94 replies to this topic

[chipmcdonald]

Yeah, I'm tired as well of this subject, particularly since *I think* we're going back to the 2015 rules that seemed to work?

 

BUT.... it would seem The Powers That Be are bent on screwing things up for 2017 and beyond. It would also seem the world is apt to argue about things without any sort of context.

 

Conceptually one might say that "qualifying" originated with determining if a car could race, and then yielding the arbitrary resulting idea that "we're going to line the grid up based on the fastest car/driver".

 

These are rules to a game.   It's not based on squiggles drawn by Richard Feynman, or many resolute testing to come up with an ISO standard.  It's just rules to a game.  Which is in essence, philosophy.

 

Some are concerned about making sure the arbitrary notion of "the fastest driver" starting at the front of the grid, despite this being contrary to a sensibly entertaining race result.  Others are concerned more about what kind of race results happen. As I see it, there are three parameters required to qualify one's position in this argument.  You can't be for the fastest car/driver starting in front and then expect that to create a great "race".  You can't expect to handicap the grid while arguing against someone who feels qualifying should only be about putting the faster ahead of the slower. 

 

 You can't negate that truth without altering the math of starting the cars in columns that has a built in handicap for the trailing cars.  You've either got to handicap the grid, handicap the system that sets the grid, or not have a grid at all.  Because of this, the past month has been a non-sensical vortex of opinion with no context.  Maybe this poll will reveal something new; I think one should be clear where one stands in regard to this, because there is no reconciling between a person willing to have a handicapped grid - be it reversed, offset by championship standing, whatever - with the idea of "it's got to be the fastest driver.".

 

YMMV and will I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by chipmcdonald, 09 April 2016 - 20:43.

[Marklar]

1st question: It should be about determining the fastest driver/car combination. It is a sport after all and the most fair way to determinate a gird (unless you can start them all of the same line) is to make a competition (qualifying) in which the fastest driver earns the 1st start position

 

2nd question: Why punishing others just because they are faster?

 

3rd question: I wouldn't mind a flying start. Though, I can't see that the grid would get more mixed up at the start.

[Kev00]

1st question: It should be about determining the fastest driver/car combination. It is a sport after all and the most fair way to determinate a gird (unless you can start them all of the same line) is to make a competition (qualifying) in which the fastest driver earns the 1st start position

Completely agree with this. The Grand Prix is a race, and as they can't all start side by side then they have to determine a way for them to line up at the start. The qualifying format should be both basic and fair IMO.

[myattitude]

Has anyone watched indoor cycling? They had a world championships a few weeks ago and one of the races was an elimination race. I was enthralled.

 

It would work well for qualy. 1 lap race, 1 lap break, and so on until it's a shootout between the last 2. This would only work if overtaking was unhindered by aero though, so maybe not right now.

[garoidb]

Qualfiying can be looked at as being the first lap of the race.  In line with this, I think it was very important to return to the situation where cars are being qualified in essentially the same state that they will start the race, doing away with qualifying engines and tyres etc. 

[TheMightySwoosh]

Seems like Bernie and co are making a big deal out of qualy to detract from the actual issues facing F1, sort that turbulence out and F1 will take care of itself, **** DRS, get back to proper overtakes, slipstream will sort that out. It doesn't need to be a sport dominated by aero just because it is, there's more than one way to make a car fast.

[sabjit]

Qualfiying can be looked at as being the first lap of the race.  In line with this, I think it was very important to return to the situation where cars are being qualified in essentially the same state that they will start the race, doing away with qualifying engines and tyres etc. 

 

Return? Its the situation we have right now.

[garoidb]

Return? Its the situation we have right now.

 

The post says ... was very important to return. Past tense. I know it is the situation we have right now. In the old days, qualifying often bore no resemblance to levels of competitiveness in the race. The thing to look out for was pace in Sunday morning practice where, lo and behold, Alain Prost was often quite fast. 

[PayasYouRace]

Lemon curry sounds disgusting.

 

More to the point, qualifying is there because we can't start all the cars in an equal line. So have each car do it's 0th lap of the race separately to determine the order that they go into lap 1. To make things more interesting, allow some modifications (tyre changes, fuel levels, etc), but keep the same basic format. Quickest at the front, slowest at the back.

[Peter0Scandlyn]

Lemon curry sounds disgusting.

 

 

   

 

[AGP]

Seems like Bernie and co are making a big deal out of qualy to detract from the actual issues facing F1, sort that turbulence out and F1 will take care of itself, **** DRS, get back to proper overtakes, slipstream will sort that out. It doesn't need to be a sport dominated by aero just because it is, there's more than one way to make a car fast.

If you inferring that the current format we have at the moment is aero we must be watching different formats. Want better racing allow manufactures to be able to catch up on development and not get punished with these stupid regulation we have had for the last few years.  Mercedes have buy far the best engine on the grid but I would like to also like to see F1 implement a rule where the engines performance is not allowed to be adjusted during qualifying or the race.   

[apoka]

Qualy should be about the fastest driver (and car). I do not see why we strictly have to line up the grid exactly in performance order though. That hasn't worked well for 20 years now in my opinion (although we are used to it) and got progressively worse with ultra reliable cars and ever better strategy simulations.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

If you inferring that the current format we have at the moment is aero we must be watching different formats. Want better racing allow manufactures to be able to catch up on development and not get punished with these stupid regulation we have had for the last few years. Mercedes have buy far the best engine on the grid but I would like to also like to see F1 implement a rule where the engines performance is not allowed to be adjusted during qualifying or the race.

It is the aero!! Until the cars can follow each other the racing will not improve!

[Murl]

Has anyone watched indoor cycling? They had a world championships a few weeks ago and one of the races was an elimination race. I was enthralled.

 

It would work well for qualy. 1 lap race, 1 lap break, and so on until it's a shootout between the last 2. This would only work if overtaking was unhindered by aero though, so maybe not right now.

 

 

The problem is that cycling aero is almost the direct opposite of F1. Being right behind your opponent is the BEST place to be. It is where you try to position yourself.

[BalanceUT]

This question is about philosophy of qualifying. It is the key question and I believe it is the one that Bernie is asking, though not really put it out there publicly. 

 

The current use and implied philosophy of qualifying is based on historical accident from a time when it was useful, reasonable, but not determinative for outcome of a race. When cars were not so highly reliable and aerodynamically refined, having pole was darned nice, but was only an advantage to the extent that you could get the car through the whole race without a major driver error (more likely with the greater degree of man-handling required) or mechanical reduction in performance. Because those two factors were highly likely, the advantage was not so determinative of the outcome of the race.

 

The history if qualifying is interesting. In the early years of Grand Prix racing, starting grid was determined by random draw. The 1933 Monaco Grand Prix was the first to base starting grid on qualifying time, fastest at the front. A variety of qualifying systems, historical and current use, are describe here: https://en.wikipedia...i/Pole_position and https://en.wikipedia...ifying_sessions

 

Most systems seem to prefer a philosophy of fastest qualifier gets pole position with some variation. But, times have changed in some ways, it is reasonable to question if that is necessarily the right approach for both sporting fairness and viewer entertainment.

 

For instance, engineers have gotten quite good at making the cars very reliable and adjustable for a variety of tracks and situations such that starting grid position is an overriding factor towards race outcome. That means less exciting races. Two things have been done that seem to be helping this season's first two races: 1) Increasing the skill needed in operating the clutch for race start and 2) tire selection (I think many are surprised by how much difference that is making). 

 

I think that it could be judged that sporting fairness suggests all teams get a chance at the front at some point in the season and all teams have to start towards the rear at some point in the season. Random draw with the caveat that no driver can start in the same grid position twice in a season until all grid positions have been used by a driver. Some would say that is a terrible thing to do because it is so difficult to pass. Yes, but not impossible. Remember the race in which Hamilton was forced to start at the rear and fought up through the pack to finish on the podium? That's great stuff! The better drivers will manage their 'back of the pack' problem better than other drivers.  Since everyone will have that problem over the course of a season, it is fair. 

 

Exception would be Monaco in which the current system should be maintained. Monaco is a strange track for the modern era, the race more glamour procession than competitive race (terrible tactical decisions by Mercedes in 2015 notwithstanding).  

 

If a random system is done based on a philosophy of fairness of initial start and determination of qualify of driver by those who manage much overtaking to the podium over the course of a race, all over the course of the season, then what to do about Saturdays? 

 

Saturdays maybe becomes "Reserve driver sprint race" day with random grid. This gets reserve drivers time in the cars, creates a high quality B competition among those drivers, etc. 

 

I expect the above to be hated. I'm OK with that. 

Edited by BalanceUT, 10 April 2016 - 14:34.

[chipmcdonald]

 The term "Qualifying", as BalanceUT writes, meant one thing at one time, but is now used as a placeholder for what is a time trial.   I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be a time trial on saturdays, I like it and think it is part of the DNA of F1.

 

 But what you do with the results is philosophical.  "Fair" is relative when you're racing cars that cost $500 million against $50 million.  The notion of putting the fastest guy at the front before you start a "race" in my opinion is completely non-sensical. The most primitive reduction of "racing" is a foot race against two humans - who agrees to racing someone shown to be faster by giving them a head start?  Yet this is what's considered "fair" in F1?

 

 What if one had a hypothetical mile long start straight that was wide enough at the start to accommodate lining all of the cars up side by side: would it sill be "fair" to put the fastest package multiple car lengths in front of the slower at the start?   Nobody in the history of the planet has said to someone else, "I'll race you to that stop sign, but you start 3 meters in front because you're faster".   Just because we've ended up with this in some forms of car racing doesn't mean it somehow makes sense (it doesn't) or that "tradition" somehow trumps *having an actual legitimate race*.

 

 

 I see no reason to have to connect the saturday time trial to the sunday race. You can have both, you award points for the results of both.  Disconnect the idea that the time trial must designate the starting order.  Reverse the starting order based on current standings so you have a fair race. 

Edited by chipmcdonald, 10 April 2016 - 15:12.

[THEWALL]

This confusion exists only in the heads of people that either don't understand or have a deformed view of auto racing or stakeholders that have other interests than to see good auto-racing. An auto-race is not a much faster car having to pass obstacles artificially put in its way so that people that don't have an idea about what racing is can be excited. And it's not about trying to create equality by creating inequality among the cars. It is about thinking about, in the first place, and then enforcing, a sensible set of rules that'll maximize the probability of there being good or great racing on-track. In reality it's pretty simple, but, as so many other things, it has been obscured by interests, which create politics, which create deliberate confusion and an end-product that only satisfies the very manipulators and destroyers of the whole process. As true racing fans, the only thing left for us, is not to succumb to the kind of analysis these very manipulators are pushing on us.

[MrWorldwideJr]

 

 

Just because we've ended up with this in some forms of car racing doesn't mean it somehow makes sense (it doesn't) or that "tradition" somehow trumps *having an actual legitimate race*.

 

 

 

 

It does make sense though. In fact its the logical thing to do if you want a legitimate competition. As you say we can't start everyone in the same place so somebody has to start ahead of everyone else. Now since we're at the track having a competition surely the logical and fair thing to do is to have a competition to decide who gets the advantage rather than deciding who we think is best and then trying to disadvantage them as much as possible. This way everyone has a chance to gain this advantage rather than the best competitors being punished for being good. Its the very definition of legitimate competition - there is an advantage to be had so we hold a competition and everyone has an equal opportunity to claim that advantage through being better than everyone else in that competition. Trying to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of the best competitors is not 'having a legitimate race' it is manipulating the race to try to make it as entertaining as possible at the expense of a fair competition.  Wanting the grid to be decided on qualifying order is not a case of being blindly wedded to tradition  - there are logical reasons for doing it that way and holding the opinion that it should continue in that manner.

 

Edit: To use your racing to a tree analogy would you say 'Let's race to that tree but I'll take a three meter head start because you're faster'. That's not a legitimate race, that's a race being manipulated in an effort to make it closer than it should be by giving a disadvantage to the faster racer purely for the crime of being faster. The only reason to do that is to make it more entertaining not to make it a fairer competition.

Edited by MrWorldwideJr, 10 April 2016 - 15:44.

[Rediscoveryx]

Well, if the tree analogy is to be used - and assuming that we apply the circumstances applicable to Grand Prix racing (ie, it's not possible to start side by side so circumstances forces someone to be picked for the head start) - you could certainly argue that the most fair version would be "since we're going to race each other 20 times this year, let's each start ahead of the other ten times".

 

 

Disregarding the above, I think this is a good thread start as the question really hits the core of the qualifying debate. However, I think that the options available to vote on are skewed and to a large extent seem based on not understanding the reasoning behind most of the alternative qualifying systems suggested. My personal view, for instance, is that the fastest guy in qualifying should be on pole without any sort of handicap system. I also believe that grid variety is important, partly due to the entertainment aspect, but also due to the fact that constantly running away from the field after starting first in the fastest car is not the sort of challenge I'd expect the world drivers champion to endure on his way to the title.

 

I think that the notion that "qualifying should be about determining the fastest driver and car" is somewhat ridiculous. It's about determining the starting order for the race, nothing more, nothing less. The race is where it should count. And I think we'd still figure out with relative ease that the Mercs are the fastest cars even if they weren't on pole for every single race.

 

My favoured system is the superpole version. One lap, one shot. Fastest guy on pole. Viewers get to see every corner from every driver's flying lap instead of the now standard static shot of cars crossing the finish line at the end of each session. Driver errors are severely punished which adds to the challenge. Grids would be more varied without handicapping anyone. Starting order could be determined by FP3-times or by a 10 minute pre-qualifying session or whatever. Doesn't really matter. For most races, we'd have the fastest guy on pole, just like today, but there would be greater variety and thus, every race on Sunday wouldn't start with the fastest guy already holding one hand on the winners trophy.

Edited by Rediscoveryx, 10 April 2016 - 19:54.

[Dr. Austin]

I don't know what was wrong with what we had the last few years. Everyone is in a panic to "save" formula one, but I don't think I have ever made a good decision when I was in a panic. The constant tinkering of the ruloes and procedures to improve the "show" smacks of desperation.

 

Just go back to what we have. Everyone seemed to like that. Of course, the simple solutions that actually work are often overlooked.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

I really think even 2015 qualifying format needs some tweaks as well. Sometimes traffic really causes problem for the cars on their hot lap.

[Dr. Austin]

Or, if you want to shake it up in an honest way, eliminate qualifying and let the teams test all day Saturday. This provides action for the fans, fills up the weekend, and gives the teams the test time they need to develop their cars.

 

Then, reverse the grid by points. Points leader starts last and lowest in points starts on pole. Hey, at least it is honest and the rules are the same for everyone. The fast cars are always in the back, and the slow cars, who usually get no TV exposure, are at the front (at least for a bit) for their sponsors. Sure you van nit pick the plan based on things like what do you do with drivers who have no point, or are tied, but you could use all the standard tiebreakers.

 

I mean, imagine if the Mercedes had to fight their way through everyone to get to the front.  You want to see passing, you'll see passing. Not only that, but they would have to pass the Ferraris instead of starting in front of them, and we have seen how difficult that can be. You could also end up with a lot of surprise winners. Force India has often run well, but if you put them midfield (where they usually qualify), and the Mercs and Ferraris in the rear, they could very well beat them.

 

Hey, it's goofey, but anything is better than what we saw the first two races.

 

This may be a moot pony because now they are saying they are reverting to 2015 quali procedures., but then again, they said that after Australia.

[TheMightySwoosh]

If you inferring that the current format we have at the moment is aero we must be watching different formats. Want better racing allow manufactures to be able to catch up on development and not get punished with these stupid regulation we have had for the last few years.  Mercedes have buy far the best engine on the grid but I would like to also like to see F1 implement a rule where the engines performance is not allowed to be adjusted during qualifying or the race.   

No, you've just misintepretted what I said. The speed differential between certain teams is down to power but a lot of the general speed of the cars is down to aero, just look how hard it is to follow a car, it should then be obvious to you how crucial aero is. Get rid of front wings, they're what makes following another car difficult, introduce grippier tyes, job done (maybe).

[Dr. Austin]

I don't know that we need to get rid of front wings completely, but the mega multi element wings we have now look utterly ridiculous. If they went with maybe a one or two element front wing with flat end plates, that would certainly make things simpler, cheaper, and bound to stir up less turbulence.

 

We can't go back to no wings and expect the cars to lap faster. I keep seeing people say F1 cars should be the fastest on the planet, but that's not possible without a lot of downforce.

 

Maybe the answer is less wing and more underbody. Indycars use more underbody and they car run close to each other, or they used to. . This year the newest aerokits look like lego building blocks tacked all over the cars.  There is so much downforce on them they are lapping Phoenix flat footed at 190mph, and that's only a I mile oval with minimal banking. Now, they also can't run behind each other because all that aero really disturbs the air behind the car. They were much better off with the old Dallara standard body kits that had very little top side aero and relied more on the under tray.

[Risil]

Can we keep this thread discussing Chip's question please?

 

What's qualifying? What, if any, relationship does it have with the race on Sunday? Should we care about who gets the fastest time? Etc.

[TheMightySwoosh]

I don't know that we need to get rid of front wings completely, but the mega multi element wings we have now look utterly ridiculous. If they went with maybe a one or two element front wing with flat end plates, that would certainly make things simpler, cheaper, and bound to stir up less turbulence.

 

We can't go back to no wings and expect the cars to lap faster. I keep seeing people say F1 cars should be the fastest on the planet, but that's not possible without a lot of downforce.

 

Maybe the answer is less wing and more underbody. Indycars use more underbody and they car run close to each other, or they used to. . This year the newest aerokits look like lego building blocks tacked all over the cars.  There is so much downforce on them they are lapping Phoenix flat footed at 190mph, and that's only a I mile oval with minimal banking. Now, they also can't run behind each other because all that aero really disturbs the air behind the car. They were much better off with the old Dallara standard body kits that had very little top side aero and relied more on the under tray.

Fast cars don't make for inherently good racing though, so much of the sense of speed is lost with how stable the cameras on the car are I think it's pointless chasing speed at the expense of close racing. Go ground effect if peope are that desperate for insane lap times though.

Edit: May bad didn't see the post above.

 

Ummm...qualifying should give the fastest guy the opportunity to stick it on pole but not guarantee him it, I think one lap qualy achieves that best. I'm on topic, honest...

Edited by TheMightySwoosh, 10 April 2016 - 22:54.

[readonly]

The term "Qualifying", as BalanceUT writes, meant one thing at one time, but is now used as a placeholder for what is a time trial. I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be a time trial on saturdays, I like it and think it is part of the DNA of F1.

But what you do with the results is philosophical. "Fair" is relative when you're racing cars that cost $500 million against $50 million. The notion of putting the fastest guy at the front before you start a "race" in my opinion is completely non-sensical. The most primitive reduction of "racing" is a foot race against two humans - who agrees to racing someone shown to be faster by giving them a head start? Yet this is what's considered "fair" in F1?

What if one had a hypothetical mile long start straight that was wide enough at the start to accommodate lining all of the cars up side by side: would it sill be "fair" to put the fastest package multiple car lengths in front of the slower at the start? Nobody in the history of the planet has said to someone else, "I'll race you to that stop sign, but you start 3 meters in front because you're faster". Just because we've ended up with this in some forms of car racing doesn't mean it somehow makes sense (it doesn't) or that "tradition" somehow trumps *having an actual legitimate race*.


I see no reason to have to connect the saturday time trial to the sunday race. You can have both, you award points for the results of both. Disconnect the idea that the time trial must designate the starting order. Reverse the starting order based on current standings so you have a fair race.

God bless you. That is THE ONE AND ONLY solution to ALL problems.
Sadly, the f1 powers can only see their own selfish interests and so F1 will NEVER get to solve its problems.
Some day a rival series will implement this and finally beat f1 to death.

Save this for future reference ....

[Dr. Austin]

Fast cars don't make for inherently good racing though, so much of the sense of speed is lost with how stable the cameras on the car are I think it's pointless chasing speed at the expense of close racing. Go ground effect if peope are that desperate for insane lap times though.

Edit: May bad didn't see the post above.

 

 

 

I guess that's the problem with expecting F1 to be all things to all people.

 

I think ground effects, at least in a limited form, would be far better than what we have. Like I say, Indycars used to run close until they started getting more downforce from the top of the car than the bottom. Topside air disturbs the car behind much more than underbody air. I'm not just making that up because this is what James Hinchcliff was saying after the last Indy test.

 

If you want to study ground effects vrs downforce gained from wings, watch what goes on this May in Indianapolis. They are requiring a domed skid on the bottom of the car that raises the ride hight and ruins the ground effects. The drivers absolutely hate it and say it will ruin the race. I'm sure there will be plenty of it written on various racing sites and we will hear all kinds of complaining from the drivers about dirty air.

 

The best way to keep from disturbing the air to the car behind is to minimize the downforce provided by the top of the car. Sometimes i think all the do-dads they stick on F1 cars are there just to screw up the air going to the car behind, and if it's not, they could not have planned it any better.

[ensign14]

The point of qualifying is to line the cars up in a way that gives the fastest a head start.  Cloudcuckooland logic.  There ought indeed be no need for qualifying, you don't start Usain Bolt at 100m and some stochastic American at 110m, but tracks are not wide enough for a fair go of things. 

 

There shouldn't be any qualifying.  But we've gone from that to the most important part of a three day race weekend - the thing that effectively determines the winner - being the two seconds of the start. 

 

Scrap qualifying, line them up in reverse championship order, and see how long it takes the "working " group "committee" to come up with rules that permit actual overtaking.  After half-a-season of Manor 1-2s they'd be forced to do something.

[HoldenRT]

Qualifying was never the issue, why are we even talking about it?

[Darth Sidious]

Without wishing to prolong the qualifying 'discussion' any further, why can't the cars line up alongside in threes ( except maybe Monaco). The fastest three start on the same row, the quicker having the optimum line to turn one ( or the rubbered in spot), the slower the middle 'sandwiched' slot. (or give each of the trio choice of where he starts, poleman having first dibs.) Ten meters behind are the next three qualifiers, the same principle determining their starting positions. It's not artificially jumbling up the order of the race for 'the show' but does give much more of an opportunity for mixing things up at turn one than the current qualifying scenario.

 

You don't need aero modifications to introduce this 'limited mix', and you still get to keep qualifying in it's essence - a procedure for determining grid position based on performance. You just don't get that ten meter comfort zone any more.

Edited by Darth Sidious, 11 April 2016 - 11:42.

[Stephane]

On the bigger tracks, you could start 4 abreast quite easily.

[Rediscoveryx]

Without knowing for sure I'd guess that there would be safery concerns about such a system.

[Darth Sidious]

Without knowing for sure I'd guess that there would be safery concerns about such a system.

 

Admittedly so, because you're compressing a 250m long grid into about 80m.

So make it 20m between row 1 and row 2 etc to give enough reaction time to avoid a car stalled on the grid.

Or a three abreast rolling start......

 

Just throwing an idea out there for systematic destruction - just like most everybody else is.

[Kev00]

I think it would just be silly to more than two wide. Gutierrez for example had a great launch in the last race and weaved through the pack ahead. It just wouldn't be possible if they were 3 or 4 wide. I would rather see good starts being rewarded.

[Rediscoveryx]

Or if the car in the middle stalls there'd be no room to go for the car in the middle of the following row. Except perhaps to hit the brakes, but then you have they guy in the middle one row further back....

[PlatenGlass]

I think another point about qualifying is that it's not just that you can't physically fit all the cars next to each other, but that I'm not sure you'd want to. Forget "mixing up the grid for the show" for a minute. It's supposed to be a fair competition where the best driver/car combination is the likely winner. If everyone started together, the start would become the most important thing in the race. In a sense it is fair, but it's also not really the thing we're trying to "measure" and it would become more of a lottery. So I'd rather have qualifying where drivers and teams are measured on the thing we're looking at (how quickly they can get round a track) and have the starting order based on that.

Also, I really don't see it as giving the best drivers/cars any sort of unfair advantage, or even giving them an advantage. Qualifying is part of the competition. Saying it's unfair is no different from saying that it's unfair that the team who scores first in a football game should be given a one goal head-start. They're not because the goal they scored was part of the competition. Ditto qualifying.

[PayasYouRace]

Without wishing to prolong the qualifying 'discussion' any further, why can't the cars line up alongside in threes ( except maybe Monaco). The fastest three start on the same row, the quicker having the optimum line to turn one ( or the rubbered in spot), the slower the middle 'sandwiched' slot. (or give each of the trio choice of where he starts, poleman having first dibs.) Ten meters behind are the next three qualifiers, the same principle determining their starting positions. It's not artificially jumbling up the order of the race for 'the show' but does give much more of an opportunity for mixing things up at turn one than the current qualifying scenario.

 

You don't need aero modifications to introduce this 'limited mix', and you still get to keep qualifying in it's essence - a procedure for determining grid position based on performance. You just don't get that ten meter comfort zone any more.

 

It used to be done that way. The traditional starting grid was 3-2-3-2-3-2. It even used to be the case that the poleman could choose which side of the grid. I seem to remember John Watson screwed himself over at Monaco in 1977 because he chose the side where he thought he'd have a better line into Ste Devote, but his rear tyres ended up over some painted lines and he lost out at the start.

 

But it doesn't leave a lot of space in the case of a stalled car, so the grid was spread out to the staggered 2-2-2-2 that we're familiar with today.

 

It's just a safety thing.

[R Soul]

Scrap qualifying, line them up in reverse championship order, and see how long it takes the "working " group "committee" to come up with rules that permit actual overtaking.  After half-a-season of Manor 1-2s they'd be forced to do something.

 

They'll fudge it. We'll end up with DRS detection lines before every corner, and activation lines at every corner exit.

 

And reverse champtionship order is a punishment for success. There are only two fair ways of arranging the gird: Based on fastest qualifying lap or randomly. But the latter would be open to certain accusations if people thought a certain driver kept getting bad (or good) grid positions.

[ensign14]

But it doesn't leave a lot of space in the case of a stalled car, so the grid was spread out to the staggered 2-2-2-2 that we're familiar with today.

 

It's not a 2-2-2-2 though.  It's a 1-1-1-1-1.  The cars do not line up side by side.  2nd is as far away from 3rd as it is from 1st.  It makes no sense to talk about "rows".

[PayasYouRace]

It's not a 2-2-2-2 though.  It's a 1-1-1-1-1.  The cars do not line up side by side.  2nd is as far away from 3rd as it is from 1st.  It makes no sense to talk about "rows".

 

It's staggered 2-2-2-2. 1-1-1-1 would be each car in line behind the next, no?

[ensign14]

A staggered 2-2-2 would be a bit like a chessboard.  It's a staggered 1-1-1. 

[ardbeg]

 

 

2nd question: Why punishing others just because they are faster?

 

And why punishing others just because the are slower?

Standard argument and it is still true. The fastest cars are currently getting a head start and it is not so far fetched to deduct that that simple fact has a pretty big influence in the leaders getting away and us falling asleep.

[PlatenGlass]

And why punishing others just because the are slower?

Standard argument and it is still true. The fastest cars are currently getting a head start and it is not so far fetched to deduct that that simple fact has a pretty big influence in the leaders getting away and us falling asleep.

They've won their grid position in qualifying - part of the competition. Same reason the leader at the end of the first lap gets a head start from the second lap onwards. He's won the right by getting round the first lap in the lead.

[ensign14]

 

They've won their grid position in qualifying - part of the competition. Same reason the leader at the end of the first lap gets a head start from the second lap onwards. He's won the right by getting round the first lap in the lead.

The reward for being faster though is the race. Qualifying is not part of the race, it is to avoid a safety nightmare. And, of course, how much is that faster speed earned, compared to bought with an FOM bribe...

[readonly]

They've won their grid position in qualifying - part of the competition. Same reason the leader at the end of the first lap gets a head start from the second lap onwards. He's won the right by getting round the first lap in the lead.

You are talking about different disciplines within the same sport, different ice cream flavours. They require a different set of skills from participants.
Which is better ? Nobody knows until both are used. Which you prefer ? That is irelevant. Which is fairer ? None. Both are fair. Period.

[chipmcdonald]

surely the logical and fair thing to do is to have a competition to decide who gets the advantage rather than deciding who we think is best and then trying to disadvantage them as much as possible.

 

If you have a competition to decide who gets the advantage.... why do you have another one after you already know who has the advantage?  How is that logical?  That's an arbitrary concept.

 

 In drag racing it's the reverse.  You don't run foot races giving an advantage to the known fastest.  What kind of sense does that make?

[chipmcdonald]

I think that the notion that "qualifying should be about determining the fastest driver and car" is somewhat ridiculous.

 

 

 So... you vote "no".....

Edited by chipmcdonald, 14 April 2016 - 18:52.

[chipmcdonald]

They've won their grid position in qualifying - part of the competition.

 

 

 

 That's part of *the event*.  Putting the faster guy in front is inherently anti-competitive.

[chipmcdonald]

 

 

And reverse champtionship order is a punishment for success.

 

 

 No it's not.  Just because you can combine words in a sentence doesn't mean there is a relationship.  It's *a game*, the rules can be however you want.  If someone is ahead in the championship, they're ahead in the championship.  How the game works at the next step is arbitrary.  If it was "punishment", that would imply nobody would want to be championship leader, and everyone would sandbag, just because they don't want to be "punished". Which is of course not what would happen.