Why can't F1 produce underdog shocks?

Tipped for relegation by most at the start of the season, Leicester City has put together a remarkable run and is pulling clear at the top of the Premier League in English football.

Victory on Saturday over Manchester City, whose starting XI is valued at around 13 times that of Leicester's, was significant. Once the underdog, Leicester is now favourite with the bookmakers, sitting five points clear of its closest challengers.

Regardless of whether it holds on to win the title, this has been one of the most exciting seasons in recent history. It's the kind of drama Formula 1 can only dream of.

F1 experienced a hint of it in 2014, with Williams becoming a frontrunner once more. There was a genuine belief that it could win races.

But how often has something like that happened in recent years? There has been no underdog, no real threat of a shock as first Ferrari, then Red Bull and now Mercedes have dominated for long periods since the turn of the century.

It's unrealistic to expect jeopardy at every grand prix, but there was a time when the opening few races would be an opportunity for surprises. There was a chance for shock winner, or a minnow or rookie scoring a rare point.

A senior insider at a small team privately admitted that his outfit had a specific gameplan to focus its season's strategy around the opening few races. A strong result early on, taking advantage of a mistake or misfortune for the bigger names, could be crucial to its survival come the end of the season.

But things have changed. The cars are near-bulletproof. Reliability is now too good. Teams know too much.

The engineers understand how to get the best out of the cars, and that applies all the way down the field. Every eventuality is prepared for.

The chance of a team having a genuine off-day is remote. There may be the odd contamination of water in the oil system, or a broken blue rubber tube may force a retirement, but it's a rarity.

Fisichella and Force India's form at Spa '09 came out of the blue © LAT

It's also difficult to envisage a team having a mediocre season taking advantage of a particular circuit configuration, such as when Force India excelled at Spa and Monza in 2009, which almost culminated in its maiden victory, with Giancarlo Fisichella in Belgium.

Ultimately, there are fewer variables. And it's variables that produce great racing.

Take the 1997 Hungarian Grand Prix, when Damon Hill almost won the race in an Arrows that had previously struggled to finish let alone challenge for points.

It was down to a unique set of circumstances including the warmer conditions that favoured his Bridgestone tyres, while the frontrunners on Goodyears struggled.

A single tyre supplier in modern F1 means a variable has been taken away.

The removal of these variables over time, along with development of technology, has stifled the underdog; it has prevented smaller teams emerging as a threat if they do a good job.

Admittedly, introducing 'false' variables may lead fans to complain that F1 is manufactured. But people will always complain and it would be harder to do so if the action was entertaining.

It's also down to F1's bosses to ensure that any changes to the regulations are done in the right way. As Williams technical director Pat Symonds has said, the new tyre-selection rules for this season are a missed opportunity.

Pirelli is introducing a fifth compound and allowing teams to choose between three types at a race. The hope is that this will offer a greater variety of strategies, but it could have been even better if teams could select what they wanted from the full range of compounds.

Pirelli chose not to allow this on the grounds of safety, but Symonds countered that teams are responsible enough to make choices that do not risk a driver's safety.

The subject of refuelling was back on the agenda earlier this year before being rejected again. The higher costs and the fact it could stagnate strategies is reason enough to discard it.

Return of refuelling continues to be floated, but just how much influence would it have on freak results? © LAT

But perhaps the one positive is that it could encourage teams to take risks, opening up the possibility of running out of fuel or gambling on a safety car staying out long enough to save the required amount of fuel.

This wouldn't happen at every race, but it does at least open up other possibilities.

The way the grid is determined has been heavily debated over the years. Under the current system the fastest cars start at the front and the slowest at the back, save for the odd occasion when a team or driver makes a mistake. This is a fair way of doing it, but it doesn't inspire exciting races.

On the other hand, fiddling with the method of grid formation, possibly through reversed grids, is not the way forward either because it involves too much tampering. F1 doesn't need gimmicks.

Allowing more freedom regarding development or changing the regulations dramatically, as is planned for 2017, will only serve to increase the likelihood that one team will pull away.

The bigger teams will be able to react better and the smaller, independent outfits will fall back, creating a greater spread - so that's not the answer either.

Perhaps the solution is simply to leave things alone. A stable set of regulations means the maximum gain year-on-year will naturally reduce, which means the field will close.

Ferrari and Williams could put more pressure on Mercedes, if they do a good job, which in turn could force the Silver Arrows into making mistakes. The rest of the pack could close, too.

It'll take some time, years even, but eventually, without really doing anything, we could have seasons that resemble the one the Premier League is currently enjoying. The question is whether F1's stakeholders can leave things alone long enough for this to be realised.