94 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

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.

Well whether you want to call it a "punishment" or not is up to you. But it's a negative consequence for success. And no, it doesn't mean no-one would want to be the championship leader because there are still positive reasons for wanting to be leading that might outweigh the negative consequences.

And you can just call it a game if you want so you can have any rules you want. But some games are crap and obviously contrived attempts at spicing up "the show".

[PlatenGlass]

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

Not really. Competition doesn't mean giving everyone a chance. Why not just allow people off the street to join in as well with their road cars but with a 30-lap head start or something? Why should exactly 21 people get some advantage over the championship leader but no-one behind them in the general racing pecking order?

[PlatenGlass]

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...

Whether the money distribution or whatever is currently fair is a separate issue.

But in a competition, if there are advantages to be had (e.g. starting ahead), it makes sense to award them on merit. That's what competition is.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 14 April 2016 - 22:28.

[Tsarwash]

Well whether you want to call it a "punishment" or not is up to you. But it's a negative consequence for success. And no, it doesn't mean no-one would want to be the championship leader because there are still positive reasons for wanting to be leading that might outweigh the negative consequences.

And you can just call it a game if you want so you can have any rules you want. But some games are crap and obviously contrived attempts at spicing up "the show".

It is just as contrived to put the faster cars at the front for the start of the race as it is to put the slower ones at the front. It's just that we are used to the former idea over the latter. The only non-contrived way is to allow all cars to start side by side. 

[Frank Tuesday]

You don't run foot races giving an advantage to the known fastest. What kind of sense does that make?

Sure you do. In a marathon, the runners with the fastest qualifying times start at the front. In the 400m, faster runners get the outer lanes which are easier to run because the radius is greater. In swimming, the fastest swimmers get the middle lanes which have less wave effect from the side of the pool. In drag racing, the fastest qualifier races against the slowest. In bicycle racing, the riders with the most yearly points start on the front row. In motocross and supercross, the fastest qualifier gets first gate pick. In almost every form of racing, the fastest gets some advantage at the start of the race/event.

[Frank Tuesday]

It is just as contrived to put the faster cars at the front for the start of the race as it is to put the slower ones at the front. It's just that we are used to the former idea over the latter. The only non-contrived way is to allow all cars to start side by side.

But how do you line them up? Does the fastest or slowest get first pick? Some positions will always be better. The only fair way would be for everyone to start from the exact same place, which is impossible.

[PlatenGlass]

Sure you do. In a marathon, the runners with the fastest qualifying times start at the front. In the 400m, faster runners get the outer lanes which are easier to run because the radius is greater. In swimming, the fastest swimmers get the middle lanes which have less wave effect from the side of the pool. In drag racing, the fastest qualifier races against the slowest. In bicycle racing, the riders with the most yearly points start on the front row. In motocross and supercross, the fastest qualifier gets first gate pick. In almost every form of racing, the fastest gets some advantage at the start of the race/event.

And it's not just races. In competitions with seedings, the top seed gets to play the bottom seed etc. In the show Pointless on BBC1, the team that does the best in the previous rounds gets to pick first in the head-to-head round. It's everywhere. And it's fair and logical.

[Buttoneer]

I went with the majority except for "Qualifying Should ONLY Be About Determining the Fastest Driver and Car" which I can't agree with.

If you order the cars on the grid from fastest to slowest, save for a few changes due to error and other factors, you are essentially determining the race finish positions. The fastest car, at the front, will race ahead of the rest. I prefer that the qualifying establishes the quickest combination and also had one eye on the race, and that means creating slightly different or unreal conditions for qualifying which ensure some cars are out of place.

[PlatenGlass]

I went with the majority except for "Qualifying Should ONLY Be About Determining the Fastest Driver and Car" which I can't agree with.

If you order the cars on the grid from fastest to slowest, save for a few changes due to error and other factors, you are essentially determining the race finish positions. The fastest car, at the front, will race ahead of the rest. I prefer that the qualifying establishes the quickest combination and also had one eye on the race, and that means creating slightly different or unreal conditions for qualifying which ensure some cars are out of place.

I would prefer them to fix the root cause rather than have things to spice up "the show". It is a problem that Mercedes have dominated for the last couple of years. If cars were closer together it would be perfectly possible for someone to qualify behind someone else but be faster in the race without freak circumstances. Also cars that can follow each other and overtake without DRS.

[Ruusperi]

I want to keep qualifying as it is now: fair and (quite) simple. The fastest man, whether it's Senna, Häkkinen, Webber or Hamilton, should start from the pole if he beats every other driver in the grid. That's the prize for being the fastest.

Obviously qualifying will be dull if only one driver dominates. But we've gotten used to it. In contrast, if the field is close then many drivers have decent chance to be the fastest. Just to remind that in 2012 we had 5 different pole sitters in the first 6 races.

 

The only things I'd welcome back is more unreliable cars and gravel traps. 15 years ago pole position was only small step to victory. To finish first you had to finish first. I want to experience the excitement of hoping that my favorite driver doesn't suffer a technical problem or doesn't spin into gravel. Nowadays the pole sitter can just save the engine and large mistake take only half a second to recover.

 

Because finishing have become a piece of cake and because the gaps between the  top teams are large, no wonder the qualifying seems pointless. But ditching the qualifying is not a fix for the race-related things that need fixing.

[Buttoneer]

I would prefer them to fix the root cause rather than have things to spice up "the show". It is a problem that Mercedes have dominated for the last couple of years. If cars were closer together it would be perfectly possible for someone to qualify behind someone else but be faster in the race without freak circumstances. Also cars that can follow each other and overtake without DRS.

F1 is a prototype formula, and some engineers are cleverer than others, or have a brainwave which puts them ahead - it's why for the most part cars qualify two by two. The best cars will dominate, whether it is Mercedes, as it has been, or Red Bull, as it was. In these conditions, being able to overtake is difficult, and should be difficult, I think. We can get the cars closer together by making it more of a spec series.

[Marklar]

I prefer that the qualifying establishes the quickest combination and also had one eye on the race, and that means creating slightly different or unreal conditions for qualifying which ensure some cars are out of place.

Basically a more unpredictable (error-punishing) qualifying? I think everyone would agree with that.

[Tsarwash]

But how do you line them up? Does the fastest or slowest get first pick? Some positions will always be better. The only fair way would be for everyone to start from the exact same place, which is impossible.

Drawing lots would be a perfectly fair way, no ?  

 

It's logical to put the faster cars in front at the start, but not necessarily fair. How is it fair that the guys who have less power or grip are disadvantaged before the race has even started ?

[Tsarwash]

And it's not just races. In competitions with seedings, the top seed gets to play the bottom seed etc. In the show Pointless on BBC1, the team that does the best in the previous rounds gets to pick first in the head-to-head round. It's everywhere. And it's fair and logical.

It's logic, but it's not fair. It's only fair on the most talented tennsi players. It's unfair to the least talented ones. Seedings are not about being fair, it's about trying to ensure that the top players only meet in the Semi's or Final. That is not fair on the less able players. I'm not saying that F1 should actively favour the lower teams, but lets not pretend that actively favouring the better teams is somehow intrinsically more fair than any other system. 

[PlatenGlass]

F1 is a prototype formula, and some engineers are cleverer than others, or have a brainwave which puts them ahead - it's why for the most part cars qualify two by two. The best cars will dominate, whether it is Mercedes, as it has been, or Red Bull, as it was. In these conditions, being able to overtake is difficult, and should be difficult, I think. We can get the cars closer together by making it more of a spec series.

Well, there isn't always a dominant team, even if there often is. Mercedes's domination of the last couple of years is certainly well above average. It is also very much an engine formula now, which it wasn't so much in the recent past. So that adds to the current domination.

As you say, it can be made more of a spec series, but without actually being a spec series. So there are certainly things that can be done to make things closer without trying to artificially shake up the order.

It's logic, but it's not fair. It's only fair on the most talented tennsi players. It's unfair to the least talented ones. Seedings are not about being fair, it's about trying to ensure that the top players only meet in the Semi's or Final. That is not fair on the less able players. I'm not saying that F1 should actively favour the lower teams, but lets not pretend that actively favouring the better teams is somehow intrinsically more fair than any other system.

It depends on what you mean by fair. I would say it is fair on everyone. To me fair doesn't mean equalising the chances of people winning. As I said, before I would consider qualifying to be part of the competition, so being on pole is the result of that. Just like leading on lap two is the result of being ahead at the end of lap one.

[Tsarwash]

Well, there isn't always a dominant team, even if there often is. Mercedes's domination of the last couple of years is certainly well above average. It is also very much an engine formula now, which it wasn't so much in the recent past. So that adds to the current domination.

As you say, it can be made more of a spec series, but without actually being a spec series. So there are certainly things that can be done to make things closer without trying to artificially shake up the order.

It depends on what you mean by fair. I would say it is fair on everyone. To me fair doesn't mean equalising the chances of people winning. As I said, before I would consider qualifying to be part of the competition, so being on pole is the result of that. Just like leading on lap two is the result of being ahead at the end of lap one.

Well then we're talking about whether Qualifying is part of the race itself, or just part of the preparation towards the race.

[PlatenGlass]

Well then we're talking about whether Qualifying is part of the race itself, or just part of the preparation towards the race.

Either way I see it as a fair competition to see who gets to start at the front.

[Tsarwash]

Either way I see it as a fair competition to see who gets to start at the front.

I agree with that. But is it fair to have the fastest cars start at the front ? Maybe we ought to let the youngest drivers start at the front. 

[sopa]

It's logic, but it's not fair. It's only fair on the most talented tennsi players. It's unfair to the least talented ones. Seedings are not about being fair, it's about trying to ensure that the top players only meet in the Semi's or Final.

 

Umm...

 

The aim of any sports competition is to find out, who is the best. And what is the order of competitiveness. I mean, why else compete?

 

So it is only logical that being a better tennis player or having a faster cars means... advantages to you. Because this is the basics of sports competition.

 

--

 

Yeah, random seeding could be introduced. So that accidentally the best players meet each other in the first rounds, and a random player ends up in finals through fortune. Or draw the grid, so that uncompetitive packages end up at the front of the field.

 

However, in my view it doesn't fully comply with sports competition philosophy in general.

 

If you are a novice player, it makes sense that it is hard for you to advance, as you have to face the toughest rivals from the start. You have to improve, get better, and by gradually improving your level and rankings, you get results and get into finals. Not that you advance to finals through fortune.

 

Qualifying is also part of competition. You have to improve the car to get to the front of the field, not that you randomly are given pole position from the hat.

Edited by sopa, 16 April 2016 - 10:14.

[scolbourne]

The point we have to decide is whether the idea is to find the fastest car or whether it is to see the best driver and provide an interesting race for the fans.

 

The current system will show the fastest car and probably result in a boring race assuming there are no other factors involved.

 

Having the cars start in a reverse grid of championship points will allow the best driver to show his skills , even if he is in an inferior car as he will have to cut through the grid. A bad driver will most likely not have the skills to do this even if in the best car.

An interesting  way to see this is when watching (or competing in) a race such as Le Mans where there are several classes of cars involved and the fast cars will have to pass several cars a lap (even though these may be many laps behind).

 

The result of all these overtakes will be exciting for the fans and at the end of the season the best driver should get the championship. I prefer having qualifying as a means of seeing the cars at the limit so would not allow the result to affect the grid but possibly reward the driver with championship points to provide incentive to show their best.

[sopa]

 

Having the cars start in a reverse grid of championship points will allow the best driver to show his skills , even if he is in an inferior car as he will have to cut through the grid. A bad driver will most likely not have the skills to do this even if in the best car.

 

The thing is that in motorsports - particularly in Formula One - "driver" and "car" counts as one package, and should not be separated. We can't alter the rules by attempting to somehow "forget" car performances, and make them redundant. Throughout the history of F1 having the fastest car means that you most likely win. And this is the essence of sport.

 

By the way, in terms of overtaking car also counts. The cars with most powerful engines can overtake far more easily than, say, cars with Renault or Honda engines.

 

Worth reminding, what we saw in 2009. Non-KERS cars often got stuck behind KERS cars, and couldn't overtake. While KERS-powered cars, as long as they had raw overall pace, could easily move ahead - especially at race starts.

Edited by sopa, 16 April 2016 - 10:24.

[sopa]

In my view this discussion here isn't merely about "qualifying philosophy", but much wider and deeper - "sports competition philosophy".

 

The aim of sports competition is to find out, who is the best. If you want to introduce random elements to mix up the field, it is not true sports competition any more, but an entertainment circus.

 

So what do you want - a sports competition or an entertainment circus? THIS is the real question.

[Kalmake]

In my view this discussion here isn't merely about "qualifying philosophy", but much wider and deeper - "sports competition philosophy".

 

The aim of sports competition is to find out, who is the best. If you want to introduce random elements to mix up the field, it is not true sports competition any more, but an entertainment circus.

 

So what do you want - a sports competition or an entertainment circus? THIS is the real question.

It's somewhere between. Sport has always had the entertainment element.

 

If we wanted to just see who is the fastest over the distance, we shouldn't have the randomness of a mass start messing things up. We should run the GP as a time trial like in rallying. Or even have an open track for the whole weekend. Let them run their stint any time and see who was the fastest by Sunday night.

 

Even a simpler sport like 100m sprint has unnecessary randomness. Why should they get only one go at it? DQ for a false start and it's over. If it's about finding out who is the fastest person on Earth, that quite is limiting. Why not just crown the fastest time over a season instead?

 

I do think, though, it's a philosophical step if we start introducing innate randomness, like drawing lots for grid position. And another if we start punishing success, like Bernie suggests. Those things devalue winning and the competition.

[VoltagE]

I would like to see how good the following weekend format would be:

 

- Qualifying awards points to all positions (that complete lap).

- Exact same point system is used for races (Only those that classify get points).

- All races are started in reverse championship order (Including the Saturday qualification points).

- It will provide show for both Saturday and Sunday.

- Only best drivers and cars would deserve to win the championship.

 

The only bad thing is that Monaco (And maybe some other hard to overtake places) would not see the top guys battling for the win.

In others most likely the effect would be that the pack would stay pretty packed and for that reason the championship leaders would also win quite big percentage of the races.

[scolbourne]

Todays race in China showed how well a reverse grid would work.

Through a few factors we ended up with several of the top cars at the back of the pack and ended up with a great race. Although Rosberg showed the problem we face with the current system where the pole driver has an easy race.I am looking forward to the time when both Rosberg and Hamilton end up at the back of the pack and we then see how good they really are.

Those who say it is impossible to overtake, today were proven wrong.

[apoka]

Many won't admit it but a mixed up grid can be more interesting. I don't think we should go full reverse as that would change the whole weekend, but mixing qualy and reverse WDC positions (by points) means that top teams have to work to harder and be more creative in terms of strategy. (Qualy format would stay the same.)

[Frank Tuesday]

Many won't admit it but a mixed up grid can be more interesting. I don't think we should go full reverse as that would change the whole weekend, but mixing qualy and reverse WDC positions (by points) means that top teams have to work to harder and be more creative in terms of strategy. (Qualy format would stay the same.)

Almost everyone admits that mixed up grids can be entertaining. I have no problem with a mixed up grid. I have a problem with rules that use various penalties to try to manufacture a mixed up grid.

[Frank Tuesday]

Todays race in China showed how well a reverse grid would work.
Through a few factors we ended up with several of the top cars at the back of the pack and ended up with a great race.

This doesn't show in any way how well a reversed grid would work. Only a couple at cars were out of their expected position. In a true reversed grid, the fastest car will struggle to get around the second fastest, who will in turn struggle to get around the third fastest, etc. Lewis was able to dice through the field because the cars he was directly behind were significantly slower. That won't be the case with a reverse grid.

[scolbourne]

This doesn't show in any way how well a reversed grid would work. Only a couple at cars were out of their expected position. In a true reversed grid, the fastest car will struggle to get around the second fastest, who will in turn struggle to get around the third fastest, etc. Lewis was able to dice through the field because the cars he was directly behind were significantly slower. That won't be the case with a reverse grid.

 

In todays race at lap 5 we had Vettel in  15th, Ricciardo in 17th, Raikkonen in 19th and Hamilton in 20th. I do not think these are slow drivers.
 

[scolbourne]

http://www.fia.com/s...g?itok=JKp36bx7

[Frank Tuesday]

In todays race at lap 5 we had Vettel in 15th, Ricciardo in 17th, Raikkonen in 19th and Hamilton in 20th. I do not think these are slow drivers.

Hamilton(P7) finished behind Vettel(P2), Raikkonen(P5) and Ricciardo(P4). He was able to get ahead of the much slower cars, but not the cars of similar pace. What happens when everybody is behind someone of similar pace? Not much.

[scolbourne]

Hamilton(P7) finished behind Vettel(P2), Raikkonen(P5) and Ricciardo(P4). He was able to get ahead of the much slower cars, but not the cars of similar pace. What happens when everybody is behind someone of similar pace? Not much.

 

Thats my point. Hamilton through some probably unnecessary pit stops and lack of skill  failed to get past Vettel and Raikkonen (who was last on lap 14). I would say that Vettel was probably the better driver (even though Hamilton had a better car) and Hamilton finished where he deserved.

Edited by scolbourne, 19 April 2016 - 12:32.

[MikeMM]

Many won't admit it but a mixed up grid can be more interesting. I don't think we should go full reverse as that would change the whole weekend, but mixing qualy and reverse WDC positions (by points) means that top teams have to work to harder and be more creative in terms of strategy. (Qualy format would stay the same.)

 

The better solution would be Sprint Race on Saturday (Qualifying Race) with reverse grid start based on WDC standings. The winner of that race would start from pole on Sunday.

 

The problem with your proposal is that its too complicated solution to mix qualy and reverse grid. You didn't even formulated details of your proposal that were simple enough to take a couple of phrases .

Edited by MikeMM, 18 April 2016 - 08:04.

[MikeMM]

In my view this discussion here isn't merely about "qualifying philosophy", but much wider and deeper - "sports competition philosophy".

 

The aim of sports competition is to find out, who is the best. If you want to introduce random elements to mix up the field, it is not true sports competition any more, but an entertainment circus.

 

So what do you want - a sports competition or an entertainment circus? THIS is the real question.

 

And what do you want? You wrote yourself that F1 is car and driver package? Do you think F1 is really sport when 90-95% of success depends upon car?

[MikeMM]

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.

Didn't drivers pay for F1 licenses based upon number of points they score? Are they also punished by success?

[PlatenGlass]

And what do you want? You wrote yourself that F1 is car and driver package? Do you think F1 is really sport when 90-95% of success depends upon car?

Well, I think that's a separate point. Arguably it isn't a proper sport. But it's still a competition to find out which is he best driver/car combination. And messing about with grids isn't a fair or sensible way to run a competition.

Didn't drivers pay for F1 licenses based upon number of points they score? Are they also punished by success?

It does seem a bit weird, but they aren't competitively affected by this.

[MikeMM]

Well, I think that's a separate point. Arguably it isn't a proper sport. But it's still a competition to find out which is he best driver/car combination. And messing about with grids isn't a fair or sensible way to run a competition.

It does seem a bit weird, but they aren't competitively affected by this.

 

With reverse grid(sprint race) the best driver combo would still win. Or do you think that with that rule Ferrari or RBR would win WCC and WDC?

[PlatenGlass]

With reverse grid(sprint race) the best driver combo would still win. Or do you think that with that rule Ferrari or RBR would win WCC and WDC?

No, but I can only refer you back to previous comments about competitions in general, and spicing up "the show".

[MikeMM]

No, but I can only refer you back to previous comments about competitions in general, and spicing up "the show".

In previous comments people admitted that the fact that Hamilton, Vettel and Raikkonen at some point of the race were at the back did spice the show.
Lets be honest the viewers numbers are dropping. People are tired of Mercedes dominance. I haven't seen any good suggestion how to increase viewership. Have you?
Reverse grid for Sprint race would produce more interesting races both on Saturday and Sunday which is good for the show.

[PlatenGlass]

In previous comments people admitted that the fact that Hamilton, Vettel and Raikkonen at some point of the race were at the back did spice the show.
Lets be honest the viewers numbers are dropping. People are tired of Mercedes dominance. I haven't seen any good suggestion how to increase viewership. Have you?
Reverse grid for Sprint race would produce more interesting races both on Saturday and Sunday which is good for the show.

There have been suggestions that don't involve what I would consider to be contrived gimmicks. It's only since 2014 that F1 has become an engine-dominated formula. So they could look at the engine regulations. Over the years, the have been seasons where the field has been tight and seasons where we've had domination. Domination isn't an inevitable part of F1.

Also, decent tyres, sensible aero combined with scrapping DRS, and we could be onto something good.

[HP]

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.

What was qualifying like before they entered cloudcuckooland logic?

 

What has us lead down this road IMO are advances in understanding cars and aerodynamics better. Also making cars more reliable is another issue. But can we turn back time? Not really. There's a reason other series use reverse grid and what else. The only place were starting first is gonna hurt is in rallying and similar events while having splendid weather.

 

And no, even without qual and with reverse championship order Manor will be overtaken at the first corner (Besides your example of Manor half-season 1-2 is a completely false example, because as soon Manor wins they will start from further behind). You just needed to see the China GP to see what happens with a mixed up grid. I'm fairly sure however, do after your suggestion and everyone gets bored after a few races. You will be forced to come up with a better idea.

 

Look at racing series where everyone sits in the same car build. Theoretically that is ideal. In truth however it's that the cream always rises to the top. So we get even more driver worship vs. hate threads than ever before.

 

If mix up is what we want to keep things interesting, then teams need to be forced to build cars that might break down half of the time. But even then, we have seen in the past that cars have been in the lead by minutes, breaking down, getting up to speed again, and still winning races.

 

And from your previous posting it seems you are very interested in drama, in which the best riders finally comes through as the victor. That's fine, but not everyone wants that either.

 

And thus I make a proposal, before we even start trying to fix qualifying in one way or the other, we desperately need to figure out what people really want. If it's drama, put it to the teams. If there are teams that are only interested in seeing their name on the top, they should get the chance to get out of the sport ASAP.

 

However, there's a thorny issue. Teams want to win, and win only if posisble crush everyone else, we punters want to be entertained in some way, but it should not be cheap, not orchestrated, etc. It is fixable? Maybe, but everyone needs to agree to compromise. Will that happen any time soon? Doubt it in this success orientated world. It seems to me, whatever format is introduced, including dropping qualy altogether, the races will not change much. So then, having the fastest car to start from pole seems to me still to be the most fair and entertaining way. It's definitely better than having no cars running at all. But that's me. What the overall want is altogether should still matter most.

 

EDIT:

Another suggestion is to award points for qualifying and have a reverse grid. Then at least qualifying has it's own reward, but comes with the cost of having to start from the back.

Edited by HP, 19 April 2016 - 13:25.

[Jimisgod]

Todays race in China showed how well a reverse grid would work.

Through a few factors we ended up with several of the top cars at the back of the pack and ended up with a great race. Although Rosberg showed the problem we face with the current system where the pole driver has an easy race.I am looking forward to the time when both Rosberg and Hamilton end up at the back of the pack and we then see how good they really are.

Those who say it is impossible to overtake, today were proven wrong.

 

Not really, the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull rarely if ever overtook each other. They scythed through slower teams, yes, but the top 3 teams couldn't really overtake each other.

 

Right now we have a virtual class formula where the top teams are set apart from the rest, but within their "class" it is difficult to overtake.

[sopa]

And what do you want? You wrote yourself that F1 is car and driver package? Do you think F1 is really sport when 90-95% of success depends upon car?

 

 

Throughout the history F1 has been a sport, which has allowed much more development freedom than (most) other racing series do. So naturally it opens up bigger performance differences between machineries than other series do. So the answer is "yes". We can debate about whether it is 90%, 80%, or whatever, but car takes the majority.

 

As long as F1 aims to be "the pinnacle" in terms of high-end engineering, success is bound to be mostly dependent on car. If we don't want it, we need to heavily dumb down development, and basically let F1 to pretty much become another spec-series.

 

All F1 drivers (with the exception of no-hopers like Yuji Ide) easily fit within 1 second per lap in terms of pace. However, it is a very rare occasion, when all F1 cars fit within 1 second in terms of pace.

[MikeMM]

 Throughout the history of F1 having the fastest car means that you most likely win. And this is the essence of sport.

 

Its a bad sport when drivers who dont have good cars are disadvantaged. And they are screwed again when after qualifying the driver who has the best car starts ahead of better drivers who unfortunately have cars which are 0.5-3 sec slower. No wonder viewership is dropping. Its like tying the legs of other athletes and have them start 10 meters behind Usain Bolt and claim afterwards what such are the rules.

[Kalmake]

Its a bad sport when drivers who dont have good cars are disadvantaged. And they are screwed again when after qualifying the driver who has the best car starts ahead of better drivers who unfortunately have cars which are 0.5-3 sec slower. No wonder viewership is dropping. Its like tying the legs of other athletes and have them start 10 meters behind Usain Bolt and claim afterwards what such are the rules.

It's not like that since the rules don't dictate who gets the best car or which car is the best one. There's a philosophical difference.