81 replies to this topic

[D.M.N.]

I don't know about you, but when coming nearer to the end of races, you get the feeling with exciting races "I don't want it to stop". I think Formula One races should last near to at least three hours so that it could get spiced up a bit. An hour and thirty doesn't really seem long enough for a motor race. Thoughts?

[sKunk]

2 races with reverse grid for the second race.

[Risil]

200 miles is a sensible length for a road course race. The problem, if there is one, is that the cars lap the circuits too quickly.

[Crazy Ninja]

They should make spa 2 and a half hours and Spain bout 20 mins

Seriously though i think the length in races generally is fine. It would be great if Canada was another couple of laps but that would be nit picking. If you increased race lengths id die of boredom watching the Spanish and Hungarian GPs. The only problem with some races is those like Monza which are the same length in distance but it takes 10 or 15 mins less to run which is annoying.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

I think at the more high-speed venues like Monza and Spa they need to increase distance a little, perhaps 10-15%, because race duration at those events has become a bit short.

[Atreiu]

200 miles or 105 minutes.

[postajegenye]

Originally posted by sKunk
2 races with reverse grid for the second race.

NO!

No reverse grid, please.

[Rob G]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
I think at the more high-speed venues like Monza and Spa they need to increase distance a little, perhaps 10-15%, because race duration at those events has become a bit short.

This is what I'm thinking too. I wouldn't want to see much more distance added, but another 25 or 50 miles would be nice to bring the duration up closer to two hours.

Changing the format to the two-race GP2 format would completely ruin the concept of a "Grand Prix." F1 doesn't need that sort of gimmickry.

[pingu666]

2 races suits superbikes, but not grand prix imo

[kNt]

350 to 400km would be better, so that a GP takes still under two hours but is a bit tougher on the cars and drivers.

Felxible distances based on average speeds or something similar would be good .

[DarthWillie]

2 hour races, no fixed distance.

[Atreiu]

If the races became too much longer, they might aso become processional to the extreme.




Imagine what the strategies would be if everyone knew a race would go for two hours and 200+ miles... Simple, fill it to the brim and hope yellow flags and other interuptions keep you on the track long enough.

Everyone would start with the tank fueled to the top, then would refuel it to the top hoping it would be enough.

Or maybe not, but race disntance cannot just be randomly set without considering refueling, tyre longevity and the effects on race strategy and possible processional racing.

[JForce]

It's currently 300km, I'd like to see it increased to 350km, that's it. The time limit can stay the same to take care of Monaco or races where weird situations occur.

[Risil]

Originally posted by JForce
It's currently 300km, I'd like to see it increased to 350km, that's it. The time limit can stay the same to take care of Monaco or races where weird situations occur.

Monaco's already run to a smaller distance than the others. It'll be interesting to see how long the new street races will be, bearing in mind that they're still running for 200 miles.

[Imperial]

The distance races are set at is now woefully outdated and this sometimes results in ridiculously short races.

I think it's time the FIA reappraised the situation and set new race distances for some tracks, based on the lap times/length of time to complete the race at every circuit that was last visited.

Atreiu does have a point however and sometimes it feels like some of the races are too long!

That said, it's not the responsibility of the people setting the race length to ensure there is action during 100% of that race.

[Pingguest]

I think the current distance is good enough. But if we want longer races the FIA should slow down the cars, particularly in the corners. That might improve the racing as well.

[Nitropower]

The distance is ok, no need to change it. It's ok, we love racing, but there are many boring ones and we would have to stay there the poleman drive for, maybe, an extra half an hour? No thanks. This length is fine for me, with more lenght more mechanical problems and accidents but that doesn't mean a better show at all. Let's keep it the way it is now.

[AyePirate]

Let's mix it up. Mostly the current length with a couple of GP style reveerse the grid twin sprint races and a couple of 500K enduros thrown in for variety.

[Blythy]

Monza should be longer, canada should be longer, brazil should be longer, spa should be 100 laps endurance (not endurance rules). The rest are fine.

[wingwalker]

I'd like the limit to be at 2hrs, with no lap limit. It is somehow ridiculous how short the Monza race is, with it being the legendary track and all. I don't see a lot of sense in keeping a same race distance limit for Monza and Monaco.

[James Allen]

Hmm I think that they could be longer at some tracks, not much though. Besides F1 has bigger fish to fry.

[primer]

Originally posted by D.M.N.
I don't know about you, but when coming nearer to the end of races, you get the feeling with exciting races "I don't want it to stop".

How many "exciting races" have you been seen recently? Most are decent post TC ban, but more time on track won't improve the show. TV slots will be more expensive, fuel wastage, spectator fatigue at circuit are all factors to consider. Perhaps you just get excited easily ;)

Nothing wrong with current format, IMO. (Other than pit stops...)

[Beyond]

More time would only make races more boring.

[stormshadow]

I dont like the idea of articficially made up grids such as reverse grids and crap.
Fastest guy starts first, slowest guy last.
Next we start handing out cash prizes out to the winners and what not

Pitstops actually add to what little excitement there is nowadays. ANd with todays tracks and todays rules(engine freeze and all) no one will want to push to try and overtake even if the race went on for 12 damn hours!
Thank you Max mosley

[pingu666]

there are cash prizes for the winner, its just alllll secret now

whatever the race format is, thats what it is, 2 races and reverse grid works well for gp2 doesnt it? also commen for dirt track oval racing i think...

it would be interesting to see a reverse grid race in f1 imo

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Risil
200 miles is a sensible length for a road course race. The problem, if there is one, is that the cars lap the circuits too quickly.

Well said. Maybe the tracks (or cars) are too fast. I think the race should be closer to 2 hours than 1h30

[stormshadow]

Originally posted by pingu666
there are cash prizes for the winner, its just alllll secret now

whatever the race format is, thats what it is, 2 races and reverse grid works well for gp2 doesnt it? also commen for dirt track oval racing i think...

it would be interesting to see a reverse grid race in f1 imo

It may work in GP2, but my point is that with todays aero its vitually impossible for cars in reverse grids to try and overtake the car in front let alone a whole grid in order to win.

[Atreiu]

Simply banning refueling would have a considerable impact on the race legnth.

[fisssssi]

Monaco is already artificially shortened, isn't it? So they should make Monza longer.

[IOU 16]

I like the idea of a timed race. There already is a 2 hour time limit, why not use that as the length of the races?

Or shorten it to 1hr45min? Maybe 90 minutes?

[MrAerodynamicist]

TV means they're not going to be significantly longer, but I do think some of the shorter races are too short. In particular, Monza normally only lasts ~ 1hour 20 minutes. Being purely realistic, I'd scrap the distances limit, keep the two hour upper limit and set the number of laps for an estimated 1h45.

[Apex]

Originally posted by Atreiu
Simply banning refueling would have a considerable impact on the race legnth.

Banning re-fueling would only add a few minutes at most.

[IOU 16]

Originally posted by Apex

Banning re-fueling would only add a few minutes at most.

How many miles/kilometers could a team get on a full fuel cell?

[HoldenRT]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
I think at the more high-speed venues like Monza and Spa they need to increase distance a little, perhaps 10-15%, because race duration at those events has become a bit short.

Yes

[HoldenRT]

Originally posted by DarthWillie
2 hour races, no fixed distance.

Yes

[Risil]

Originally posted by IOU 16


How many miles/kilometers could a team get on a full fuel cell?

Not enough to get to the finish, but they could always mandate bigger ones...

[HoldenRT]

Total guess but I'd say around 60-65% of a GP on full fuel, short shifting and all the rest of it to get as far into the race as possible.

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Yes, 350 kms would be fine. The cars are faster than decades ago, the race minimum time should be around 100 mins.

[Atreiu]

Originally posted by Apex

Banning re-fueling would only add a few minutes at most.

At least the'y be more exciting few minutes.

[MichaelPM]

The longer the race the less damaging being stuck behind a slower car because its impossible to overtake.

Strategies will not need to be "edge of the blade", so perfectly right it looks too easy or else a complete disaster.

[Tolyngee]

Originally posted by Atreiu


At least the'y be more exciting few minutes.

But then you get someone like Alain Prost, who can conserve his tires more than someone else, thus makes one less pitstop, thus wins the race...

Hardly exciting...

(not knocking Prost and his wins, but it's been understood for some time that he has some of the boringest wins in F1 history...)

No offense, but CART introduced a rule on tire changing or something in the last five years or so as I believe at Portland someone won (Bruno?) SOLELY based on fuel and tire conservation... It was hardly exciting, and the way he won apparently was confusing or cheap to the ignorant viewer, at a time when CART needed to add viewers, not lose 'em...

Not only can you argue that conserving isn't exciting, but you could argue it's not racing...

Conserve fuel, conserve tires... Eh...

And then you have to worry about images like Ayrton Senna running out of fuel TWO years in a row at Silverstone... Something the less-than-casual fan also can't quite understand...

[kamix]

I like the 2h limit. But I also would like to see a mini 'enduro' race in the calendar if it was done right. Something under 6 hours and only the 1 driver.

[Risil]

Originally posted by Tolyngee


But then you get someone like Alain Prost, who can conserve his tires more than someone else, thus makes one less pitstop, thus wins the race...

Hardly exciting...

(not knocking Prost and his wins, but it's been understood for some time that he has some of the boringest wins in F1 history...)

Mexico 1990 was probably the most thrilling race of the decade, but otherwise, vis a vis Australia 1986 the decade before. Not to mention South Africa 1982, Silverstone 1985... I doubt fuel consumption added to the excitement of any of these races, though, though tyre management has always been a crucial part of the racer's craft. Anyhow, you have to take into account that the ridiculously uncompetitive nature of F1 from 1988-1993 did more than anything else to harm the spectacle. Honda and then Renault were just too good.

Originally posted by Tolyngee


No offense, but CART introduced a rule on tire changing or something in the last five years or so as I believe at Portland someone won (Bruno?) SOLELY based on fuel and tire conservation... It was hardly exciting, and the way he won apparently was confusing or cheap to the ignorant viewer, at a time when CART needed to add viewers, not lose 'em...

This is a good point, though. In the Canadian GP we saw a number of one-stop strategies versus much faster two-stoppers, but there was no significant increase in overtaking in spite of the lack of opportunity to pass in the pits. Admittedly the breakup of the track offline was a factor, but that occurred last year, too, and we seemed to see plenty of passing even without crazy pitstops (remember Sato on Alonso?) And of course the racing in CART during the mid-'90s wasn't affected by the two or three refuelling stops that would be made by the cars. IIRC passing in the pits was only used as a last resort where on-track overtaking was impossible (see Unser on Rahal in the 1993 Vancouver GP).

Wait 'til this time next year before we come up with any new ideas to improve the racing, IMO.;)

[IOU 16]

Originally posted by Tolyngee
[B]


No offense, but CART introduced a rule on tire changing or something in the last five years or so as I believe at Portland someone won (Bruno?) SOLELY based on fuel and tire conservation... It was hardly exciting, and the way he won apparently was confusing or cheap to the ignorant viewer, at a time when CART needed to add viewers, not lose 'em...

The was a fuel window. You could only pit in a certain lap window specified before the race. Never worked and gave strange wins, like Ryan Hunter-Reay at Surfers Paradise in 2003.

[Rinehart]

Forgetting the cost arguement for a minute, I'd be up for 1 long-distance race on the calendar. Say at Spa it could be a 4hr race with 2 drivers per car, so each team would have to bring in 2 guest drivers for each team.

Edit. Actually there wouldn't be much of a cost problem.

[pasadena]

Originally posted by Rinehart
Forgetting the cost arguement for a minute, I'd be up for 1 long-distance race on the calendar. Say at Spa it could be a 4hr race with 2 drivers per car, so each team would have to bring in 2 guest drivers for each team.

Edit. Actually there wouldn't be much of a cost problem.

It would be a great demonstration of a team effort. But I would also like all races being at least 2 hours long.

[F1 Tor.]

Originally posted by Rinehart
Forgetting the cost arguement for a minute, I'd be up for 1 long-distance race on the calendar. Say at Spa it could be a 4hr race with 2 drivers per car, so each team would have to bring in 2 guest drivers for each team.

Edit. Actually there wouldn't be much of a cost problem.

I'm picturing a Kimi-Michael pairing. Sweet.(I doubt he'd agree to race but it's fun to dream)

[potmotr]

They'd never make it longer. Bernie wants the whole GP to fit neatly inside two hours, including podium ceremony. That's roughly the same length as a game of football, including post match interviews on TV.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

Make them longer, but have them run X number of laps on one course, then have them blend onto a modified version for the remaining laps to switch it up.

[DVtriple6]

It's long enough. Nor should it be any shorter.