planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:33 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 379
MY GRID BOOST IDEA

Basically, the real problem with qualifying as it is now is there are far too many penalties for people with slow cars. Firstly, your car is slow and you start behind somebody most likely with a faster engine. You're screwed if you have a slow car no matter how good the driver actually is. Then you get a penalty for crashing at the last race because you were so far back previously.

So instead of penalizing drivers for crappy engine components and causing accidents why not reward them for making safe passes?

It's utterly STUPID to penalize drivers for bad moves but not REWARD good safe overtaking moves. We want overtaking, and we want mixed grids so let's give good passers a grid bonus boost.

Let's say Kimi Raikonnen starts in 15th and works his way up to 5th in the race. The following race he receives a 10 place grid boost for gaining 10 places in the previous race. It makes perfect sense. Drivers with smaller boosts get them applied first and then the drivers with bigger boosts get applied after.

This system randomizes and merits the drivers on the grid at the same time. Drivers who make combative and smart drives get a boost for the following race regardless of whether they scored. You get mixed grids but drivers still have to make passes and set fast times to extract maximum grid position.

There are going to be some oddities such as drivers getting huge grid boosts by pitting on safety cars and hitting the jackpot but that's just good strategy and a bit of luck. Some qualifying sessions will be more predictable as there may be a wide spread of boosts but the races could be utterly dynamite.

Traditionalists may be unhappy the fastest car no longer starts at the front but the hardest working driver will do instead.

This model could very easily be applied to every motorsport series in the world and become a standard rule across the board.

After experimentation additional boosts could be given for fastest lap of the race, fastest pitstop and even pole position etc to make them still important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Kudos for coming up with a proposal like that: you've clearly spent a lot of time on it. But IMO F1 needs less complexity, not more


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7022
Location: Michigan, USA
It's an interesting idea, but ultimately I don't think it would work. My gut feeling is that it would resolve into a sort of two-phase cycle, with the front-runners and the midfield swapping places every other race and the back staying more or less put. The two major problems I see are:

1) Cars at the front have less opportunity to overtake regardless of ability, so they're unfairly penalized.
2) Cars that have been moved up the grid by overtaking at the last race will be out of place and unable to overtake.

So in race A all the fast cars will qualify in front and do very little overtaking, then in race B they'll be replaced by the bad qualifiers from the midfield who will be unable to overtake anyone, and in race C the fastest cars will be back in front. The system will have some effect of scrambling the grid, but all it will really do in my opinion is penalize good qualifiers and punish bad qualifiers.

And that's before taking into effect the strategic element: let's say a team decides to start their driver from the pitlane at Monza with an ultra-low downforce setup, knowing they can overtake with ease. Then, with a dozen and a bit free places in hand, they head to Singapore and snatch pole by automation. Similarly what if a driver happens to qualify on pole right before Monaco? He's screwed, since he'll have no ability to overtake and will lose out on any ability to take the all-important pole in the next race.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it working.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 379
Yes I did consider there is a chance of two race cycles and additional rules and tweaking may be needed for certain circumstances, so if you start from the pitlane you lose your grid boost the following race. It has to be earned by qualifying and overtaking properly.

Two race cycles would be no bad thing, infact it would be great and very balanced but in reality most drivers would get no boost or very little a lot of the time whilst a few might net huge boosts after dodging a lot of traffic.

You will also be able to work out that the winner of one race may not start higher than a certain position the following race, but that is going to create a lot of exciemt for that race. And the driver still needs to outqualify the drivers with the same boost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1372
I don't accept that any sport should have any events where one game can influence another game. Let each event be completely isolated, let it stand on it's own. The one and only exception is if a driver gets suspended.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 379
Most sports have games that influence other games and complex systems. In tennis for example you have seedings based on rankings points, recent results on surfaces and past records at the tournament. In F1 you already have rules that affect following races like penalties, licence points and engine limits

This system is still a meritocracy it is just rewarding passing as well as fast lap times.

Let's not forget random and reverse grids are actually applied in many motorsport catergories. I don't agree with having a completely random grid but one based on speed and passing makes a lot more sense than qualifying on speed alone and getting processional races.

This is the only way to have a qualy system that is meritocracy and encourage exciting wheel to wheel racing I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1169
No. Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. What do you do for gains via attrition? A driver jumps 10 places up the grid for a race on the back of a good result, putting him among quicker cars for the next races so he promptly falls down the order for that race, meanwhile the cars that started just behind him have a "good" race by passing a car that was always going to be slower... etc etc.

Don't mean to be dismissive, but it's a horrible idea.

All these suggestions for qualifying... the worst part is it wasn't broken - why did they have to f*ck with it and open the door for suggestions that were never needed...

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1372
pendulumeffect wrote:
Most sports have games that influence other games and complex systems. In tennis for example you have seedings based on rankings points, recent results on surfaces and past records at the tournament. In F1 you already have rules that affect following races like penalties, licence points and engine limits

This system is still a meritocracy it is just rewarding passing as well as fast lap times.

Let's not forget random and reverse grids are actually applied in many motorsport catergories. I don't agree with having a completely random grid but one based on speed and passing makes a lot more sense than qualifying on speed alone and getting processional races.

This is the only way to have a qualy system that is meritocracy and encourage exciting wheel to wheel racing I think.


I'm sorry, it's a personal thing for me. Be it football or racing, I desire that each match/game/race stands on it's own. Even in tennis, and we all know that a top seed faces lower seeds at the beginning of a tournament, but when the players take to the court, they both start equal in every way.

My personal solution to creating an environment for closer racing that makes it possible to create passes is to work towards parity, so that the rich teams have a ceiling on how much they can spend, and the less well-funded teams get more money. In any genuinely competitive league or franchise, when they achieve parity the gap between the top teams and lower teams is a lot closer, and on any given day a lower rated team can beat a top team.

There are many major flaws in Formula One, two of them the unequal distribution of funds and the inability for any leadership to make effective decisions that ensure a healthy future for the sport. Instead we see a smorgasbord of band aid solutions that never address the disease, they just attempt to cover them up. Many fans do not appreciate boring processions and in the last few years we have had DRS and wonky tires introduced just because of this very problem, lack of close competitive racing.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:36 pm
Posts: 24
So, I guess that 2-legged soccer matches are a bad thing?
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pendulumeffect wrote:
Most sports have games that influence other games and complex systems. In tennis for example you have seedings based on rankings points, recent results on surfaces and past records at the tournament. In F1 you already have rules that affect following races like penalties, licence points and engine limits

This system is still a meritocracy it is just rewarding passing as well as fast lap times.

Let's not forget random and reverse grids are actually applied in many motorsport catergories. I don't agree with having a completely random grid but one based on speed and passing makes a lot more sense than qualifying on speed alone and getting processional races.

This is the only way to have a qualy system that is meritocracy and encourage exciting wheel to wheel racing I think.


I'm sorry, it's a personal thing for me. Be it football or racing, I desire that each match/game/race stands on it's own. Even in tennis, and we all know that a top seed faces lower seeds at the beginning of a tournament, but when the players take to the court, they both start equal in every way.

My personal solution to creating an environment for closer racing that makes it possible to create passes is to work towards parity, so that the rich teams have a ceiling on how much they can spend, and the less well-funded teams get more money. In any genuinely competitive league or franchise, when they achieve parity the gap between the top teams and lower teams is a lot closer, and on any given day a lower rated team can beat a top team.

There are many major flaws in Formula One, two of them the unequal distribution of funds and the inability for any leadership to make effective decisions that ensure a healthy future for the sport. Instead we see a smorgasbord of band aid solutions that never address the disease, they just attempt to cover them up. Many fans do not appreciate boring processions and in the last few years we have had DRS and wonky tires introduced just because of this very problem, lack of close competitive racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:36 pm
Posts: 24
I think this idea has merit. The goal is to encourage overtaking. Reward it with grid spots after normal qualifying as it is done now. Concerns about retirements creating artificial moves up the grid are easily managed by omitting them unless the car had already been passed in the race. Stewards can determine if the car was actually in trouble though on track for a half of a lap with others passing so that those don't actually count as passes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:36 pm
Posts: 24
Another idea, comes to me by the 'seeding' notion of tennis. Cars are paired against each other in a knock-out qualifying elimination format. Winning car goes on to another round, losing car is set to the bottom of the grid based on the time it set. Start them 1/2 lap offset so no interference. Maybe make it double elimination. You get continual action for the entire time. Strategy in taking the risk to preserve your clean set of supersofts for the final run to make sure you win. You have to consistently lay down good laps, not just get lucky once. http://www.printyourbrackets.com/22-tea ... ation.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31584
I think it needs repeating that the majority of fans are quite happy with the present qualifying system, it feels like we are trying to re-invent the wheel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 379
Qualifying is boring and the majority of the races are boring. Currently the engine and aero regs mean the race is pretty much settled before the drivers turn a wheel because the most powerful engine has an unassailable advantage. Under this system even the fastest driver/ engine/ car has to do some passing to retain an advantage and inject some excitement into the racing.

Even Lewis Hamilton has been saying he wants the Ferraris to catch up.

We are going to have hybrid engines with slanted performance for some time to come so a mix up of the qualifying system. Under this system everybody gets a fairer chance at the start of races without resorting to random grid positions which is just a lottery.

Fastest driver in the session still records a 'pole position' for historical purposes. Best drivers still get better positions just not simply down to the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6632
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
I think it needs repeating that the majority of fans are quite happy with the present qualifying system, it feels like we are trying to re-invent the wheel.


Seriously??? I do not know ANY fan who is happy with the present qualifying system... much less the Majority being QUITE happy with it. Where are the stats to back up your claim?


Personally, I wish the hell that they would quit messing with it... this newest qualifying is a farce, and that is being kind.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31584
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think it needs repeating that the majority of fans are quite happy with the present qualifying system, it feels like we are trying to re-invent the wheel.


Seriously??? I do not know ANY fan who is happy with the present qualifying system... much less the Majority being QUITE happy with it. Where are the stats to back up your claim?


Personally, I wish the hell that they would quit messing with it... this newest qualifying is a farce, and that is being kind.

Just in case there is any confusion I am referring to the one we have now presently in China, the one we had last year.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31584
pendulumeffect wrote:
Qualifying is boring and the majority of the races are boring. Currently the engine and aero regs mean the race is pretty much settled before the drivers turn a wheel because the most powerful engine has an unassailable advantage. Under this system even the fastest driver/ engine/ car has to do some passing to retain an advantage and inject some excitement into the racing.

Even Lewis Hamilton has been saying he wants the Ferraris to catch up.

We are going to have hybrid engines with slanted performance for some time to come so a mix up of the qualifying system. Under this system everybody gets a fairer chance at the start of races without resorting to random grid positions which is just a lottery.

Fastest driver in the session still records a 'pole position' for historical purposes. Best drivers still get better positions just not simply down to the car.

The majority of races are boring?

Australia got 8/10, Bahrain 7/10, and you think that the qualifying system that basically has always been used in F1 is not fit for use, are you sure F1 is really for you anyway?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6632
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think it needs repeating that the majority of fans are quite happy with the present qualifying system, it feels like we are trying to re-invent the wheel.


Seriously??? I do not know ANY fan who is happy with the present qualifying system... much less the Majority being QUITE happy with it. Where are the stats to back up your claim?


Personally, I wish the hell that they would quit messing with it... this newest qualifying is a farce, and that is being kind.

Just in case there is any confusion I am referring to the one we have now presently in China, the one we had last year.


Fair enough... I was totally lost thinking anybody likes this year's qualies
:?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2401
This is a problem that's never going to be solved, half the people want the cars lined up in speed order and half don't. It's all very well saying qualifying isn't broken, but the race is broken and very little can be done about it. Actually, for all the talk of this season being closer I am not really expecting anyone other than Merc and Ferrari to get on the podium this year. Last year Bottas, Massa, Grosjean, Perez all got on the podium.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
The racing is only "broken" because one team has a massive advantage and the rules have conspired to allow them to maintain that without too much fear of a challenge. Looking to tweak the rules to target one particular team is not the answer. Rather they should be encouraging others to close the gap (which is being addressed more next year).

Restricting development (and testing) in a spec series makes sense. In a supposedly open series like F1 it's beyond stupid and leads to the sort of imbalances we witness today. And this is why they come up with all these sticking plasters to fix issues of their own making.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:18 am
Posts: 56
Zoue wrote:
The racing is only "broken" because one team has a massive advantage and the rules have conspired to allow them to maintain that without too much fear of a challenge. Looking to tweak the rules to target one particular team is not the answer. Rather they should be encouraging others to close the gap (which is being addressed more next year).

Restricting development (and testing) in a spec series makes sense. In a supposedly open series like F1 it's beyond stupid and leads to the sort of imbalances we witness today. And this is why they come up with all these sticking plasters to fix issues of their own making.


This :thumbup:
Since they are reviewing the structure of the weekends why not have more testing sessions at the circuits either leading up to or straight after the GP weekend.
Why not have testing on Thursdays or Mondays - even if it's with reserve rather than race drivers?
Everyone is already there so the cost is minimal.

It may not be possible when GP are on double headers two weekends on the trot but when there is a 2 week gap, is a day either side going to make any real difference?

As for the OP's qualy proposal, I dont mind it - but I'd make one adjustment and get rid of the Blue Flags.
That way the front runners would also have to make real clean overtakes while lapping and they wouldn't be penalised as much in Qualy just because they raced at the front the previous time out,


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, mikeyg123, sandman1347, Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group