money that was generated outside the competitions (like oil for example) and get away with it, unlike F1 to my knowledge. Yet, the way they manage to apply it is odd, see PSG not being sanctioned for example, the foundations of fairness are there. Also, although it may sound weird, football is more complex in every competition. Too many factors count toward success so you cant know who will win a competition, even a single game. Look at how even Leicester won a Premier League being that one the most ''balanced'' of the european competitions. That team was on the edge of relegation the year before that. In F1, you know Mercedes is going to win the championship in race 1, and has been like this for 5 years in a row at least. Before that we had Red Bull, so yeah. It is unisteresting to me to the point where i only watch it so my favorite driver can win some time or nake things interesting

[@romanpopyk]

@@Draven.G It's because human factor plays main role in football. In F1, driver can't win a race with a slow car even if he drives perfectly every lap. Even in bad days Hamilton will win against Kubica or Russel because he has minimum 2s advantage

[@Draven.G]

@@romanpopyk Well, of course. The talent is what makes a team closer to success but in no way asures it, unlike F1, where i dont even need to explain

[@robinrai4973]

Game Maker's Toolkit - F1 edition. Good stuff

[@ArashFallah]

If you continue on this note, your video will be featured on Fox News labled as "Socialism has penetrated the World of F1". In all seriousness, I guess the best method is sharing the revenue better.

[@zedramer]

I find it ironic that American sports leagues are built upon revenue sharing and fairness, while European sports are basically the wild west.

[@tomkandy]

The challenge with sharing the revenue more evenly is getting Ferrari etc. to agree to it. They've always met suggestions like this in the past with threats to withdraw and/or set up another series. Now whether these threats are empty is another question.

[@onem1nutenoodle779]

Realistically, the third driver for smaller teams is probably the best option of those mentioned in this video. As tomkandy says, Merc and Ferrari would never agree to split the money more evenly. There's just not enough in it for them if F1 follows that route.

[@ArashFallah]

@@tomkandy That's true! But that'd be the case for any major rule change to make midfield and smaller teams more competative. Say running a third carfor lower grid team, they still get their engines from top teir teams like Ferrari. Reversed grids and anything of that nature would be vetoed as well. At the end of the day, I think that most of these threats are empty, cause a series featuring two or three teams will not be sustainable in long run. I even can understand the heritage portion of ravenue sharing but as it was evident during that Indianapolis 2005, people won't watch a three team race. So all teams should earn the same or almost the same share out of the prize money at the end of the season.

[@ArashFallah]

@@onem1nutenoodle779 3rd driver for Williams will be the last driver of the race! Also most teams are customer teams for the big three, so third driver will give the big three more information than they should otherwise get. Toro Rosso would line up a car with exact Red Bull aero and just runs free tests for them. End of the day, Red Bull would get the benefit not Toro Rosso. The same can be said for Ferrari and Alfa/Hass or Merc and Racing Point

[@omarian0]

AMAZING! You explain the feedback loops in a far more interesting way than Control Theory professors

[@SHAD0WD0G]

Reverse grids based on championship standing yas queen. Although if that were to happen i'd like to see 2 races/event. On Friday 1 fp session, then on saturday race 50% of the distance then on sunday race (grid based on the result of the saturday race) 100% of the distance (and more points given out on sunday ofc).

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

Aarava tried it out with spec cars in the F1 2018 game. It wasn't so good. The grid penalty was too harsh, he had to strategically lose races to get more points in the long run.

[@SHAD0WD0G]

@@ivan_pozdeev_u yea thats why i think that you'd need 2 races/weekend for this which is quite doable i think - w the elimination of FP2, FP3, and Q and replace it w/ 50% distance race on Sat.

[@warrenm6882]

Great concept. I will also mention the huge negative feedback loop that exists for new entrants to the sport - no prize money for the first 3 years. Competition also breeds success, and the lack of competition also provides a positive feedback loop for the existing manufacturers as they have b and c teams who they get additional data from.

[@vincentiuswiratman8322]

Its like draft pick in some american sport

[@jiffjiffernson7292]

Exactly, the perfect team sport example,

[@Dat-Mudkip]

I've got a couple of ideas. One idea I've had it to put a "research cap" on teams. Essentially, during the winter break, teams can only spend a certain amount of money on R&D; going over this by more than a few dollars would result in some form of penalty; for example, they wouldn't be allowed to use certain tire grades during the first few race weekends, or maybe be given a limit of how many times they activate DRS per race throughout the year. If one team has a "B-Team", then the B-Team would perhaps be given less harsher restrictions and penalties, or possibly be exempt from them entirely. For the sake of consistency, F1 would define a B-Team as the team that did *worse* than the partner during the previous season. Another option would be to impose less restrictive rules on teams that did poorly the previous year. In other words, the teams that did well would be forced to adhere to F1's "standard" rules, whereas the ones that didn't do as well would be given slightly looser restrictions. Maybe the less successful teams would be allowed some extra horsepower, a minor decrease in minimal weight, slightly larger tolerances for wings, etc. Just a couple of ideas. I know these ideas aren't perfect, but I'm just brainstorming.

[@Dat-Mudkip]

@Chelle The idea is to keep costs down by making the teams try to be as efficient as possible. Let's be honest; this sport is way to expensive, even with the officials trying to cut down costs. It helps if you read the whole comment.

[@Ofitus21]

Prize money. That's the key. And along the budget cap F1 wants to introduce, it could lead to a much more competitive grid

[@aprilkurtz1589]

Will the fact that some F1 teams get paid tens of millions of dollars just for showing up be addressed in the budget cap?

[@Ofitus21]

@@aprilkurtz1589 I mean. You have a limit on how much money you can spend so...

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

-1 for budget caps. There are lots of ways to get ahead in R&D besides spending the money personally, and large companies have more opportunities to do so. So, that won't work.

[@Bahamuttiamat]

Ivan, is correct. Manufacturer teams will simply swallow RnD into itself. Mercedes engines are not apart of the mercedes team. The engines are a department of Daimler. Mercedes amg buys their engine from brixworth at something like 1 dollar.

[@doctorscoot]

Would a budget cap work? I can use my local rugby league (NRL) as a good guide. It’s had a player salary cap (total player budget) and over many years it seems to have worked. No one has won consecutive titles since the 1990s. Smaller teams can have very good years; sometime bigger teams fall in a heap for a couple of years. Mid teams have hopes and are able to build themselves into contention. Etc. A budget cap would at least make everyone start with the same money.

[@Antennenwels1]

I've always heard that budget caps are extremely difficult to enforce.

[@doctorscoot]

@@Antennenwels1 they can be. doesn't mean its not worth trying. there's ways to police it.

[@fone5003]

Instead of Quali, let's have the drivers play games of Formula D to decide the grid! PS: I am SO getting Formula D!

[@Iamwolf134]

As in drift?

[@Bourne246]

Moving negative feedback loops outside of the track is better.. i agree with this... Great video!

[@brod515]

Yesterday I watched an interview of Bernie Ecclestone conducted by Eddie Jordan and Eddie was asking similar questions.

[@laurensjkok]

The amount of effort and thought that you put into these videos is incredible. I can't believe sky sports or Formula 1 themselves have not hired you yet, because you deserve it in the biggest way.

[@dasraffnix9471]

Reverse Grid's won't really change that much. Ask Verstappens Russian GP 2018

[@LievenSerge]

Chain Bear making videos about boring F1 is a waste of skill and talent. He totally nailed it.

[@kaiandchanellesimmons502]

2040 Constructor's championship entries: 1) Ferrari 2) Mercedes 3) Red Bull

[@fappylp2574]

1) Mercedes 2) Mercedi 3) Silver Bull 4) Merdault 5) Mercedaas 6) McBenz 7) Racing Star 8) Alfa Maybach 9) Toro Argento 10) Mercediams

[@kaiandchanellesimmons502]

@@fappylp2574 I forgot about the B teams

[@melculrapid]

I think a softer version of reverse grid can work along with some of your other suggestions, something like: The top x drivers from last race receive a grid penalty that's inversely proportional to their position in the race. So if x is 5, the winner can only qualify in 5th or lower next race, the person in 2nd can only do 4th, and so on. This does more than just reverse the grid, since it also allows for the good midfield teams to end up ahead of the pack and means that drivers will always have to overtake in order to get consecutive wins.

[@mikelewis495]

Joke's on you. I play Monopoly because I'm a Sadist.

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

I don't play it specifically because I'm not.

[@boiledelephant]

@@ivan_pozdeev_u I've always hated how it compels one friend/family member to steadily dominate and destroy all the other friends/family members. Sadistic is the only word for it. It doesn't even accurately illustrate the system it's meant to be critiquing, because real free markets aren't a zero-sum. In reality several companies can co-exist and succeed and achieve equilibrium, but in Monopoly they're artificially forced to eat each other.

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

@@boiledelephant In games, they do this because otherwise, a game session would never end. See tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnstableEquilibrium (not meaning to defend Monopoly, just commenting on the immediate reason for the mechanic choice).

[@deeznoots6241]

boiledelephant real life land markets are like that though, monopoly was meant from the start as a criticism of land monopolisation.

[@xandrewhite4835]

@@boiledelephant I don't know your knowledge of, say, the British East India company's complete subjugation of India in the 1700s, but it shows that, in a truly free market, companies absolutely will try to eliminate all of their competition through whatever means necessary.