Well, in 16 years of watching F1, I've never seen the top team so far ahead at this stage of the season. There's no doubt Vettel is a great driver, and did a very good lap today. And the Red Bull team & Newey should be praised for the brilliant car they've made.
But I can't help feel that F1 has never been less "sport" than ever before, at least as long as I've watched it, all because one of the teams managed to interpret the technical design rules better than everyone else (I'm mostly referring to this front-wing stuff, in particular the very telling slow-motion replays). It's always been a team/technical sport, and this is something that makes it fun. But this goes way past it for me.
I don't blame the individual drivers, nor the individual teams. I think the FIA, along with the teams association (and drivers association to lesser extent) should take the blame for this, and have a responsibility to shake up this damn sport properly, for once and for all, and bring it back to the best drivers being able to make the difference and make the race wins, or championship wins.
The cars still have way too much aerodynamic grip. This creates two problems; it makes it really hard to follow/overtake, and it limits the special drivers from driving special races (the ones who have that kind of 6th sense of the limit, i.e. a Senna, a Schumacher, and also a Hamilton in my opinion) - it means that going beyond the limit generally means running wide, rather than drivers being rewarded with speed for finding the grip limit, and not ending up in the gravel.
The irony is that there's never been a more talented set of F1 drivers. It's frustrating to see so many quality drivers unable to do anything because their car doesn't have the aero package.
Wait what? You haven't seen team dominance before and you want to "bring back" the focus on drivers? And you think aerodynamic grip stops overtaking?
1. Team dominance is nothing new in F1. In fact, whats been more surprising the past 3 or 4 years is that more than 1 or 2 teams have been competitive! To say you have watched F1 for 16 years and not seen team dominance is like saying you have watched football for 16 years and never noticed Manchester United have a lot of money. Williams, McLaren, Benetton Ferrari....they have all dominated the past 30 years at some point or other.
2. The focus was never on the drivers. The focus has always been on the teams. This is not the "FIA's doing", it has been this way forever. Lotus, Brabham and Tyrrell dominated for years with their technological advancements. It was never just driver skill that won championships, you had to have a good car and team. Fangio didn't win in the worst car. Neither did any of the World Champions. F1 has never changed in this respect - I don't see where people get the impression the "good old days" didn't rely on the teams to do the work.
3. Aerodynamics help the cars turn faster and faster. Therefore, taking them away means the cars can't turn corners faster. The idea is that relying on aerodynamics makes the cars difficult to race side by side when in the wake of the car in front but frankly this isn't really because of aerodynamics in general, its more because of the current aerodynamics. You can have aerodynamics which allow cars to follow each other. I will agree the rules need to be altered to help the wake of cars but to blame it all on aero and scrap it entirely isn't solving the problem. There is little proof - watch GT racing, is it always better racing? Not really. Brno is Brno, its always boring. The aerodynamics of those cars is far less but still they can end up in processional races. Its a bit better than F1 most of the time though not to the extent where you can say "ok, aerodynamics are the only problem". I would also argue that some other series have a lower level of skill involved at times, where most of the action is sometimes caused by accidents and poor driving rather than necessarily better rules and regulations.
Formula 1 has always had dominant teams, yes its frustrating at times if your favourite drivers cannot do anything when their car isn't as good. But thats part of the game, if you don't like it then don't watch F1. My interest with drivers is seeing what they do when they have and don't have the best machinery. Can Vettel or Webber make the most of their machinery and win? Can Button and Hamilton overcome poor(er) machinery? The battle of teams trying to perfect their aerodynamic packages is one of the few technological interests left. Take away that and all we have is a spec series. Is it fairer? Probably.
The problem with spec series is that inevitably a particular car and setup will always favour some drivers over others. Say you gave everyone on the grid the same car, but it was an understeer-style car. It would favour Jenson but not favour drivers like Schumacher and Hamilton. You could say that a good driver can drive around such issues, but even so, they are already at a disadvantage having to do that and therefore its not a "fair" comparison of skill.
I love F1 because of the team aspect. A driver needs to work with his team to develop the best package to win and the battle of drivers and engineers has much more depth to it. I could argue too that a driver has a better chance to win in F1 compared to GP2 or Formula Renault or Indycar or whatever because he can direct the development of the car more to his style. They are not stuck having to adapt to the same car as everyone else.
I'd also like to hear you name one motorsport where the driver's skill is the only thing that makes the difference.
All motorsports are team sports.
All motorsports rely on the best driver and car combination to win. WRC - Citroen, Le Mans - Audi and Peugeot, IndyCar - Ganassi, Penske, Andretti......
...i'm really getting fed up with Speed TV's coverage of F1 and their need to take commerical breaks every frickin 5 minutes. 
Anyone else feel the same? 
