57 replies to this topic

[Pingguest]

Lewis Hamilton admitted that he drove with a dry-weather set up and lacked pace in the wet conditions. This is due to the post-qualifying parc fermé, under which cars may not be altered until the first pitstop in the race. Article 34.1 of the Sporting Regulations drivers are only allowed to change the front wing settings and in case of changing weather the air ducts around the brakes.

This practise has nothing to do with racing. Teams have to gamble on the weather for tomorrow's race and send out their drivers with setups not fitting the current weather conditions. This piece of legislation creates artificial starting grids and very dangerous situations. And the worst thing is that the post-qualifying parc fermé will continue to exist for next year.

[Henrytheeigth]

Ive always hated parc ferme! I miss morning warm as well, it just isnt F1!

[Tenmantaylor]

Rather than complain about the rules why on earth with an obviously wet qual session coming up and a high chance of a wet race would you decide to use a dry setup for both? Madness from McLaren.

At least the rule adds something to shake up the race pace of the teams for the race if its wet to dry or vice versa.

Be glad its like this. If it was dry all weekend we'd have a precessional race where I suspect alot would complain about that fact too. We always have the best races where the teams are ill prepared or have to make spur of the moment decisions.

The longer the engineers have to plot and perfect the more boring the races are. Keep it as it is if you want interesting less predictable racing.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 17 October 2009 - 18:49.

[Pingguest]

Rather than complain about the rules why on earth with an obviously wet qual session coming up and a high chance of a wet race would you decide to use a dry setup for both? Madness from McLaren.

At least the rule adds something to shake up the race pace of the teams for the race if its wet to dry or vice versa.

Be glad its like this. If it was dry all weekend we'd have a precessional race where I suspect alot would complain about that fact too. We always have the best races where the teams are ill prepared or have to make spur of the moment decisions.

The longer the engineers have to plot and perfect the more boring the races are. Keep it as it is if you want interesting less predictable racing.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make sense. The irony is that the post-qualifying parc fermé made the races more predictable instead of less. Under the current set of rules cars qualify with the very same specifications and thus the same pace for the race. In other words, usually the starting grid is ordered to the race pace.

[alfa1]

In other words, usually the starting grid is ordered to the race pace.

I agree with you.
In the past, it used to be that teams would make changes to the cars overnight and during morning warmup, so the grid was NOT the race pace of the cars. ie: more overtaking during the race.

[Tenmantaylor]

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make sense. The irony is that the post-qualifying parc fermé made the races more predictable instead of less. Under the current set of rules cars qualify with the very same specifications and thus the same pace for the race. In other words, usually the starting grid is ordered to the race pace.

Only if conditions remain the same. McLaren and Vettel wil be hoping they dont.

[Atreiu]

I hate parc-feme as well. Wasn't it originally brought in to stop teams from using special qualifying engines and then change them for the race?
With the engine count put in place today, it seems might unecessary to still have the procedure.

[marcm]

It seems daft to complain about it with regard to lewis when he has benefitted so much from it in the past. Eg Silverstone 2008.

It's the same for everyone ... and the gamble may yet pay off - with a dry race tomorrow his dry setup will help.

[Dragonfly]

It seems daft to complain about it with regard to lewis when he has benefitted so much from it in the past. Eg Silverstone 2008.

It's the same for everyone ... and the gamble may yet pay off - with a dry race tomorrow his dry setup will help.

I thought F1 was about straight and fair competition at all levels. Stupid me.

[marcm]

I thought F1 was about straight and fair competition at all levels. Stupid me.

LOL ... who ever said F1 was about "straight and fair competition at all levels"?

Nobody can control the weather - historically all wet races since the inception of F1 have required an element of gambling! When to change tyres, what setup to choose, how hard to push etc etc.

[Clatter]

LOL ... who ever said F1 was about "straight and fair competition at all levels"?

Nobody can control the weather - historically all wet races since the inception of F1 have required an element of gambling! When to change tyres, what setup to choose, how hard to push etc etc.

But with the parc ferme system you are having to gamble a day ahead and compromise your setup for either Q, race or both.

[The Ragged Edge]

Ive always hated parc ferme! I miss morning warm as well, it just isnt F1!

These rules were brought in to give the poor mechanics a well deserved break. Otherwise they were worked to the bones. Parc Ferme rules, 9 times out of 10, gives the mechanics a break, unless they have to fix a crashed car from qualifying. Unless you are a Toro Rosso mechanic, or a mechanic for a mid-season replacement. This rule works in your favour.

Edited by The Ragged Edge, 17 October 2009 - 20:37.

[eff1fan]

Lewis Hamilton admitted that he drove with a dry-weather set up and lacked pace in the wet conditions. This is due to the post-qualifying parc fermé, under which cars may not be altered until the first pitstop in the race. Article 34.1 of the Sporting Regulations drivers are only allowed to change the front wing settings and in case of changing weather the air ducts around the brakes.

This practise has nothing to do with racing. Teams have to gamble on the weather for tomorrow's race and send out their drivers with setups not fitting the current weather conditions. This piece of legislation creates artificial starting grids and very dangerous situations. And the worst thing is that the post-qualifying parc fermé will continue to exist for next year.

Completely agree with you on this.
Parc ferme' has nothing to do with F1 racing, it's a gimmick just like having to run both types of tire compounds, limit on # of engines, elimination of testing...

[Clatter]

These rules were brought in to give the poor mechanics a well deserved break. Otherwise they were worked to the bones. Parc Ferme rules, 9 times out of 10, gives the mechanics a break, unless they have to fix a crashed car from qualifying. Unless you are a Toro Rosso mechanic, or a mechanic for a mid-season replacement. This rule works in your favour.

They were never introduced for the benefit of the mechanics, that's absolute nonsense.

[MikeTekRacing]

I thought F1 was about straight and fair competition at all levels. Stupid me.

but the others weren't stopped by anybody to take the same gamble
it's not like in the 1 lap qualy when you were scheduled to go at 2:21PM just after the rain started with no fault of your owns....
here you make your own luck. or at least you are the only one responsible for the decision

[Dragonfly]

LOL ... who ever said F1 was about "straight and fair competition at all levels"?

Nobody can control the weather - historically all wet races since the inception of F1 have required an element of gambling! When to change tyres, what setup to choose, how hard to push etc etc.

I suspect Bernie has a hot telephone line to heavens

Once upon a time there were 2 qualifications - one on Friday, one on Saturday, best time counted. Clever people, based on long experience, have reached to a format that reduced a lot the risk of qualifications like today's one. Then there came Bernie and Max ...

[maccaFTW]

Parc ferme is an excellent policy for all-dry races. We can't have teams spending so much money to basically develop one car for qualifying and another for the race, which is what happened in the past.

But when there's any uncertainty about a wet/dry weekend, parc ferme should be suspended.

[Clatter]

Parc ferme is an excellent policy for all-dry races. We can't have teams spending so much money to basically develop one car for qualifying and another for the race, which is what happened in the past.

But when there's any uncertainty about a wet/dry weekend, parc ferme should be suspended.

You don't need Parc Ferme to acheive that. It's perfectly feasible to not allow the replacing of components, while still allowing setup changes.

[undersquare]

Well if it's dry tomorrow the parc ferme rule will give us a much more interesting race. The cars are so close now, there's no safety issue at all in how the grid is ordered. A tactical element, perfectly valid.

Race what you qualify, quite natural really I don't see the problem.

[wewantourdarbyback]

I thought F1 was about straight and fair competition at all levels. Stupid me.

You'd like a spec series then?

What about tyre choice? Choosing when to change to dry tyres on a damp track?

All gambles.
I don't like parc ferme rules but F1 is all about trying to gain advantages over the rest within the rules.

[Crazy Ninja]

I hate parc-feme as well. Wasn't it originally brought in to stop teams from using special qualifying engines and then change them for the race?
With the engine count put in place today, it seems might unecessary to still have the procedure.

Yeah i think thats the logic behind it. Saves teams a fortune from developing qualy specials.

[MikeTekRacing]

You don't need Parc Ferme to acheive that. It's perfectly feasible to not allow the replacing of components, while still allowing setup changes.

and you would again have cars less capable of being wrong on race day so less chance of overtaking.
perfect qualy system with perfect setups and strategy will just lead to race result being decided after turn 1 (excluding reliability issues)

now you have to make a gamble, or a trade as you wish...wet today, dry tomorrow...
go for wet setup, qualy in front of cars that will be faster tomorrow..more chance to see some action
i guess this is where it has started from

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 17 October 2009 - 22:00.

[maccaFTW]

Well if it's dry tomorrow the parc ferme rule will give us a much more interesting race. The cars are so close now, there's no safety issue at all in how the grid is ordered. A tactical element, perfectly valid.

Race what you qualify, quite natural really I don't see the problem.

If it's dry tomorrow, they're going to be all over the place. Guys who are on a dry setup- Hamilton, Vettel, Kovalainen, Kubica- will fly through the field and be seconds quicker than everyone else.

Button is in a really bad spot, as he's right in front of them. If it's wet tomorrow, then he could be ok.

[mursuka80]

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make sense. The irony is that the post-qualifying parc fermé made the races more predictable instead of less. Under the current set of rules cars qualify with the very same specifications and thus the same pace for the race. In other words, usually the starting grid is ordered to the race pace.

Unless you are Heikki Kovalainen

[Clatter]

and you would again have cars less capable of being wrong on race day so less chance of overtaking.
perfect qualy system with perfect setups and strategy will just lead to race result being decided after turn 1 (excluding reliability issues)

now you have to make a gamble, or a trade as you wish...wet today, dry tomorrow...
go for wet setup, qualy in front of cars that will be faster tomorrow..more chance to see some action
i guess this is where it has started from

So what you prefer is an artificial grid then.

[Just waiting]

it is okay as long as wet qing, then wet race.

otherwise if the weather changes, then the car should be changed.

they do it for races where it is dry for friday and saturday until race time, then it is flooding, so they can change it.

but no, not in this case???????

[Just waiting]

Parc ferme is an excellent policy for all-dry races. We can't have teams spending so much money to basically develop one car for qualifying and another for the race, which is what happened in the past.

But when there's any uncertainty about a wet/dry weekend, parc ferme should be suspended.

[HP]

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make sense. The irony is that the post-qualifying parc fermé made the races more predictable instead of less. Under the current set of rules cars qualify with the very same specifications and thus the same pace for the race. In other words, usually the starting grid is ordered to the race pace.

I agree.

Thankfully next year, because of refueling ban, they qualify low fuel. It will be a bit different, as there is a compromise to be reached, since the car needs to handle good, when fueled up.

Unfortunately teams building cars optimized for qualifying, including engines became way too expensive. I enjoyed it more when there was no parc ferme rule. Montoya getting 5 pole positions in a row, but in the race he failed to take advantage of it. That added suspense.

A better idea is needed.

However when a teams gambles on a dry-weather setup, when it looks like rain, then that's it.

[HP]

Parc ferme is an excellent policy for all-dry races. We can't have teams spending so much money to basically develop one car for qualifying and another for the race, which is what happened in the past.

But when there's any uncertainty about a wet/dry weekend, parc ferme should be suspended.

I'm not convinced that it's an excellent policy. It just highlights teams setup and strategic choices and guesses, may they be correct for race day or not.

The real problem IMO is that F1 is over-engineered these days, and they have too much money to try all kinds of different engineering solutions. On race weekend they have too much technical feedback, including to the drivers.

To me the obvious way is to limit the technical feedback on race weekends. Limit the number of race-engineers, and technical equipment a team is allowed to take with them. It could be done in a way that teams have a limited choice of what kind of equipment they want to carry with them. Let's say from (n) different systems, they are allowed to bring (n-2) to races. IMO that's not dumbing down, but concentrating engineering efforts, forcing to put up an effort on sound guesses. And drivers will be forced to improvise.

Especially disallow race engineer to driver communication. Driver should manage their own race, they shouldn't be nannied by their engineers. And no I'm not talking about "Felipe baby" kind of comments, but when engineers tell drivers technical info. The "progress" in F1 has been partially at the cost of taking away decision making from the driver, and that IMO is terribly wrong. Automated gearboxes, drviers being told when to turn which switch. IMO legenadry rivaleries like the one with Senna and Prost have possible been because of less race engineer interference.

For instance, back in those days, Hamilton would like Senna displayed an all out attack mentality, while he might have been outsmarted sometimes by a driver of the mould of Prost. Prost didn't get his nickname "Professor" by chance. Prost was a genius at managing a race, while Senna was a genius at obliterating the competition at the start of the race. Both had a fair share of wins and championships, and we spectators mostly loved the rivalery . Engineering has it's place, but please, if anybody from FiA listens, get rid of the engineer talk during a race. Don't let teams micro-manage everything.

Parc ferme is not the place to decide a races outcome, neither race-engineer telling the driver how to manage the car during a race.

Edited by HP, 18 October 2009 - 03:11.

[Lukin]

Do you think it could have been a very smart ploy by McLaren? Arent there rules that if they change the car it starts from pitlane?

So they know it's going to be wet for qualifying but aren't sure about the Race. They figure most will go with a 'wet' setup and could risk being off the pace in the dry. They send it out with a 'dry' setup and hope for the best. The worst case is they qualify at the back which they have done.

Come race day if it's dry your laughing! Drive through the field and win the race.
If it's wet, change the car back to 'wet' setup and start from pitlane. You've lost 2-3 spots, gain car safety on the first lap and aren't that much further behind than you would have been otherwise.

So small loss (if it stays wet) for big gain (if it's dry). If they have doubts about their dry pace or are confident about their wet pace (to be able to come from the back) it might not be the dumbest idea?

[Kalmake]

McLaren reckon they would be slow in a wet race with any setup, because they are lacking downforce compared to other teams. So they put the money on it being dry. Williams may be doing the opposite.


Wing and ride height setup should be freed from parc ferme when qualifying is wet. Now we have sessions red flagged just because cars are not setup for the conditions.

[Captain Tightpants]

Lewis Hamilton admitted that he drove with a dry-weather set up and lacked pace in the wet conditions. This is due to the post-qualifying parc fermé, under which cars may not be altered until the first pitstop in the race. Article 34.1 of the Sporting Regulations drivers are only allowed to change the front wing settings and in case of changing weather the air ducts around the brakes.

This practise has nothing to do with racing. Teams have to gamble on the weather for tomorrow's race and send out their drivers with setups not fitting the current weather conditions. This piece of legislation creates artificial starting grids and very dangerous situations. And the worst thing is that the post-qualifying parc fermé will continue to exist for next year.

Are you sure you're not just angry that Hamilton is not in a position to lead the race from early on? I'm willing to bet that if he'd made Q3, this thread wouldn't exist.

[Aubwi]

The worst thing about parc ferme is that it makes qualifying meaningless. Even in the dry, you don't know who has compromised their setup for better race performance. You don't find out until afterwards how much fuel they are carrying, so as far as the viewer is concerned, it's just as much a lottery as it is a competition. And if qualifying can't be used to compare performance, then it's pretty much pointless and boring to watch. I never watch it anymore.

Edited by Aubwi, 18 October 2009 - 06:13.

[Birelman]

Yea, I hate this stupid type of Parc Ferme, I can understand the motives for it, but some other method must be found.

maybe with the budget caps and stuff they can get rid of it, I mean teams will have to manage their budgets, it's not like it's going to get out of hand, right? Maybe they can get rid of it, and in fact go back to 1 hour qualifying with 12 laps maximum, and get rid of the stupid rule where they have ti use both compounds in the race.

Here's to hoping!!!!

[The Ragged Edge]

They were never introduced for the benefit of the mechanics, that's absolute nonsense.

I remember them clearly talking about it on TV. There was other reasons for bringing in Parc Ferme rules, but a major point was in order to give the mechanics a break.

[Clatter]

I remember them clearly talking about it on TV. There was other reasons for bringing in Parc Ferme rules, but a major point was in order to give the mechanics a break.

It was never the reason for it though. The sole reason it was brought in was to prevent teams using special qualifying cars.

[MikeTekRacing]

So what you prefer is an artificial grid then.

why is it artificial? it's everybody's call to make. take a chance, it can go right or wrong. it's your own choice.

[Dragonfly]

You'd like a spec series then?

What about tyre choice? Choosing when to change to dry tyres on a damp track?

All gambles.
I don't like parc ferme rules but F1 is all about trying to gain advantages over the rest within the rules.

You must have applied a very strange logic to come to that conclusion.
Competition on all levels means just the opposite - driver vs driver on track, set-ups, engineering, dynamic race tactics. In the course of the last 10 or 15 years so many restrictions have been introduced, that F1 is very close to a spec series ATM.

[potmotr]

It is an utterly ridiculous situation.

F1 is motorsport's highest level.

At any other level, from karting upward, you tune your machine to suit the conditions.

Lowering the ride height, changing the wings etc would take the mechanics an absolute minimum amont of time.

Otherwise we have the totally stupid situation of cars running in the wet using dry set ups and vice versa.

Crazy.

[Pingguest]

Parc ferme is an excellent policy for all-dry races. We can't have teams spending so much money to basically develop one car for qualifying and another for the race, which is what happened in the past.

But when there's any uncertainty about a wet/dry weekend, parc ferme should be suspended.

I'm sorry, but so far there hasn't been much prove that the cost cutting measures were effective. The only thing those measures did was making teams spend money on something else.

Are you sure you're not just angry that Hamilton is not in a position to lead the race from early on? I'm willing to bet that if he'd made Q3, this thread wouldn't exist.

No, I'm not a Hamilton fan.

[marcm]

It is an utterly ridiculous situation.

F1 is motorsport's highest level.

At any other level, from karting upward, you tune your machine to suit the conditions.

Lowering the ride height, changing the wings etc would take the mechanics an absolute minimum amont of time.

Otherwise we have the totally stupid situation of cars running in the wet using dry set ups and vice versa.

Crazy.

Have you tried a club 100 race yet? You'll enjoy driving a 2 stroke in the wet on slicks!

[anthony says]

It is an utterly ridiculous situation.
F1 is motorsport's highest level.
At any other level, from karting upward, you tune your machine to suit the conditions.
Lowering the ride height, changing the wings etc would take the mechanics an absolute minimum amont of time.
Otherwise we have the totally stupid situation of cars running in the wet using dry set ups and vice versa.
Crazy.

I completely agree. It's ridiculous having to do a wet qualifying with a dry set up.

If Liuzzi or a marshall had been killed yesterday, this stupid rule would be on its way out already. If you have a wet qualifying and a dry forecast for the race, everybody has to do the wet qualifying with a dry set up. That is fundamentally dangerous and other things that are dangerous have been outlawed.

There isn't an issue about special qualifying cars or mechanics needing rest. Changing a car between wet and dry set up could be the only change allowed, and it wouldn't take the mechanics more than a few minutes.

[marcm]

I completely agree. It's ridiculous having to do a wet qualifying with a dry set up.

If Liuzzi or a marshall had been killed yesterday, this stupid rule would be on its way out already. If you have a wet qualifying and a dry forecast for the race, everybody has to do the wet qualifying with a dry set up. That is fundamentally dangerous and other things that are dangerous have been outlawed.

There isn't an issue about special qualifying cars or mechanics needing rest. Changing a car between wet and dry set up could be the only change allowed, and it wouldn't take the mechanics more than a few minutes.

Racing is dangerous ... people get killed .. perhaps we shouldn't be doing it at all.

The danger isn't the issue here - it's important to make the distinction between making a change to improve the racing and making a change on the grounds of safety. If we don't it's a slippery slope that eventually ends up with racing being banned altogether!

[grunge]

this isnt about ''taking risks'' or better ''planning''

this is gambling .pure and simple.u have to decide A WHOLE DAY before the actual race about their setups..u either screw up your quali or your race or even both.
the rule was placed to stop teams from essentially using two different cars for quali and race..i believe u can still implement that by limited restrictions which allow setup changes while banning change of components as clatter suggested ..this would serve the same purpose..u wouldnt have the utterly ridiculous scenario of teams having to race with dry setups on a wet track.
if the rule was implemented on a local kart championship..fine..makes things interesting ..big risks to take!..

this is f1.the pinnacle of all motorsport..

[potmotr]

Have you tried a club 100 race yet? You'll enjoy driving a 2 stroke in the wet on slicks!

Sadly not this season as I've had too much on!

I've raced karts on slicks back when I was racing.

Bad scene when others are on wets especially when not changing the widths of the fronts and rears and adjusting the stiffness!

[anthony says]

Racing is dangerous ... people get killed .. perhaps we shouldn't be doing it at all.

The danger isn't the issue here - it's important to make the distinction between making a change to improve the racing and making a change on the grounds of safety. If we don't it's a slippery slope that eventually ends up with racing being banned altogether!

So you would outlaw wet-weather tyres? Same principle as you're suggesting.

[marcm]

So you would outlaw wet-weather tyres? Same principle as you're suggesting.

Not at all ... all i'm saying is that if there is a reason to change the parc ferme rules, that reason isn't the danger.

[VresiBerba]

And the worst thing is that the post-qualifying parc fermé will continue to exist for next year.

And thank God for that. You know why the rule exists do you? It prevented Lewis qualifying with a rain-car and driving the race with a dry-car, creating even more bogus grids.

[anthony says]

Not at all ... all i'm saying is that if there is a reason to change the parc ferme rules, that reason isn't the danger.

Reducing unnecessary danger is a good enough reason to do anything. Especially something that is just a simple addition to the list of things that can be adjusted on race morning when the cars are released from parc ferme.

[King Six]

And thank God for that. You know why the rule exists do you? It prevented Lewis qualifying with a rain-car and driving the race with a dry-car, creating even more bogus grids.

I think people are pretty much split even for and against par ferme. But I'd argue that Drivers qualifying with rain-cars and racing with dry-cars (weather permitting) makes more sense and would create much less of a 'bogus grid'. It's also safer too. What if it's dry during Qualifying but rains on race day. There's a higher chance that the race will be red flagged because everyone's on a dry, ruining the day for everyone especially spectators and putting the drivers at risk.

F1 is all about tuning the cars to the conditions to the point now where you can tune the car during a lap.