The Official F1 2020 silly season *contains speculation*

The Official F1 2020 silly season *contains speculation*

Author
Discussion

Mr_Thyroid

1,807 posts

182 months

Tuesday 14th January
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
That's some impressive knowledge!

The rule was still brought in to prevent totally non competitive runners cluttering up the track though? My point being that it's possible to not break the rule and still be very much in the way.. if the rule had a functional purpose today 104% might make more sense?
In which races did the Williams' get in the way? I remember Brazil where Kubica was released into Verstappen in the pits but nothing else springs to mind.

I would also say that the ability to cut through traffic if a skill that could separate the very best drivers from the very good - although with modern blue flag rules F1 drivers don't often get to show off this skill.

And of course bringing in a 104% rule would have no impact on slow cars in practice and quali - unless you seek to put the team out of business by excluding them from races.

MissChief

5,477 posts

123 months

Tuesday 14th January
quotequote all
Mr_Thyroid said:
TheDeuce said:
That's some impressive knowledge!

The rule was still brought in to prevent totally non competitive runners cluttering up the track though? My point being that it's possible to not break the rule and still be very much in the way.. if the rule had a functional purpose today 104% might make more sense?
In which races did the Williams' get in the way? I remember Brazil where Kubica was released into Verstappen in the pits but nothing else springs to mind.

I would also say that the ability to cut through traffic if a skill that could separate the very best drivers from the very good - although with modern blue flag rules F1 drivers don't often get to show off this skill.

And of course bringing in a 104% rule would have no impact on slow cars in practice and quali - unless you seek to put the team out of business by excluding them from races.
Not to mention F1 needs all the teams it can get. Losing even 1 team would be a disaster.

groomi

9,227 posts

198 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Mr_Thyroid said:
I would also say that the ability to cut through traffic if a skill that could separate the very best drivers from the very good - although with modern blue flag rules F1 drivers don't often get to show off this skill.
IMO F1 needs to get rid of the blue flag rule. Allow me to explain...

In this day and age, most races are affected by a safety car in some way. Staying on the lead lap is critical, so if there is a SC then you can catch up to the cars in front and effectively start the race afresh. Yes, lapped cars are usually let through before the restart, but they rarely have time to catch the pack up before the restart, so are soon lapped again anyway.

Everybody moans about there not being enough meaningful overtaking in F1, so why not make the back-marker overtakes 'meaningful' overtakes? By doing this, the overtakes themselves become more interesting, the back-marker teams get more exposure, the skill of overtaking is greater rewarded, the unpredictability of trying to make a genuine overtake means the gaps between leaders will fluctuate more giving more opportunity to those chasing. To me it's a win, win, win situation.



Graveworm

4,394 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
groomi said:
IMO F1 needs to get rid of the blue flag rule. Allow me to explain...

In this day and age, most races are affected by a safety car in some way. Staying on the lead lap is critical, so if there is a SC then you can catch up to the cars in front and effectively start the race afresh. Yes, lapped cars are usually let through before the restart, but they rarely have time to catch the pack up before the restart, so are soon lapped again anyway.

Everybody moans about there not being enough meaningful overtaking in F1, so why not make the back-marker overtakes 'meaningful' overtakes? By doing this, the overtakes themselves become more interesting, the back-marker teams get more exposure, the skill of overtaking is greater rewarded, the unpredictability of trying to make a genuine overtake means the gaps between leaders will fluctuate more giving more opportunity to those chasing. To me it's a win, win, win situation.
It's a team sport, and some have junior teams and or customer teams. Races would, almost certainly, become tactically driven by deals with slower teams/teammates to let them pass and hold up competitors.

TheDeuce

5,545 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
groomi said:
IMO F1 needs to get rid of the blue flag rule. Allow me to explain...

In this day and age, most races are affected by a safety car in some way. Staying on the lead lap is critical, so if there is a SC then you can catch up to the cars in front and effectively start the race afresh. Yes, lapped cars are usually let through before the restart, but they rarely have time to catch the pack up before the restart, so are soon lapped again anyway.

Everybody moans about there not being enough meaningful overtaking in F1, so why not make the back-marker overtakes 'meaningful' overtakes? By doing this, the overtakes themselves become more interesting, the back-marker teams get more exposure, the skill of overtaking is greater rewarded, the unpredictability of trying to make a genuine overtake means the gaps between leaders will fluctuate more giving more opportunity to those chasing. To me it's a win, win, win situation.
How would the overtake in that example be more meaningful?

I do agree that being allowed to unlap themselves is a bit odd...

One problem with trying to make most such overtakes meaningful is that half the time the slower cars are motivated to simply keep out of the way of the faster ones. If they have no serious chance of defending for very long in any case, and also aren't even fighting for a points position, any form of defense is just an extra risk that they don't need to take.

Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 15th January 00:41

Teddy Lop

3,119 posts

22 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
It's a team sport, and some have junior teams and or customer teams. Races would, almost certainly, become tactically driven by deals with slower teams/teammates to let them pass and hold up competitors.
who was it who blabbed to the press a while ago, pretty much confirming he'd been ordered to hold up IIRC hakkinen, driving a backmarker ferrari customer team during schumacher era ferrari (surprise, surprise)

so yeah, nice idea in a vacuum...

TwentyFive

94 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
I think IndyCar provides a good example of how racing through lapped cars can be done successfully but also shows the perils and thus entertainment it can provide too. It is a real skill.

They race through lapped traffic who are not expected to give up their position, it does add an interesting dynamic and has provided a few interesting flash points over the years.

I remember JR Hildebrand trying to pass a lapped car on the outside on the very last corner of the 2011 Indianapolis 500. He got up on the marbles, hit the wall and Dan Wheldon snatched the win just yards from the line. It was drama at its finest and up there with Brazil 08. Had a blue flag type of rule been in place then Hildebrand would have seen the driver move aside and he would have coasted home. Its worth remembering he didn't have to pass that lapped car, he made a judgement call and it cost him an Indy 500. That's racing, and that's exciting to watch.

I agree that the big corporate angle such as team deals in the background could be an unintended consequence in F1 but I cant say I have ever seen that happen in my years of watching IndyCar despite the Honda/Chevy rivalry.

Who knows.... it can't be any worse than that qualifying farce a few years back can it!

HustleRussell

17,890 posts

115 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
RK is clearly not the force he was... And the car is a shocker - yet he didn't get dangerously close to 107%. Makes you wonder how bad things would be if anyone did break the rule!?

It's all a nonsense anyway. Cars that don't break the rule are lapped twice anyway, they're as in the way as the rule was originally designed to avoid.

Whatever progress the top teams make, we have to assume Williams will also find something, even if not very much. I seriously doubt they'll break the rule next year.
TheDeuce said:
The rule was still brought in to prevent totally non competitive runners cluttering up the track though? My point being that it's possible to not break the rule and still be very much in the way.. if the rule had a functional purpose today 104% might make more sense?
Before I thought your lamentations concerning Williams were relatively harmless but you now want them to fail to qualify and you want 17 car grids?

As for 104%ers are in the way, what is your specific experience?

thegreenhell

6,963 posts

174 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
Before I thought your lamentations concerning Williams were relatively harmless but you now want them to fail to qualify and you want 17 car grids?

As for 104%ers are in the way, what is your specific experience?
Why stop at 104%? Anyone slower than about 102% is likely to get lapped at least once, and therefore get in the way at least once in the race.

Or why not have a knockout race, where if the leader laps you you have to pull in to the pits immediately to retire?

Or just tell everyone who isn't Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull not to bother turning up at all.

HustleRussell

17,890 posts

115 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Quite rolleyes

(He’s going to type up a long post now in which he’ll basically say something along the lines of ‘I’m only calling it as I see it’ and suggest that anybody who disagrees must sleep under Williams bedsheets. Then at the end he’ll act as though he has been the victim of some kind of pro-Williams extremist hate campaign.)

Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th January 10:01

Graveworm

4,394 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Revamp the points system again keeping the differential about the same. However, award more points for the top 10 whilst extending further down the grid, for those, outside the top 10, that finish. It might stop the retirements to save engines and coasting once they see they can't get into the points.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th January 10:11

MartG

16,095 posts

159 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
Revamp the points system again keeping the differential about the same. However, award more points for the top 10 whilst extending further down the grid, for those, outside the top 10, that finish. It might stop the retirements to save engines and coasting once they see they can't get into the points.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th January 10:11
Indycar awards points down to last place - it not only encourages the lower teams to keep going rather than stopping 'to save the engine', it also encourages teams whose car has pitted with a minor problem to get it fixed and get the car back out so it gets classified as finishing the race.

https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/INDYCAR-101/Point...

TheDeuce

5,545 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
Quite rolleyes

(He’s going to type up a long post now in which he’ll basically say something along the lines of ‘I’m only calling it as I see it’ and suggest that anybody who disagrees must sleep under Williams bedsheets. Then at the end he’ll act as though he has been the victim of some kind of pro-Williams extremist hate campaign.)

Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 15th January 10:01
That's not really my style..

It wasn't about Williams in any case. As pointed out, the tighter to % rule is the more likely that a team will fail to qualify and n the end exit the sport - I agree that's bad. So, why have the % rule at all? It seems to me that a car that exceeds 107% is entirely non-competitive, it's literally just making up the numbers. These days, the grid is fairly tight top to bottom and even 104% is pretty 'slow', and again, non-competitive.

So long as 10 teams/20 cars are required, and so long as there isn't a queue of new teams (or new owners at least) waiting to join, then I do reluctantly accept that change is unlikely and probably very unwise. That does not mean however that it makes sense, the rule as it is currently, makes little sense to me. We're talking here about qualification of the car and driver in order to race. Is it too much of a stretch that in an ideal world the target for passing would be a car fast enough to at least potentially race and beat at least one other teams car? If not... why have a target at all? 104% is about the limit of what can reasonably be called a competitive chance. 107% is miles off.

We shouldn't assume that F1 will forever struggle to attract new entrants. If there was a demand from new entrants, would you not yourself start to question why non-competitive teams remain whilst there is new talent queuing to get in? We have that attitude towards drivers and generally expect the best up-coming talent to be given a shot when an established drive fails to impress for a season or two.

HustleRussell

17,890 posts

115 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
HustleRussell said:
Quite rolleyes

(He’s going to type up a long post now in which he’ll basically say something along the lines of ‘I’m only calling it as I see it’ and suggest that anybody who disagrees must sleep under Williams bedsheets. Then at the end he’ll act as though he has been the victim of some kind of pro-Williams extremist hate campaign.)
That's not really my style..

It wasn't about Williams in any case. As pointed out, the tighter to % rule is the more likely that a team will fail to qualify and n the end exit the sport - I agree that's bad. So, why have the % rule at all? It seems to me that a car that exceeds 107% is entirely non-competitive, it's literally just making up the numbers. These days, the grid is fairly tight top to bottom and even 104% is pretty 'slow', and again, non-competitive.

So long as 10 teams/20 cars are required, and so long as there isn't a queue of new teams (or new owners at least) waiting to join, then I do reluctantly accept that change is unlikely and probably very unwise. That does not mean however that it makes sense, the rule as it is currently, makes little sense to me. We're talking here about qualification of the car and driver in order to race. Is it too much of a stretch that in an ideal world the target for passing would be a car fast enough to at least potentially race and beat at least one other teams car? If not... why have a target at all? 104% is about the limit of what can reasonably be called a competitive chance. 107% is miles off.

We shouldn't assume that F1 will forever struggle to attract new entrants. If there was a demand from new entrants, would you not yourself start to question why non-competitive teams remain whilst there is new talent queuing to get in? We have that attitude towards drivers and generally expect the best up-coming talent to be given a shot when an established drive fails to impress for a season or two.
At risk of you calling me a 'bellend' again rolleyes

Taking what you are saying at face value, the 107% rule is an utter irrelevance. The grid is thin. It hasn't been exercised since the V8 era. For the foreseeable future, enforcing 107% rigidly again or reducing the threshold would make sense only if there were a surfeit of entrants (we should be so lucky!) or a compelling safety reason to do so. No sign of either of those.

I feel this is very obvious indeed but concerning the 'worth' of a team at 104% to the series- if there is another team which is doing 103.75% on the grid then there is competition. Equally if there is a reasonable chance of the 104% team becoming a 102.5% team. Its a competition.

HustleRussell

17,890 posts

115 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
HustleRussell said:
Before I thought your lamentations concerning Williams were relatively harmless but you now want them to fail to qualify and you want 17 car grids?

As for 104%ers are in the way, what is your specific experience?
Why stop at 104%? Anyone slower than about 102% is likely to get lapped at least once, and therefore get in the way at least once in the race.

Or why not have a knockout race, where if the leader laps you you have to pull in to the pits immediately to retire?

Or just tell everyone who isn't Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull not to bother turning up at all.
In other words, 'what he said'.

HustleRussell

17,890 posts

115 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
So long as 10 teams/20 cars are required
Where does that come from anyway? Historically 10 teams is a drought. The sport should certainly strive for more. A greater number of teams would help fill the field spread.

Mark-C

3,225 posts

160 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
We shouldn't assume that F1 will forever struggle to attract new entrants. If there was a demand from new entrants, would you not yourself start to question why non-competitive teams remain whilst there is new talent queuing to get in? We have that attitude towards drivers and generally expect the best up-coming talent to be given a shot when an established drive fails to impress for a season or two.
No we shouldn't assume that and probably all hope F1 won't struggle to attract new entrants but at the moment the bar for entry (mostly cost and uncertainty until the rules change) mean there are no teams queuing up right now. What Jordan did and what Manor, HRT et al tried to do (stepping up from a lower category) looks all but impossible right now. Haas found a way in that looked like it worked but I'm not so sure of that right now either.

Until we get back to the days of pre-qualifying and real no-hopers (Williams nicked a point in 2019) then there is no need to change the 107% rule.

DanielSan

14,929 posts

122 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
MartG said:
Graveworm said:
Revamp the points system again keeping the differential about the same. However, award more points for the top 10 whilst extending further down the grid, for those, outside the top 10, that finish. It might stop the retirements to save engines and coasting once they see they can't get into the points.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th January 10:11
Indycar awards points down to last place - it not only encourages the lower teams to keep going rather than stopping 'to save the engine', it also encourages teams whose car has pitted with a minor problem to get it fixed and get the car back out so it gets classified as finishing the race.

https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/INDYCAR-101/Point...
V8 Supercars do the same system, it works well. A car has to be well and truly battered not to be fixed and sent back out even if it's a few laps down

TheDeuce

5,545 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
TheDeuce said:
HustleRussell said:
Quite rolleyes

(He’s going to type up a long post now in which he’ll basically say something along the lines of ‘I’m only calling it as I see it’ and suggest that anybody who disagrees must sleep under Williams bedsheets. Then at the end he’ll act as though he has been the victim of some kind of pro-Williams extremist hate campaign.)
That's not really my style..

It wasn't about Williams in any case. As pointed out, the tighter to % rule is the more likely that a team will fail to qualify and n the end exit the sport - I agree that's bad. So, why have the % rule at all? It seems to me that a car that exceeds 107% is entirely non-competitive, it's literally just making up the numbers. These days, the grid is fairly tight top to bottom and even 104% is pretty 'slow', and again, non-competitive.

So long as 10 teams/20 cars are required, and so long as there isn't a queue of new teams (or new owners at least) waiting to join, then I do reluctantly accept that change is unlikely and probably very unwise. That does not mean however that it makes sense, the rule as it is currently, makes little sense to me. We're talking here about qualification of the car and driver in order to race. Is it too much of a stretch that in an ideal world the target for passing would be a car fast enough to at least potentially race and beat at least one other teams car? If not... why have a target at all? 104% is about the limit of what can reasonably be called a competitive chance. 107% is miles off.

We shouldn't assume that F1 will forever struggle to attract new entrants. If there was a demand from new entrants, would you not yourself start to question why non-competitive teams remain whilst there is new talent queuing to get in? We have that attitude towards drivers and generally expect the best up-coming talent to be given a shot when an established drive fails to impress for a season or two.
At risk of you calling me a 'bellend' again rolleyes

Taking what you are saying at face value, the 107% rule is an utter irrelevance. The grid is thin. It hasn't been exercised since the V8 era. For the foreseeable future, enforcing 107% rigidly again or reducing the threshold would make sense only if there were a surfeit of entrants (we should be so lucky!) or a compelling safety reason to do so. No sign of either of those.

I feel this is very obvious indeed but concerning the 'worth' of a team at 104% to the series- if there is another team which is doing 103.75% on the grid then there is competition. Equally if there is a reasonable chance of the 104% team becoming a 102.5% team. Its a competition.
Wasn't said without a degree of provocation and I didn't label you directly a 'bellend'... wink

You may take my comments at face value, yes it's currently irrelevant pretty much. If a team did fail to qualify then they may still be allowed to race at the stewards discretion... And I imagine there would be some pressure to ensure the stewards decided they could still race.

TBH the rule has no purpose imo. If there were more teams wanting to participate, then it would make sense to scale the rule up/down in % terms to reflect the demand to get other cars on the grid in lieu of the slower ones that wouldn't be able to hang around indefinitely as they would end up breaking the rule several times. With demand, it makes sense but 107% is too high for the current performance gaps top/bottom of the grid. With zero demand, it appear totally pointless.

HustleRussell said:
Where does that come from anyway? Historically 10 teams is a drought. The sport should certainly strive for more. A greater number of teams would help fill the field spread.
I agree. It's no fun following a sport under constant threat of collapse if a couple of teams walk - more than ever if they teams are financially damaged and losing key staff ahead of departing and are subsequently less appealing to anyone looking to buy. It's fraught and downright weird that a global sport the scale of F1 can't find ways of appealing to more than ten parties interested in competing. If you group b-teams in with their parent teams it's not even ten teams!

Fingers crossed the budget caps eventually prove to hold water and more people are attracted..

Mr_Thyroid

1,807 posts

182 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
I do agree that being allowed to unlap themselves is a bit odd...
Not really, if you remember why the rule was brought in....

It's because, on many occasions, we had that moment of potential excitement of the field bunching up deflated by there being a Spyker in between Schumacher and Alonso in the queue so at the restart Schumacher immediately got a gap before the Spyker driver had remembered which pedal he needed to press, meanwhile Alonso was struck behind waiting to cross the start line before he could overtake.