Qualifying in F1, lack of cars on track & tyre. Solutions ?
Discussion
Here's an idea.
1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
MitchT said:
Here's an idea.
1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
Hear hear...1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
MitchT said:
Here's an idea.
1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
In recognition of your points above, I'm not sure I want to watch an F1 grid made up of just 12 or so cars, because nobody other than the big factory supported teams can afford to play.1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
However, I don't understand where all the complaints are coming from - F1 has always been about balancing resources - it's just that right now the resource is rubber, rather than fuel or engine longevity. It makes for some very interesting tactical battles - and not, as DC put it today, 'a procession decided by positions at the first corner'.
I think they need to reconsider what is going on with the tyres. We now have a situation where drivers are scared to push because they know they will trash a set of tyres within 2 or 3 laps, beyond silly IMO.
The qualifying rules bring about this type of situation though, especially for those likely to be in the second half of the Q3 shootout session - They know they can qualify 10th at worst and maybe 5th/6th at best, so why would any sane driver go out there any ruin a set of tyres and risk having an incident for such a tiny gain.
I actually preferred the 1hr free for all session we had many years back........ although the current system is probably the best since then.
Points for pole or qualifying position? I don't think so. It would heavily favour those who can do 1 fast lap rather than those who can produce over a race distance. It would also bring about nightmare situations when it comes to blocking in qualifying..... would teams use their no 2 driver to block a championship rival from getting on pole and therefore gaining extra points?
Things like grid penalties for a gearbox change could start to directly influence the championship - would the guy still get the points for qualifying 1st or does it go to the car who actually starts 1st?
The qualifying rules bring about this type of situation though, especially for those likely to be in the second half of the Q3 shootout session - They know they can qualify 10th at worst and maybe 5th/6th at best, so why would any sane driver go out there any ruin a set of tyres and risk having an incident for such a tiny gain.
I actually preferred the 1hr free for all session we had many years back........ although the current system is probably the best since then.
Points for pole or qualifying position? I don't think so. It would heavily favour those who can do 1 fast lap rather than those who can produce over a race distance. It would also bring about nightmare situations when it comes to blocking in qualifying..... would teams use their no 2 driver to block a championship rival from getting on pole and therefore gaining extra points?
Things like grid penalties for a gearbox change could start to directly influence the championship - would the guy still get the points for qualifying 1st or does it go to the car who actually starts 1st?
JamesAddiction said:
In recognition of your points above, I'm not sure I want to watch an F1 grid made up of just 12 or so cars, because nobody other than the big factory supported teams can afford to play.
It doesn't have to be that way though. The authorities seem to be pushing for smaller and smaller engines and greater and greater longevity of said engines. The smaller the engines are the more highly stressed they are in working to develop the prerequisite amount of power. More stress = a greater chance of failure, so then a whole load of exotic materials and sophisticated trickery have to be employed to circumvent said potential failures and achieve the prerequisite level of reliability. All of the above = bloody expensive.There is another way - a much cheaper way.
Limit engine revs to, say, 10,000rpm, and increase capacity to compensate for the power loss. Result = Engines which are reliable enough, powerful enough and much cheaper to engineer on account of being simpler, so everyone can afford to play. Plus you get the added bonus of engines which sound properly sexy instead of like a bunch of angry hairdriers. AND! Larger engines = heavier cars, so breaking distances are increased, cornering speeds are reduced (which means breaking distances are even further increased as you have to start breaking even sooner for a corner) thus affording far more overtaking opportunities, while the greater weight also means progressive oversteer rather than snap oversteer, meaning a more exciting visual spectacle as drivers are more likely to slide a car than avoid sliding altogether.
If you limit the revs., manufacturers will just work on other ways to minimise weight and maximise power - especially if there are no financial constraints.
I think all parties involved have done a really good job of making F1 interesting again.
When there were fewer rules and bigger budgets, you got really dull races where one constructor would have gained such a big advantage over the others that it took months, or even years, for others to catch up again.
Look at the active ride Williams, some of the 1990s Ferraris, as examples.
At least we have drama filled racing right now - even if Vettel has won 3 in a row.
I think all parties involved have done a really good job of making F1 interesting again.
When there were fewer rules and bigger budgets, you got really dull races where one constructor would have gained such a big advantage over the others that it took months, or even years, for others to catch up again.
Look at the active ride Williams, some of the 1990s Ferraris, as examples.
At least we have drama filled racing right now - even if Vettel has won 3 in a row.
As the current limiting factor is the tyres, instead of having 3 sets of each grade allocated per car for the entire weekend, give them two sets of each for use in practice & qualifying ( loss of a set due to a puncture gives you another set ), plus another two sets of each for the race. All cars to start on the same type of tyre they qualified on, and both types have to be used during the race.
MartG said:
As the current limiting factor is the tyres, instead of having 3 sets of each grade allocated per car for the entire weekend, give them two sets of each for use in practice & qualifying ( loss of a set due to a puncture gives you another set ), plus another two sets of each for the race. All cars to start on the same type of tyre they qualified on, and both types have to be used during the race.
They actually get 5 sets of options and 6 sets of primes for the weekend; 3 + 3 is for quali and the race. To comment on the OP suggestion of points for pole - for those that don't run in Q3, would not make a jot of difference... the reason they are not running is precisely because they don't expect or hope to get pole! The only options to force all to run would be points per quali position - which would be a bad idea, or penalities for not running - for instance; take a set of tyres off them.
Esseesse said:
VolvoT5 said:
I actually preferred the 1hr free for all session we had many years back
Yes I liked this too. Drivers repeatedly coming out and setting a new fastest lap... and then Schumacher (am I remembering right?).While they are stuck with tyres apparently made from soft chees, the only way to get them all out for Q3 would be to ensure that the tyre supply for the race is separate from those they can use for practice and qualy - perhaps with an additional proviso that times set in Q3 ( and Q2 ) must be within 107% of the fastest time set in that session otherwise you get demoted down the grid, maybe using your time from Q1
Esseesse said:
VolvoT5 said:
I actually preferred the 1hr free for all session we had many years back
Yes I liked this too. Drivers repeatedly coming out and setting a new fastest lap... and then Schumacher (am I remembering right?).MitchT said:
It doesn't have to be that way though. The authorities seem to be pushing for smaller and smaller engines and greater and greater longevity of said engines. The smaller the engines are the more highly stressed they are in working to develop the prerequisite amount of power. More stress = a greater chance of failure, so then a whole load of exotic materials and sophisticated trickery have to be employed to circumvent said potential failures and achieve the prerequisite level of reliability. All of the above = bloody expensive.
There is another way - a much cheaper way.
Limit engine revs to, say, 10,000rpm, and increase capacity to compensate for the power loss. Result = Engines which are reliable enough, powerful enough and much cheaper to engineer on account of being simpler, so everyone can afford to play. Plus you get the added bonus of engines which sound properly sexy instead of like a bunch of angry hairdriers. AND! Larger engines = heavier cars, so breaking distances are increased, cornering speeds are reduced (which means breaking distances are even further increased as you have to start breaking even sooner for a corner) thus affording far more overtaking opportunities, while the greater weight also means progressive oversteer rather than snap oversteer, meaning a more exciting visual spectacle as drivers are more likely to slide a car than avoid sliding altogether.
Whatever arbitrary restriction you introduce will make little difference to the cost of being competitive if budgets are unlimited. If you make the rev limit 10,000 and allow higher capacity they'd still throw a fortune at optimizing that particular configuration. If you raised the capacity, the cars would still weigh whatever the minimum weight is. There is another way - a much cheaper way.
Limit engine revs to, say, 10,000rpm, and increase capacity to compensate for the power loss. Result = Engines which are reliable enough, powerful enough and much cheaper to engineer on account of being simpler, so everyone can afford to play. Plus you get the added bonus of engines which sound properly sexy instead of like a bunch of angry hairdriers. AND! Larger engines = heavier cars, so breaking distances are increased, cornering speeds are reduced (which means breaking distances are even further increased as you have to start breaking even sooner for a corner) thus affording far more overtaking opportunities, while the greater weight also means progressive oversteer rather than snap oversteer, meaning a more exciting visual spectacle as drivers are more likely to slide a car than avoid sliding altogether.
Most of the money's would be chucked at aero anyway. Multiple wind tunnels running 24/7 etc.
MitchT said:
Here's an idea.
1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
What's sad about your post is that Formula 1 has almost always had a large element of endurance and 'wear & tear' saving.1: Recognise that F1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport.
2: Recognise that the pinaccle of all motorsport is, inevitably, going to be a bloody expensive undertaking.
3: In recognition of points #1 and #2, let teams use as many tyres an engines as they like during a season so that what we see is pure, unadulterated racing, instead of a load of wear-and-tear-fearing pussyfooting.
Of even more irony is that one of the periods of greatest 'flat-out' racing was in the early 2000's. Did you prefer it then?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff