nothing wrong with the principle there...In essence, yes. <g>
Reverse the Grid?
#601
Posted 01 December 2010 - 17:43
Advertisement
#602
Posted 01 December 2010 - 17:54
IndeedYou both made rather sweeping judgments on the required overhauls,
Still, I know I'm right
#603
Posted 01 December 2010 - 17:57
Dangerous things, egos ;)Indeed
Still, I know I'm right
Seriously though, I can see the benefits of the budget cap, but how would one police it? Wrong thread for that discussion I know, just throwing that little point [back] into the budget cap debate...
#604
Posted 01 December 2010 - 19:10
The budget cap:Absolutely 100% no, for all the reasons we have had over the last few years in the sport. A few will manage to get a big budget, wipe the floor with the rest, and the lack of any success will mean the end of the smaller teams.
In theory, starting from a completely blank sheet of paper means this part ought to be up for grabs too, but if you're hanging your whole argument on a 'reverse grids is right and everything else will follow' starting point then 'limited budgets must stay' is mine.
OK then. It might be better to share F1 revenue among teams equally. That would even a bit teams' budgets but not limit them.
I think there are other risks in limiting budgets. What will rich teams do with all the extra money they already have but can't invest in their cars? corruption? too dangerous for the current reputation of f1 I'd say.
Besides that, it is good to attract money to the sport but in a context where teams can invest in innovative technology and have the corresponding advantage at the races. Some small teams will have the chance to shine if they think on some smart twists. It is not only about having more money available.
Small teams would have better chances to have good sponsorship if reverse grids are used. They would be shown on TV much more time than now. Every second they are on TV is valuable advertising time that can be charged by the team. A team can be a successful company even if they are not able to win, but if they do the right moves they could improve their cars and go up in the standings.
So I think that budget caps and tech regs and reverse grids are closely linked.
Let me explain.Why can't you see the contradiction in your arguement? Let me spell it out:
Your Arguement A: You want reverse grids to improve racing as its silly to have the fastest car/driver combo starting at the front, ergo you are happy to handicap skill and innovation in the quest for greater entertainment and you don't think a handicapped McLaren overtaking a 3 seconds a lap slower Torro Rosso would constitute any form of fake entertainment or impurity of sport.
Your Arguement B: You want technical freedom so that the best skill and innovation combo wins and its tough for those who aren't skillful and innovative enough, even though this does not support improved entertainment.
B contradicts A, mate. wave.gif
I want the skillful competitors to be handicapped for races in order to show on TV their skills and also I want them to be rewarded with being considered World Champions. Being in the back of the grid is where they would want to be and they should not care about it because they are being successful at making more points than others.
I do not consider a McLaren Overtaking a Toro Rosso as an impurity of the sport. I consider that as a clear evidence of the superiority of one over the other. This evidence is far more entertaining than the evidence we get today, increasing distance and NO TV coverage of that.
I happen to belive that technical innovation is what gave F1 its status of pinnacle of motorsports. You perhaps are in favour of transforming F1 into a spec series. Do you think that would be more entertaining? Is technical freedom bad for you? For me technical innovations are very interesting and I would enjoy it very much if their effectiveness was shown on TV by means of a true comfrontation. I would love to see that say williams announces some technical development for one race that proves to be effective. Then we might see how other teams try to copy or develop something similar. The smartest and faster to develop technological advances get more reward.
Do you like technical freedom? Do you like regs that limit development and make F1 closer to a spec series? Do you like when the pole sitter using a far better car than the rest fades away in the distance not pushing really hard because he does not have to and has the preference in his team and is only occasionally shown on TV? What do you dislike of today's F1?I may not have been clear. In my opinion ANY reverse grid is against the very nature of top racing, regardless of what you base it on. Your F1 standing is acquired on merit. Moving someone to the back for having performed well is dissing his merit. Which in my opinion is against everything F1 stands for.
Reverse grids are brought up from time to time, in present Williams' case it would be to their enormous advantage (if Head was serious, Maldonado, confirmed today, joined the wrong team), it reminds me of punitive weights after great performances in other classes, but I've never heard anyone seriously considering reverse grids for top open wheels. I would be curious though to hear who might have supported the concept aside from Head and where it has been applied with _great_success_.
(Hamilton: "I'm near the back of the grid again but am looking forward to finish better than 9th this time." - Schumacher: "Again ahead of Nico, a podium is possible." - Badoer surrounded by a mob of journos: "Feels good to be racing again, third time in a row I am on pole.")
Your made up quotes:
Hamilton: Why should he be near the back of the grid if he can only be ninth at the races? In that case he would be 13th in the grid, not near the back. To finish 9th he just has to overtake 4 cars. Easy task considering who would be ahead of him.
Schumacher: if he could be in the podium "again" means he would not be very close to the front. Nico would have plenty of opportunities to overtake him. If you assume he would be close to the front of the grid means a podium has not been possible in the past.
Badoer: Third time in a row that he has been overtaken by everyone showing clearly he is not F1 material and that it is not a problem for anyone to have him there, at the front. What do you see is wrong with that?
Edited by readonly, 01 December 2010 - 19:13.
#605
Posted 01 December 2010 - 22:47
It has nothing to do with the topic of reverse grids.
#606
Posted 01 December 2010 - 23:06
The topic title hardly matters if the issue involves overtaking or the distribution of money. Both problems need to be sorted.God knows why the conversation is turning into a debate on technical freedom in the sport. It has nothing to do with the topic of reverse grids.
#607
Posted 02 December 2010 - 09:11
The topic title hardly matters if the issue involves overtaking or the distribution of money. Both problems need to be sorted.
Wouldn't disagree, but the tech regs themselves still have very little to do with scraping qualifying or reversing the grid.
Those things aren't relient on any proposal for reversed grid.
#608
Posted 02 December 2010 - 10:41
Let me explain.
I want the skillful competitors to be handicapped for races in order to show on TV their skills and also I want them to be rewarded with being considered World Champions. Being in the back of the grid is where they would want to be and they should not care about it because they are being successful at making more points than others.
I do not consider a McLaren Overtaking a Toro Rosso as an impurity of the sport. I consider that as a clear evidence of the superiority of one over the other. This evidence is far more entertaining than the evidence we get today, increasing distance and NO TV coverage of that.
I happen to belive that technical innovation is what gave F1 its status of pinnacle of motorsports. You perhaps are in favour of transforming F1 into a spec series. Do you think that would be more entertaining? Is technical freedom bad for you? For me technical innovations are very interesting and I would enjoy it very much if their effectiveness was shown on TV by means of a true comfrontation. I would love to see that say williams announces some technical development for one race that proves to be effective. Then we might see how other teams try to copy or develop something similar. The smartest and faster to develop technological advances get more reward.
As others have commented I don't know why you are bringing up the technical rules in this thread about Reverse Grids. As it happens I am pro technical freedom but pragmatic enough to realise that safety and cost has to be considered, as these cars would all be lapping Silverstone in a minute if there was total freedom.
No I don't want a spec series but far less do I want some sort of cheesy, unsophisticated entertainment where we get to see McLarens inevitably breezing past HRT's because the start was fixed to handicap the competitors. I value F1's history and pedigree too - you say that F1 reached the pinnicle because of the technical innovation. I say it also needed to be PRESTIGIOUS - reverse grids is such a tacky gimmick I don't think F1's image would have blossomed quite the way it did.
#609
Posted 04 December 2010 - 19:50
The proposal is to free regulations so that teams can get to that point, dominate the rest. Then the reverse grid would handicap them in order to present them with an even greater challenge of having to overtake the rest. This extra challenge would only increase their motivation. I believe a quite balanced point can be reached in which top teams can use their technical know how to be superior but not as easily and, most of all, in which races become interesting as drivers would be able to defend their position even in a slower car or have plenty of opportunities to overtake since they are driving a faster car. This is, the handicap of starting at the back should not mean they can't win races. Allowing technical superiority is one way to have that. Besaides, there would be more interesting technical innovations for us to see and eventually buy for our own cars. Those who have developed it can sell it and recover their investment somehow. We all gain.QUOTE
Do you like when the pole sitter using a far better car than the rest fades away in the distance not pushing really hard because he does not have to
What has love got to do with it? In the case you describe it means only that one design team has done its homework and a decent driver sits in their tub and the rest have to catch up. If they can't, they have to try harder. And if they still can't, they move to the back of the grid where they belong. That's what it's about.
The point here is that a tv sports show should put on air the best performers because they, supposedly, should give the best spectacle, not the backmarkers. I am talking about the driver and the car (the car itself is a performer). When the pole sitter fades away in the distance we get bored to see him, even if he is performing brilliantly, because it is very difficult to see how much effort is he doing. Normally the tv shots go somewhere else to see if they get some TRUE action. With reverse grids the best performer of the day would be taken by the camera eye more time than anyone else (normally). Only those who fade away BACK in the distane would be forgotten.QUOTE
and has the preference in his team and is only occasionally shown on TV?
I see what you try to mean but I fail to see the logic that would bind these elements together. And do you really believe that anyone in any team cares if their winner is only "occasionally" shown during the race because he leads comfortably? "Yoh, Jens, slow down a bit and wave to the crowd will ya, you're on TV" (yep, I made that up).
I agree. If more money was given to small teams they would be able to be financially successful even if they don't win. Top teams need rivals of all kinds. They could sometimes surprise everyone with a clever use of the money. Financial success of small teams is the key.QUOTE
What do you dislike of today's F1?
I will not go into the detail of this but IMO it's the Concorde Agreement. I always believed and still do that it's a major race-hampering factor in motor racing. Far too much money for Bernie, quite too much for the top teams, not enough for the other teams.
I relate reverse grid with this because small teams would be seen much more time on tv. This should pleas their sponsors and motivate them to spend their money on the team.
Are you talking about the first 3 races in the calendar? In the beginning of the season one win takes you to the back of the grid quickly and one bad result to the front. After a few races this is not the case. You either stay ahead or behind and the changes in WDC positions are gradual. I will assume you refer to the start of the season.QUOTE
Hamilton: Why should he be near the back of the grid if he can only be ninth at the races? In that case he would be 13th in the grid, not near the back. To finish 9th he just has to overtake 4 cars. Easy task considering who would be ahead of him.
I don't know. Those strange reverse-grid rules... <g> Ah, now I remember, it's because earlier he had won one and as a result went to the back but then found himself stuck behind two Renault-powered cars, then finished badly, went to mid-grid next and won, which is why he is now... and he refers to that.
() mean what I think you would answer, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Why did he win one race? (because he was able to overtake everyone else including the renaults)
Did the renaults have a DNF? (Yes)
What about the Williams, Saubers, Mercs, Ferrari? (they were overtaken)
Are the Renaults the only ones that block him behind them? (Yes)
Is he the only one that gets blocked behind them? (No)
Are the Renaults able to win races? (yes because they can't be overtaken)
Are the Mercs able to win races? (no because they can be overtaken by the Renaults)
Are the renaults eventually going to start a race behind Lewis? (yes)
Can lewis overtake more cars than the renaults (he has a faster car)? (yes, being faster gives you more chances)
who will overtake more cars in the season? (Lewis)
Who will get more points? (lewis)
Who deserves more points? (lewis)
Who will be crowned WDC? (lewis)
You see? the system self-balances.
Please tell me if i missed something important.
So, A Merc can overtake the HRTs and Virgins but the rest can't? Can't the williams, renaults, etc do the same? I think that if Schumacher could then they could too. Then they would go after Schumacher and they could fight for position too, I think. The relative performance between any two cars would change all the time because technical innovations could be introduced freely, so, it is very likely that any car could overtake any other if it has enough extra speed. Schumacher would not be lapping at his maximumn because he would be busy defending his position. Meanwhile Nico would be getting closer and he might eventually have the chance to fight with him.QUOTE
Schumacher: if he could be in the podium "again" means he would not be very close to the front. Nico would have plenty of opportunities to overtake him. If you assume he would be close to the front of the grid means a podium has not been possible in the past.
Schumacher had finished way behind Nico and as a result moved up the grid but in that position he knew he would be fast enough to overtake the Virgins and Hispanias which then with the slow Williamses would block practically everybody else which they could do legally because they were after all fighting for position and also since there was a good chance that Nico would be trailing Lewis again behind some Renaults because Nico had finished in front of Lewis in the previous race because he had been slower than Lewis in the third-last race.
In the reverse grid system "The last IS the first". Drivers will want to be there because the WDC thropy is given to the one with MORE WDC points. With technical freedom, you can have a superior car and so you don't care about being ONE position behind in the starting grid, it is a minor disadvantage.Unless you rest your proposal on divine backing. I mean of course this old catholic racing wisdom: "The last shall be the first."
Belive me I am trying my best to get you see the logic in my brain...QUOTE
Badoer: Third time in a row that he has been overtaken by everyone showing clearly he is not F1 material and that it is not a problem for anyone to have him there, at the front. What do you see is wrong with that?
If he was then clearly not F1 material as you say, then why would he sit on pole as you say, and why would that not be a problem to have someone who does not belong in F1 sitting on pole as you say? What do I see wrong with that? Don't know? How about complete lack of logic? Mental incontinence? Rational incoherence? Haven't seen the results of your brainscan yet. JUST KIDDING of course, I don't do neuro.
As you say, why should a team hold him in his seat? no reason. They would fire him and replace him with someone more promising. The system would give them that clear evidence. If the replacement starts going back in the grid then they will be happy.
It is you who think I am meandering. Please don't qualify me. If you really want to get somewhere you should be reasoning as you have been doing but keep your personal attack aside.You want to make racing "more interesting"? We could derive an interesting rule from your mental meandering. Since you never run a straight line, the only constant in your logic being your constant logic-hopping, you don't back up demands for the facts you refer to, you never quote the "many" you refer to earlier. Which got me thinking: why not abolish the one-weave block rule? It would turn racing into the mechanical equivalent of a conversation with you. You are interesting, are you not? Imagine, an F1 rule named after you? Whole Sunday afternoons with the "readonly weavealways" racing concept! It is based on the principle that when one logical road closes on itself every driver is allowed to run his own track. Next logical step? FWD F1!
I have tried to explain the relation between tech freedom and reverse grids above. Please tell me if you agree with that. It is mainly about allowing teams to be successful via technical advantage but forcing them to provide the best show meanwhile.
Let me explain.
I want the skillful competitors to be handicapped for races in order to show on TV their skills and also I want them to be rewarded with being considered World Champions. Being in the back of the grid is where they would want to be and they should not care about it because they are being successful at making more points than others.
I do not consider a McLaren Overtaking a Toro Rosso as an impurity of the sport. I consider that as a clear evidence of the superiority of one over the other. This evidence is far more entertaining than the evidence we get today, increasing distance and NO TV coverage of that.
I happen to belive that technical innovation is what gave F1 its status of pinnacle of motorsports. You perhaps are in favour of transforming F1 into a spec series. Do you think that would be more entertaining? Is technical freedom bad for you? For me technical innovations are very interesting and I would enjoy it very much if their effectiveness was shown on TV by means of a true comfrontation. I would love to see that say williams announces some technical development for one race that proves to be effective. Then we might see how other teams try to copy or develop something similar. The smartest and faster to develop technological advances get more reward.
As others have commented I don't know why you are bringing up the technical rules in this thread about Reverse Grids. As it happens I am pro technical freedom but pragmatic enough to realise that safety and cost has to be considered, as these cars would all be lapping Silverstone in a minute if there was total freedom.
No I don't want a spec series but far less do I want some sort of cheesy, unsophisticated entertainment where we get to see McLarens inevitably breezing past HRT's because the start was fixed to handicap the competitors. I value F1's history and pedigree too - you say that F1 reached the pinnicle because of the technical innovation. I say it also needed to be PRESTIGIOUS - reverse grids is such a tacky gimmick I don't think F1's image would have blossomed quite the way it did.
We would have easy overtaking surely but we would also have the best battles ever possible at the same time. Cars with a small speed difference would fight hard their position. There will always be the intra team battles but also those between a slower car with a better driver and a better car with a worse driver. Those would be amazingly interesting.
Prestige is not something that F1 managers simply bought in the store and injected it into F1. Prestige was earned because of something. It is a consequence. You may think that it is a consequence of having the best car makes and the best drivers, wouldn't you? In that case I would ask, why did they choose F1 to be in?
Drivers: "I can use a better car and win over better drivers", or "I can show that I am a better driver because I win regardless of having a slower car"
Car makers: "we can build a better car and win regardless of having a bad driver", or "we can win if we hire the best driver regardless of not having the best car".
Edited by readonly, 04 December 2010 - 19:56.
#610
Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:09
"Equally daft departure from reality"? What is the "reality" in F1? Is it something we never see or is it actually what we see? Would any "daft" rule have any kind of impact of the "reality" of the sport?I think your confused between the constant evolutionary change in F1 (such as banning turbos, introducing KERS, etc) which happens all the time. And Revolutionary changes to the PRINCIPLE of the sport, such as Reverse Grids or some equally daft departure from reality.
The most influential change in the "reality" of F1 is not the cars, not the tracks, it is how it is being "consumed". We have TV now. Internet. It forces the sport to become different than it was when the primary coverage was newspapers and only way to see the action was to go to the track. We demand more now. It is like the transition from silent movies to sound movies. Suddenly the dialogue became important. Should we have stayed with the silent movies? Maybe, but Pulp Fiction would have been very different in that reality.
#611
Posted 06 December 2010 - 14:12
OK. But I am sorry that you have cut our dialogue like that.rather not
I rather think you have finally agreed.I-can't-believe-you-wrote-this. This is from any angle one of the three most mindboggling things I have ever read about F1. You're a GENIUS!
Let me add this extra bitHere is a more finished set of rules:
1) use reverse grids based on WDC.
2) The first race grid is formed with the reverse results of saturday's event.
3) saturdays consist of a qualy-like system but awarding WDC points. The same amount as for the race.
4) Technical regs are totally freed except those related with safety. Speeds are controlled with only one limit, say engine size or fuel capacity. If speeds get too high then this limit is reduced. If this is too expensive then just add ballast uniformly to everyone. The simplest and smallest set must be kept. This includes to remove all those silly rules designed to spice up the show. Do I need to list them?
5) Free budgets. Share F1 revenue among teams according to final standings.
6) The last race of the year would have a grid formed according to the current WDC order NOT reversed.
7) Allow team orders. They would be discouraged by the system anyway. Impose severe punishment to teams that are cought in flagrant deliberate crashing to help teammate.
8)- Share F1 revenue according to the number of race finishes of each car.
With this, DNFs would harm teams very much financially too. Teams would be forced to build more resistent cars and drivers to drive more carefully without touching each other. This would not mean they would not try to overtake because they really must overtake if they want to be successful (due to the reverse grid).
Also, a bad team could have financial success without being any good. But this would very soon attract other new teams because it seems easy to make some money out of it. When more people is interested in having an F1 team they would have to pre-qualify (in this case only qualify because there would not be a qualifying session as is). Fridays could be used for qualifying. In this way, the quality of backmarkers would rise.
#612
Posted 06 December 2010 - 14:30
"Equally daft departure from reality"? What is the "reality" in F1? Is it something we never see or is it actually what we see? Would any "daft" rule have any kind of impact of the "reality" of the sport?
The most influential change in the "reality" of F1 is not the cars, not the tracks, it is how it is being "consumed". We have TV now. Internet. It forces the sport to become different than it was when the primary coverage was newspapers and only way to see the action was to go to the track. We demand more now. It is like the transition from silent movies to sound movies. Suddenly the dialogue became important. Should we have stayed with the silent movies? Maybe, but Pulp Fiction would have been very different in that reality.
Reverse Grids, medals, overtaking lanes, drivers drawing cars by lottery before the race. These are 'ideas' that have come from within the Paddock, but everyone else knows they are not serious, they are departures from reality, they are just stirring debate.
1.6 Turbo engines, Kers, night races, budget caps. These, whilst not all happening, are not departures from reality as they are like them or not, genuine contenders as part of the evolutionary change of F1.
Your metaphor is way off the mark.
#613
Posted 06 December 2010 - 14:37
OK. But I am sorry that you have cut our dialogue like that.
I rather think you have finally agreed.
Let me add this extra bit
8)- Share F1 revenue according to the number of race finishes of each car.
With this, DNFs would harm teams very much financially too. Teams would be forced to build more resistent cars and drivers to drive more carefully without touching each other. This would not mean they would not try to overtake because they really must overtake if they want to be successful (due to the reverse grid).
Also, a bad team could have financial success without being any good. But this would very soon attract other new teams because it seems easy to make some money out of it. When more people is interested in having an F1 team they would have to pre-qualify (in this case only qualify because there would not be a qualifying session as is). Fridays could be used for qualifying. In this way, the quality of backmarkers would rise.
Yet again, there is boundless contradiction in your thinking I'm afraid. You want reverse grids to spice up racing which would inevitably lead to more incidents.... and then you want the criteria for paying out shares of F2 income to be incident avoidance...
If we overlook for a moment the comically ridiculous notion that Ferrari would actually sign up for a theoretically LOWER share of the income than HRT, then your rules would not only ensure that an HRT started well ahead of a Ferrari, but the ensuing 'overtaking scenario' that your reverse grid had generated, would be rendered useless as a spectacle, by HRT's desire to give that 7 second a lap faster car a birth as wide as an ocean, in order that it didn't come into an unecessary tangle and cost itself a significant share of prize funds.
Look, the desire for a better F1 is appreciable, but anyone can list out a set of rules if the reality of teams and sponsors agreeing to them can be overlooked.
#614
Posted 06 December 2010 - 14:49
You are not thinking straight. Or maybe you are. But should not.Reverse Grids, medals, overtaking lanes, drivers drawing cars by lottery before the race. These are 'ideas' that have come from within the Paddock, but everyone else knows they are not serious, they are departures from reality, they are just stirring debate.
1.6 Turbo engines, Kers, night races, budget caps. These, whilst not all happening, are not departures from reality as they are like them or not, genuine contenders as part of the evolutionary change of F1.
Your metaphor is way off the mark.
F1 starting grids are automatically giving some drivers an advantage over the other. It is inevitable. Head, and myself, say "do not give the handicap to the fastest combos". In some sports, you can remove the handicap altogether, but until the start building a 180 meter wide start straight, someone will have an advantage, others will be disadvantaged. More or less.
#615
Posted 06 December 2010 - 14:55
#616
Posted 06 December 2010 - 15:45
I used to scoff at suggstons like these, but nowadays I think they should at least give it a try during the off season winter testing. Add an extra day to the schedule and just give it a shot at Bahrein. Who knows how it would turn out?
#617
Posted 06 December 2010 - 16:23
You are not thinking straight. Or maybe you are. But should not.
F1 starting grids are automatically giving some drivers an advantage over the other. It is inevitable. Head, and myself, say "do not give the handicap to the fastest combos". In some sports, you can remove the handicap altogether, but until the start building a 180 meter wide start straight, someone will have an advantage, others will be disadvantaged. More or less.
The current advantage is a natural one, the fastest combo EARNS it. Head's idea turns that on its head. I suspect Head is only suggesting this, through self interest, not in the best interests of F1. Williams are an unbelieveably survivalist team. I have never known Frank or Patrick to ever back anything in F1 that wasn't in the best interests of Williams.
#618
Posted 06 December 2010 - 16:30
I used to scoff at suggstons like these,
Why are people trying to paint a picture that suggestions 'like these' are scoffed at by the Neanderthals?!!!
As far as I am concerned, this is right up there with 'short cut chicanes' and driver 'lotteries' as one of very few what I would call end of season 'media fillers'. Something to keep F1 on the back pages. I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of these suggestions were having a laugh. But I'm not scoffing at 95% of the 'serious' ideas, for the record.
#619
Posted 06 December 2010 - 16:42
It is merely a statement of how I used to find it unacceptable and now I'd even like to see them have a go at it sometime during the off season, just to see how it would work.
Advertisement
#620
Posted 06 December 2010 - 16:47
I see that you want to put an equal sign between cutting chicanes and alternative starting orders. But you can't. There is no similarity. Therefore you are argumenting from a hopeless position. You are free to have your opinion of course, but reversing the grid have absolutely nothing at all to do with lotteries, on the contrary - it makes the start order predictable and actually fair for all. Current qualifying is tweaked to increase the chances of mistakes, to increase the chance that some of the top cars fail and have to fight through the field. That is much more of a lottery.Why are people trying to paint a picture that suggestions 'like these' are scoffed at by the Neanderthals?!!!
As far as I am concerned, this is right up there with 'short cut chicanes' and driver 'lotteries' as one of very few what I would call end of season 'media fillers'. Something to keep F1 on the back pages. I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of these suggestions were having a laugh. But I'm not scoffing at 95% of the 'serious' ideas, for the record.
Starting in WDC order without reversing it would also be fair, just even more boring than now.
Edited by Hairpin, 06 December 2010 - 16:49.
#621
Posted 07 December 2010 - 14:38
No contradiction. What I propose is to force participants to overtake if they want to be successful but at the same time I want them to drive like F1 drivers do, this is, with brilliance and excellence. Crashers are not welcome in F1. Moreover, car designers that are not able to build resistent cars would be discouraged too. You can make a super fast car that can lead a race for 20 laps but then it blows up. A team should prefer to finish a race than being in front for a while. It add to the show and promotes true high tech.Yet again, there is boundless contradiction in your thinking I'm afraid. You want reverse grids to spice up racing which would inevitably lead to more incidents.... and then you want the criteria for paying out shares of F2 income to be incident avoidance...
If we overlook for a moment the comically ridiculous notion that Ferrari would actually sign up for a theoretically LOWER share of the income than HRT, then your rules would not only ensure that an HRT started well ahead of a Ferrari, but the ensuing 'overtaking scenario' that your reverse grid had generated, would be rendered useless as a spectacle, by HRT's desire to give that 7 second a lap faster car a birth as wide as an ocean, in order that it didn't come into an unecessary tangle and cost itself a significant share of prize funds.
Look, the desire for a better F1 is appreciable, but anyone can list out a set of rules if the reality of teams and sponsors agreeing to them can be overlooked.
I don't know if this revenue distribution would really affect too much Ferrari finances. They are sport car makers and they sell them. I suspect they have other ways to get money. They are able to create great cars. Why should they not be successful? Being successful in F1 would give them the right publicity to be successful at selling cars too. They would be one of those teams that INVEST in F1 in order to get a better reward. With the introduction of reverse grids and the rest of the changes, F1 would rise its audience and consequently the revenue too. If F1 is more attractive more money will surely flow into it.
HRT may give way to the Ferrari, McLarens and the likes but I am sure they will fight hard with others. The good show is guaranteed.
I am really trying to consider teams and sponsors interests in. Please tell me why do you think they would reject the idea. You may have closer contact with them! But of course we can't think of a rule set that favours Ferrari simply because they are Ferrari, nor any other participant. Rules must be clear for all and the best shall win. Sponsors will always put more money on successful teams.
I don't think F1 would lose viewers, on the contrary. Why do you think otherwise?They cope with it like NorthCoreans cope with their beloved leader. <g> The FiA inches slowly closer to Fifa levels of competence. GP2, WTCC, since when is F1 copying minor spectacles? Their desperate attempts to pimp something boring are pathetic and will in the mid-term lose viewers. Reverse grids are against human nature, even more so against anything F1 stands for. Quali is about who can go round fastest in one lap, simple, honest, straight. Racers and viewers want to know where they stand. Reverse grids are disorientating, bad for the viewer, depressing for the driver. Who wants to sit on pole when you know you got there because you're last? Reverse grid F1 pole sitter = laughing stock of the racing world. It's degrading every honest backmarker who must start from where he knows he doesn't belong and an insult to every pole sitter there ever was. Some future Badoer the equal of Senna? It's demeaning the very core of racing. And you'll end up with as many rules for this sort of thing than for the race itself.
And it would kill Saturday's commercial value for which FOM worked so hard. Hence a minor question, has anyone Mr Ecclestone's thoughts on this?
Reverse grids are in favour of the original and true principles of F1: Technical and driving skill competition.
Quali is simple honest and straight but reverse grids too. Simple because anyone can understand it, honest because it favours no team or driver in particular, and straight because it tells everyone what they must do to succeed: overtake more cars than the rest and keep on doing it consistently.
Not disorienting at all. The notion of "pole sitter" would disappear sureley but there is an equivalent substitute. There could even be a side championship for the one that has accumulated more points in saturday's sessions. Something like a "no traffic champion" or so. If you are on pole you have a great incentive to push really hard and try to delay as much as you can being overtaken. If you keep at least some cars behind you move away from that degrading slot. Pole sitters of the past would not be compared with them but with the one that was the fastest on saturday's session.
I couldn't get the idea of this "And you'll end up with as many rules for this sort of thing than for the race itself", why?
I am sure Mr Ecclestone is not sure about this but I also hope that, being as wise as he is, he can open his mind for discussion. If this will ever be implemented he will have to face opposition. That is why all ideas need to be clearly expressed here and everywhere so that this change can be understood as much as possible first.
He and his team would not get an advantage out of it just like that. The system is the same for all and they would have to be better than the rest to succeed. Why should they get more benefit than others?The current advantage is a natural one, the fastest combo EARNS it. Head's idea turns that on its head. I suspect Head is only suggesting this, through self interest, not in the best interests of F1. Williams are an unbelieveably survivalist team. I have never known Frank or Patrick to ever back anything in F1 that wasn't in the best interests of Williams.
#622
Posted 07 December 2010 - 15:12
Specially considering that you get more paid if you have a good team => more advantage. Current system is very capitalistic and I would not mind a more Marxistic approach.He and his team would not get an advantage out of it just like that. The system is the same for all and they would have to be better than the rest to succeed. Why should they get more benefit than others?
#623
Posted 07 December 2010 - 15:26
#624
Posted 07 December 2010 - 15:45
Friday - practice
Saturday - practice and low fuel qualy 1 and race 1 with start positions defined by qualy 1
Sunday - final short practice in the morning and then in the afternoon race 2 with start positions defined by finishing order of race 1
This way we do get to see some upside down races in race 2 because the fast cars don't finish every race but the fastest cars will still get rewarded in race 1 if they finish. Fast cars that don't finish race 1 have a chance to take some decent points away from the weekend. Additional points for fastest lap in both races. Additional points for qualy 1 too.
Saturday should be a flat out sprint of say 1 hour. No refuelling and no mandatory pitstops for tyres. You can pit for tyres if you want to but not mandatory. Same three choices of tyre compound available to each team. No need to use the same tyres used in qualy 1.
Sunday should be a more traditional 2 hour race with a minimum two mandatory pitstop for tyres. No refuelling. Any choice of three tyre compounds to start from but you must use 2 of the 3 compounds in the race (assuming dry weather, wet weather different as it is now).
I'll now put on my flameproof suit....
#625
Posted 07 December 2010 - 16:59
#626
Posted 07 December 2010 - 17:52
How many F1 races have been won by the polesitter?
How many F1 races finished with the top two in the race the same as the top two in qualifying?
Same question for top three, top four, etc.
I'm sure someone has the answer to the first, though the others might be harder.
#627
Posted 07 December 2010 - 18:07
Would also be interesting to see trends over time about that. In the "old" days reliability was bad and in the very old days the grids was very tight. Nowadays with auto launch, endurance engines and **** like that, only RBR drivers fail to convert a pole to a victory.Does anyone have this data, perhaps:
How many F1 races have been won by the polesitter?
How many F1 races finished with the top two in the race the same as the top two in qualifying?
Same question for top three, top four, etc.
I'm sure someone has the answer to the first, though the others might be harder.
#628
Posted 08 December 2010 - 21:42
Let me add another bit:OK. But I am sorry that you have cut our dialogue like that.rather not
I rather think you have finally agreed.I-can't-believe-you-wrote-this. This is from any angle one of the three most mindboggling things I have ever read about F1. You're a GENIUS!
Let me add this extra bitHere is a more finished set of rules:
1) use reverse grids based on WDC.
2) The first race grid is formed with the reverse results of saturday's event.
3) saturdays consist of a qualy-like system but awarding WDC points. The same amount as for the race.
4) Technical regs are totally freed except those related with safety. Speeds are controlled with only one limit, say engine size or fuel capacity. If speeds get too high then this limit is reduced. If this is too expensive then just add ballast uniformly to everyone. The simplest and smallest set must be kept. This includes to remove all those silly rules designed to spice up the show. Do I need to list them?
5) Free budgets. Share F1 revenue among teams according to final standings.
6) The last race of the year would have a grid formed according to the current WDC order NOT reversed.
7) Allow team orders. They would be discouraged by the system anyway. Impose severe punishment to teams that are cought in flagrant deliberate crashing to help teammate.
8)- Share F1 revenue according to the number of race finishes of each car.
With this, DNFs would harm teams very much financially too. Teams would be forced to build more resistent cars and drivers to drive more carefully without touching each other. This would not mean they would not try to overtake because they really must overtake if they want to be successful (due to the reverse grid).
Also, a bad team could have financial success without being any good. But this would very soon attract other new teams because it seems easy to make some money out of it. When more people is interested in having an F1 team they would have to pre-qualify (in this case only qualify because there would not be a qualifying session as is). Fridays could be used for qualifying. In this way, the quality of backmarkers would rise.
9) The first race of the calendar would be run as the last one with the grid formed according to the current WDC standings but NOT reversed.
The idea is to minimize the yoyo effect that would be present in the first race. Thus, drivers in good cars can't choose to make a bad time in saturday just to be ahead on sunday. The secon race in the calendar would use reverse grids and points gained in that saturday would count as well.
What do you think?
#629
Posted 09 April 2011 - 16:55
Now that Jean Todt has finally spoken and said that F1 needs to rise TV audience figures, I would like to remind him of this.
Here is an even more complete set of rules to be considered taken from the previous post but correcting some issues I found between 9) and 2) and between 8) and 5). This set is relabeled to make it more readable:
1) Use reverse WDC current standings to form the starting grid for sunday race except for the first and last races of the calendar.
2) Saturdays consist of a qualy-like (Q1,Q2,Q3) system session but awarding WDC points. The same amount as for the race. Award a yearly throphy for the car/driver with most points earned during saturdays.
3) Technical regs are totally freed except those related with safety and aero.
3.1) Speeds are controlled only with (internal combustion) engine size limit. If speeds get too high then this limit is reduced. If this reduction is too expensive then postpone it and just add ballast uniformly to everyone. The simplest and smallest set of technical rules must be kept. This includes to remove all those silly rules designed to spice up the show. Do I need to list them?
3.2) Cockpit should pass strict crash tests and be more protective.
3.3) Aero should be restricted in the simplest way. I propose the use of BOLD aero in all the car. BOLD aero means that no part of the bodywork capable of producing downforce is allowed to have shapes with a radius smaller than 10cm or so. If aero downforce gets too high then this limit must be increased.
4) Free budgets.
4.1) Share TV revenue among teams according with the number of cars that finished races ONLY.
5) Allow team orders. They would be discouraged by the system anyway but impose severe punishment to teams that are cought in flagrant deliberate crashing to help teammate.
Edited by readonly, 11 April 2011 - 14:23.
#630
Posted 09 April 2011 - 17:00
Edited by Seanspeed, 09 April 2011 - 17:01.
#631
Posted 09 April 2011 - 17:04
Why? because you want to?Give it up dude.
#632
Posted 09 April 2011 - 17:22
While you're entitled to your opinions, these ideas are just not popular or sustainable.Why? because you want to?
#633
Posted 09 April 2011 - 17:25
Because you already started a thread about this stuff and now you're digging up old ones to repeat the same things(albeit with a few new provisos!). I guess others haven't been subjected to your obsession over WDC-reversed grids quite as much as I have, but you still seem to be on the same crusade and I'm wondering when you're gonna realize that your efforts to start a movement and get this reversed grid idea into practice are futile so you and I might actually talk about the Malaysian GP or something at some point maybe?Why? because you want to?
#634
Posted 09 April 2011 - 17:35
#635
Posted 09 April 2011 - 17:42
#636
Posted 09 April 2011 - 18:44
Is reversing the grid "handicapping"?I hate handicapping; stupid, stupid idea that is.
#637
Posted 09 April 2011 - 21:24
It's the very opposite of handicapping. It's like making one-legged athletes do the 100m race over 110m.Is reversing the grid "handicapping"?
#638
Posted 10 April 2011 - 03:08
#639
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:14
Head: Shut the **** up. I think it's time for old Pat to join Bernie in the old folks home because the senility is evidently kicking in.
When you have made the contribution to F1 that he has you might have earned the right to tell him to shut up.
Advertisement
#640
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:31
Well, if anyone in F1 comes up with such a silly idea as reverse grids, then absolutely everyone has the right to tell him to shut up. Reverse grid is such an awful idea.When you have made the contribution to F1 that he has you might have earned the right to tell him to shut up.
#641
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:40
Well, if anyone in F1 comes up with such a silly idea as reverse grids, then absolutely everyone has the right to tell him to shut up. Reverse grid is such an awful idea.
Well I'd disagree with you. In the scheme of things and with some of the other stuff that patently hasn't worked I think there is a great deal of merit in not lining the cars up with the fastest at the front if we want to see racing and overtaking rather than a parade.
#642
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:43
If you are so in love with overtaking, then watch nascar, there is far more overtaking there. But you rarely remember any of the passes. F1 is different, not so many passes, but some are wonderful.Well I'd disagree with you. In the scheme of things and with some of the other stuff that patently hasn't worked I think there is a great deal of merit in not lining the cars up with the fastest at the front if we want to see racing and overtaking rather than a parade.
But reverse grids to create overtaking is the biggest nonsense ever, I would never watch a GP again if they created that rule. In the end, F1 is about winning, not forcing people with good cars to start with a disadvantage. Success should never be penalized.
#643
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:51
If you are so in love with overtaking, then watch nascar, there is far more overtaking there. But you rarely remember any of the passes. F1 is different, not so many passes, but some are wonderful.
But reverse grids to create overtaking is the biggest nonsense ever, I would never watch a GP again if they created that rule. In the end, F1 is about winning, not forcing people with good cars to start with a disadvantage. Success should never be penalized.
No. introducing a moveable wing that only the chasing driver is allowed to use is the biggest nonsense. I want to see real overtaking, not artificial. Just because the gird has been fastest first doesnt mean a rethink is not worthwhile and making the fastest start at the back will make the drivers work and really demonstrate their skills and get rid of the nonsense of getting out in front and cruising for 90% of the race.
#644
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:56
No. introducing a moveable wing that only the chasing driver is allowed to use is the biggest nonsense. I want to see real overtaking, not artificial. Just because the gird has been fastest first doesnt mean a rethink is not worthwhile and making the fastest start at the back will make the drivers work and really demonstrate their skills and get rid of the nonsense of getting out in front and cruising for 90% of the race.
I agree that DRS is a nonsense idea, but I will never agree with your line of thought regarding reversed grids.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
#645
Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:59
I agree that DRS is a nonsense idea, but I will never agree with your line of thought regarding reversed grids.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
It's fine to disagree, thats what discussion is for.
#646
Posted 10 April 2011 - 08:36
Reverse grids is a good idea.Well, if anyone in F1 comes up with such a silly idea as reverse grids, then absolutely everyone has the right to tell him to shut up. Reverse grid is such an awful idea.
#647
Posted 11 April 2011 - 14:06
Please consider this seriously. I will be here to discuss any well formulated thought aiming to find a real solution not only to TV viewing figures but the whole F1 concept.
#648
Posted 11 April 2011 - 14:09
#649
Posted 12 April 2011 - 13:42
But they would need to fix the aero. With reverse grids and 2010 regs, the Alonsos would be behind the Petrovs by Lap 5, and stay there forever.If I could choose between reversed grids and multiple push to pass buttons, controlled by timers and remote sensors, 4 pit stops and sprinklers, I would definitely choose the former. It would produce a lot more overtaking as well.
#650
Posted 12 April 2011 - 13:45
If you are so in love with overtaking, then watch nascar, there is far more overtaking there. But you rarely remember any of the passes.
That's something I agree with. A pass should feel like a goal in Football or a break of serve on tennis, not like a basket in basketball.