planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:29 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5232
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?

Not that I think we should do away with qualifying, or that this proposed way will actually change much, but the simplest way to do away with it would grid positions based on current WDC standings or last races results. Then only 1 qualifying session would be needed before the first race. Or possibly award positions based on number of laps or fastest average speed at the final pre-season test session.

(Or they could just pick numbers out of a hat during the driver briefing pre-race!)

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?

No idea. They used qualification since the very first GP in Silverstone in 1950, it is not a new thing... Have we ever had an F1 race without quali?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.


They conserve tires. And losing some time is not really a disability in the grand scheme of things. By Quali time they should have found their set-ups, they are not using Q1 to tune the car, i.e. they are not losing valuable time.

That said, maybe it would be easier to split quali in two sessions of 20' and unlimited runs, have 10 cars in the first session, 10 cars in the second and just reward the fastest one as you said. Splitting it in two sessions means that they wouldn't be too many cars on track to impede a potential run. Which car runs in which session would be chosen by lottery. Fairest system I can think of


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
MB-BOB wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I actually hate the current format and find it dreadfully dull. It worked from 2006-13 when either the cars were close enough that anyone could go out at anytime or varied fuel loads meant the same but since then it's just been a waiting game as the same old names get dropped in Q1 and 2.

I'm pretty much alone in this but I loved single lap quali.

The present F1 qualifying system is so good that it's been copied by other series in one shape or another, be it Indycars, MotoGP, WSBikes and DTM.


Um... F1 adopted the 3-segment qualification/elimination program (with some modifications) in 2006, first pioneered by Indycar a couple years before.

As a practical matter, wouldn't additional Q segments require more tires? I thought the goal was to decrease expenses. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

Fair enough but it's success can be gauged with different series using it.

I wondered that about the tyres as well.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Yes, that's the one.

I'm not sure why I put the question mark there?

Anyway like I say it's open to be farcical, why do things have to be like this to be viewed as being more exciting?


It's not the farcical bit that makes it more exciting. That being said tell me quali in Belgium 04 or Oz 05 wasn't exciting.

You must have a good memory no way I can remember back that far, can you only pick 2 whilst we have had none these past 2 years?


I'm confused, none of what?

Exciting qualifying sessions these past 2 years.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.

We have FP1, 2 and 3 to give teams as much track time as they need.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
minchy wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?

Not that I think we should do away with qualifying, or that this proposed way will actually change much, but the simplest way to do away with it would grid positions based on current WDC standings or last races results. Then only 1 qualifying session would be needed before the first race. Or possibly award positions based on number of laps or fastest average speed at the final pre-season test session.

(Or they could just pick numbers out of a hat during the driver briefing pre-race!)

So in a final race title decider Hamilton draws pole position and Vettel draws 20th place on the grid, pokerman shakes his head and says there is nothing wrong with the present qualifying system and qualifying in itself is a great spectacle for many, pole position is an achievement in itself and not something that should be gifted through random systems.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Siao7 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?

No idea. They used qualification since the very first GP in Silverstone in 1950, it is not a new thing... Have we ever had an F1 race without quali?

Indeed and we may view F1 back then as purely a sport, nowadays seemingly because of the money involved we need to be entertained.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.


They conserve tires. And losing some time is not really a disability in the grand scheme of things. By Quali time they should have found their set-ups, they are not using Q1 to tune the car, i.e. they are not losing valuable time.

That said, maybe it would be easier to split quali in two sessions of 20' and unlimited runs, have 10 cars in the first session, 10 cars in the second and just reward the fastest one as you said. Splitting it in two sessions means that they wouldn't be too many cars on track to impede a potential run. Which car runs in which session would be chosen by lottery. Fairest system I can think of

Can you guarantee that the track conditions will be the same for the 2 sessions, I'm guessing that will be a no?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
minchy wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?

Not that I think we should do away with qualifying, or that this proposed way will actually change much, but the simplest way to do away with it would grid positions based on current WDC standings or last races results. Then only 1 qualifying session would be needed before the first race. Or possibly award positions based on number of laps or fastest average speed at the final pre-season test session.

(Or they could just pick numbers out of a hat during the driver briefing pre-race!)

a potential flaw I see there is giving the WDC leader an ever increasing advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 291
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
In the past, full hour qualification sessions resulted in few cars on track, and a boring show for the fans who show up to watch in person. If rain threatened, all the cars would appear immediately to bank their fastest lap, then sit on their hands the rest of the time. If no rain, the front runners would sit on their hands until the last minutes, then drive like hell to set their grid times. Frankly, Qualifications in this era were boring.

Today, we have a 3 engine limit per season before the stupid penalty system kicks in. Teams will not be on track more than absolutely necessary to preserve engine use time. We already see this today during Q1 and Q2. The top 3 teams will make a run that will get them into the next session, then they will pit for the rest of the session to conserve engines that need to last 7 races. Not to worry, since the midpack and back markers fill the track for the short time remaining. Having the top teams park their cars might actually help the others.

The current, limited time, 3 seqment elimination system works fine today to provide the necessary show for fans present (and now live TV and Streaming audiences). Perhaps an unintended consequence, the short Q intervals also masks how each team is now self-imposing runtime limits on engine use, especially once an engine is in the second half of its life... or needs to last just one more race...

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't really see the point in qualifying. I mean qualifying is something you do when threre are more candidates than places on the grid. At present we are 6 cars short for a full grid, which means everybody qualifies.

I remember the reason for bringing in "better" qualifying schemes; avoiding long periods during which nobody went out on track. Even as it is, drivers complain about traffic, whether there is too much of it (impeding) or too little of it (failing to get a tow). Removing 2 cars from the final Q period isn't going to change all that much.

Advertising is indeed probably the main reason for seeking to fix an invented problem.


Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.


They conserve tires. And losing some time is not really a disability in the grand scheme of things. By Quali time they should have found their set-ups, they are not using Q1 to tune the car, i.e. they are not losing valuable time.

That said, maybe it would be easier to split quali in two sessions of 20' and unlimited runs, have 10 cars in the first session, 10 cars in the second and just reward the fastest one as you said. Splitting it in two sessions means that they wouldn't be too many cars on track to impede a potential run. Which car runs in which session would be chosen by lottery. Fairest system I can think of

Can you guarantee that the track conditions will be the same for the 2 sessions, I'm guessing that will be a no?


In a sense, you cannot guarantee anything in F1. If you mean weather wise then even now, if Q3 is dry and Q2 is wet, then not all 24 cars have had the same conditions. If you mean the track itself (rubber, etc.) then they can do it right after a very small FP4, just to lay down some rubber. I haven't thought about it at all really, just came to me half way through my previous answer, so I guess don't pay too much attention to it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Then how should it be determined who starts where if we do away with quali?
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.


They conserve tires. And losing some time is not really a disability in the grand scheme of things. By Quali time they should have found their set-ups, they are not using Q1 to tune the car, i.e. they are not losing valuable time.

That said, maybe it would be easier to split quali in two sessions of 20' and unlimited runs, have 10 cars in the first session, 10 cars in the second and just reward the fastest one as you said. Splitting it in two sessions means that they wouldn't be too many cars on track to impede a potential run. Which car runs in which session would be chosen by lottery. Fairest system I can think of

Can you guarantee that the track conditions will be the same for the 2 sessions, I'm guessing that will be a no?


In a sense, you cannot guarantee anything in F1. If you mean weather wise then even now, if Q3 is dry and Q2 is wet, then not all 24 cars have had the same conditions. If you mean the track itself (rubber, etc.) then they can do it right after a very small FP4, just to lay down some rubber. I haven't thought about it at all really, just came to me half way through my previous answer, so I guess don't pay too much attention to it!

Well you have the weather conditions and then the extra rubber that gets laid down, with the present qualifying the conditions are the same for everybody.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Good question. I don't know why they settled on the idea of putting the fastest car/driver at the front, but perhaps this was an early safety measure. Imagine the mayhem at La Source if the slowest cars/drivers arrived there first. Having said that, 1/3 of all participants this year din't make it past there without damage of some sort, although you might say that relegating some of the fastest cars to the back rows because of technical penalties was a factor.

But if we want to establish the starting order through "qualifying", then what is the point of splitting it up, so that the slowest cars get the least track time? How does anybody explain that as being fair or sporting? Make it an hour and simply reward the fastest lap times of each driver, regardless of when it was set.* And make sure it's not only the fastest runners who get shown on screen.

* I would even go back to an hour on Friday and an hour on Saturday.


They conserve tires. And losing some time is not really a disability in the grand scheme of things. By Quali time they should have found their set-ups, they are not using Q1 to tune the car, i.e. they are not losing valuable time.

That said, maybe it would be easier to split quali in two sessions of 20' and unlimited runs, have 10 cars in the first session, 10 cars in the second and just reward the fastest one as you said. Splitting it in two sessions means that they wouldn't be too many cars on track to impede a potential run. Which car runs in which session would be chosen by lottery. Fairest system I can think of

Can you guarantee that the track conditions will be the same for the 2 sessions, I'm guessing that will be a no?


In a sense, you cannot guarantee anything in F1. If you mean weather wise then even now, if Q3 is dry and Q2 is wet, then not all 24 cars have had the same conditions. If you mean the track itself (rubber, etc.) then they can do it right after a very small FP4, just to lay down some rubber. I haven't thought about it at all really, just came to me half way through my previous answer, so I guess don't pay too much attention to it!

Well you have the weather conditions and then the extra rubber that gets laid down, with the present qualifying the conditions are the same for everybody.

Yes, you have a point. As I said, not much thought into it, just a random idea!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 124
Location: Suffolk, UK
It's another FIA knee-jerk response to a one-off embarassment in Sochi, ie when in Q2 only 10 cars ran, as the other 5 all had grid penalties, or in Renault's case were happy to start in P11/12.

Of course the real problem is the absurd system of grid penalties. 5 cars started from the back in Sochi due to engine changes beyond their annual allowances. That was why the Red Bulls and Torro Rossos didnt run in Q2. Not only do these penalties doubly penalise midfield drivers with engine problems in one race by forcing them to the back in the next, but with top teams they often don't achieve their aim. The idea of the 3 engines per year limit is to cut costs. So what do the big teams do, skip a race if they've run out? Of course not, they just bolt in a new engine and come through from the back of the grid - infact to P5/6 for Red Bull in Sochi - probably where they'd have finished anyway. So where's the 'penalty'? And how have costs been cut?

Dont forget that those running F1 are terrified of anything harming 'the show', which they want to sell via pay-TV to millions of GP ignoramuses who don't care about the rules, but just want non-stop action. They're happy to tinker ad-nauseum to keep the action flowing. Wasn't there a suggestion recently to scrap quali altogether and have a sprint race instead? It's hard to believe these people have any knowledge or sense of F1 history at all..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
tim3003 wrote:
It's another FIA knee-jerk response to a one-off embarassment in Sochi, ie when in Q2 only 10 cars ran, as the other 5 all had grid penalties, or in Renault's case were happy to start in P11/12.

Of course the real problem is the absurd system of grid penalties. 5 cars started from the back in Sochi due to engine changes beyond their annual allowances. That was why the Red Bulls and Torro Rossos didnt run in Q2. Not only do these penalties doubly penalise midfield drivers with engine problems in one race by forcing them to the back in the next, but with top teams they often don't achieve their aim. The idea of the 3 engines per year limit is to cut costs. So what do the big teams do, skip a race if they've run out? Of course not, they just bolt in a new engine and come through from the back of the grid - infact to P5/6 for Red Bull in Sochi - probably where they'd have finished anyway. So where's the 'penalty'? And how have costs been cut?

Dont forget that those running F1 are terrified of anything harming 'the show', which they want to sell via pay-TV to millions of GP ignoramuses who don't care about the rules, but just want non-stop action. They're happy to tinker ad-nauseum to keep the action flowing. Wasn't there a suggestion recently to scrap quali altogether and have a sprint race instead? It's hard to believe these people have any knowledge or sense of F1 history at all..
Precisely this. Unfortunately.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 124
Location: Suffolk, UK
Not wanting to be only negative I had an idea re the penalties system: Keep the system of dishing out the penalties, but if a driver's penalties + his grid posn for a race are > 20, then he starts from the pitlane and the penalties over 20 are served in a time penalty before he can join the race. Eg, qualify 14th with 15 penalties = 29. So he starts from the pitlane after a 9 sec delay. This way he would be motivated to run in Quali as long as he could to save a few secs of penalties, however big the penalty he expected to end up with...

(Maybe if 1 sec delay per penalty is too much, then 1 sec per 2 penalties?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 510
Location: Stratford
tim3003 wrote:
Not wanting to be only negative I had an idea re the penalties system: Keep the system of dishing out the penalties, but if a driver's penalties + his grid posn for a race are > 20, then he starts from the pitlane and the penalties over 20 are served in a time penalty before he can join the race. Eg, qualify 14th with 15 penalties = 29. So he starts from the pitlane after a 9 sec delay. This way he would be motivated to run in Quali as long as he could to save a few secs of penalties, however big the penalty he expected to end up with...

(Maybe if 1 sec delay per penalty is too much, then 1 sec per 2 penalties?)


Isn't that more of a disadvantage than the current system? Eg. If you qualify 15 now and get a 20 place penalty you'll still start last and be starting at the same time as everyone. Whereas under your idea you'll have a 15 second penalty at the start (assuming 1 second per place penalty).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 124
Location: Suffolk, UK
JN23 wrote:
Isn't that more of a disadvantage than the current system? Eg. If you qualify 15 now and get a 20 place penalty you'll still start last and be starting at the same time as everyone. Whereas under your idea you'll have a 15 second penalty at the start (assuming 1 second per place penalty).


Yes, it's supposed to be. Surely the problem with the current system is it's not tough enough on the big teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
tim3003 wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Isn't that more of a disadvantage than the current system? Eg. If you qualify 15 now and get a 20 place penalty you'll still start last and be starting at the same time as everyone. Whereas under your idea you'll have a 15 second penalty at the start (assuming 1 second per place penalty).


Yes, it's supposed to be. Surely the problem with the current system is it's not tough enough on the big teams.

I think you've missed the plot completely here. The problem with the current system is that it penalizes reliability as though F1 is an endurance series. Increasing the impact of mechanical penalties would be moving in the wrong direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:48 pm
Posts: 144
The issue with the engine/parts penalty system aside, the three stage qualy has been relatively successful since it's inception and shouldn't be mucked around with (especially as the cynic in me thinks it might be about increasing advertising slots!?).

I do however think that the top teams get an advantage over the lower teams as they don't have to push anywhere near as hard to get into Q2/Q3, giving them even more advantage in engine usage/endurance.

Perhaps the drivers that progress to the next stage in qualifying have to accumulate their fastest laptime from the previous stage(s)? This would force the top teams to have to push from the start to ensure they have a crack at high grid positions... Choice of tyres could still apply for those who qualify 11th or lower only.

_________________
The times, they are 'a changin'... Let's hope they're not too 'Pirellious'...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 124
Location: Suffolk, UK
BoxFullofNeutrals wrote:
I do however think that the top teams get an advantage over the lower teams as they don't have to push anywhere near as hard to get into Q2/Q3, giving them even more advantage in engine usage/endurance.


Eh? Surely the top teams have to try just as hard in Q3 as the bottom teams do in Q1. So the top teams use more engine life. They do 3 quali sessions. The bottom teams only do 1..

My preference would be for just 2 quali sessions - say 20 mins each, with max 3 sets of the softest tyres allowed. Drivers in Championship posns 11-20 go in the first session. The top 10 go in the 2nd. There is no knock-out. The times from the 2 sessions govern grid order. If the weather changes for session 2: it either helps the top 10, who were probably going to qualify at the front anyway - so little damage. Or it hinders the top 10, which would make for some really exciting grids! As there's only ever 10 cars max on track it also helps the slower drivers to get laps without traffic, which they can suffer from in the current Q1/Q2.

Scrap the requirement to start races on the best quali lap tyres too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 124
Location: Suffolk, UK
sandman1347 wrote:
I think you've missed the plot completely here. The problem with the current system is that it penalizes reliability as though F1 is an endurance series. Increasing the impact of mechanical penalties would be moving in the wrong direction.


I don't get your point. How can beefing up engine change penalties further penalise reliability? The fewer engines you use the fewer (tougher) penalties you get. That rewards reliability.


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: Lojik 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