Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

FIA to impose a maximum lap time for every lap in qualifying


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#51 solochamp07

solochamp07
  • Member

  • 497 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 September 2019 - 04:19

Couple things.
One, in the case of Monza Q3 last run in particular, and in fairness to the drivers, all of them went out in one bunch onto an empty track, so there was never a risk of a hot driver encountering the group as they stumbled around.
Second, the new regulation as I understand it, if in place, would have only applied to SAI and LEC, as they were the only ones to actually complete a lap. This scenario opens a whole other can of potential gamesmanship worms, IMO.

Edit: typo

Edited by solochamp07, 17 September 2019 - 04:20.


Advertisement

#52 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 11,525 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 17 September 2019 - 05:55

The danger, quite obviously, is a car on a flying lap coming up on a pack of cars crawling on their outlap. Is it that hard to imagine? The concequences of this happening are what is known in risk management as "catastrophic" (injury or death highly likely).

Mitigating this risk can't be left up to the teams being responsible to advise the driver via radio because A: they aren't obliged to, B: they have other agendas and C: if the teams don't communicate to the driver there is zero fallback to warn any approaching drivers.

Setting a minimum laptime fixes all this BS.


All well. But teams have real time GPS data and would have warned drivers if a car was coming up to them on a flying lap. So in essence, your rant is not valid.

#53 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,804 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 17 September 2019 - 06:37

Something has to be done. F1 has been very inconsistent in this area for many years now.

When a car pulls off the track, even though it is well off the race track and not in the firing line, we will always get a VSC or SC so the car can be removed. The argument being that if another car goes off (even if it is not in an area that cars usually go off) it would be extremely dangerous to leave the stationary car there. Likewise, if a car spins off and is on the side of the road -irrespective of whether the car can rejoin or not under its own power - there will always be waved yellows. Again, the reason being so that another car won’t go off and hit the stationary or slow moving car. Now contrast the above common sense safety measures with having several cars almost stopped on the actual race track itself whilst other cars pass them at full speed on qualifying laps on the very edge of the car’s limits. How does that make any sense?

Either the FIA are being over cautious when it comes to cars parked off the race track during the race, or they are being insanely irresponsible during qualifying by letting this continue. It has to be one or the other because it makes absolutely no sense to take such radically different approaches to safety.

Edited by Jazza, 17 September 2019 - 06:38.


#54 Heyli

Heyli
  • RC Forum Host

  • 8,795 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 17 September 2019 - 06:45

I vote for a Maximum laptime that is 0.5 seconds slower than last year´s pole! And everybody who misses it gets a 5 second time penalty at a random point during the race. Let´s spice things up a bit!



#55 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 17 September 2019 - 07:12

Indeed. There are already rules for dangerous driving which can easily be used if someone going so slowly on an out lap is deemed so, but they are just utter cowards to use it so they invent something that probably won't fix the issue anyway.

Either leave it as it is and accept this might happen again, or completely change qualifying to avoid having multiple drivers out at the same time.


Problem is that ”unnecessarily slow” is subjective. Minimum sector times are not.

I think you can imagine this sort of like a reversal of the pit speed limiter. Imagine if we had a rule that didn’t state that the driver must drive through the pit lane below a set speed - instead it would just state that no driver should drive ”unnecessarily fast” through the pits. Where would you draw the line? Not so easy after all, there are always going to be grey areas, and once you’ve accepted that a guy running through the pits slightly higher than the current speed limit without any problems then the precedent gets pushed further and further.

#56 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,659 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 17 September 2019 - 07:17

Sometimes you have to drive very slow to give way to a car doing a hot lap, as we could see with Verstappen’s run in Q1 in Monza when half the field was on his inlap. This is of course more unlikely to happen in Q3.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 17 September 2019 - 07:18.


#57 cjm321190

cjm321190
  • Member

  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 17 September 2019 - 07:47

If it is done on safety grounds then fair enough. 

 

But if it is just to save face because of Monza Q3 then this is silly. We complain that F1 is to calculated as the teams run simulations multiple times and just verify them with Qualifying or the race, quite boring. 

 

In Monza we actually had the teams screw up as they were so scared of being the first to create the tow. Any one of them could have made the line in time, it was disappointing i guess for the track side fans, but i personally found it fun and interesting. Like a high speed game of chess to out fox the opposition.

 

so yes maybe the speed differential is excessive but actually in Monza there was not, as they were all on the same piece of track.



#58 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,537 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 17 September 2019 - 07:47

Single lap qualifying would solve this problem.

 

... and frees up a lot of Saturdays for me as well!

 

Any reason they aren't coupling this with moving the timing line for qualifying to before the pit entrance? Because that would cut out 50% of the 'off-pace' laps.

 

 

Go away with your logic. ;)

 

Problem is that ”unnecessarily slow” is subjective. Minimum sector times are not.

I think you can imagine this sort of like a reversal of the pit speed limiter. Imagine if we had a rule that didn’t state that the driver must drive through the pit lane below a set speed - instead it would just state that no driver should drive ”unnecessarily fast” through the pits. Where would you draw the line? Not so easy after all, there are always going to be grey areas, and once you’ve accepted that a guy running through the pits slightly higher than the current speed limit without any problems then the precedent gets pushed further and further.

 

You can get things like the 3 place grid drop in Australia 2018 for Ricciardo due to rigid rules like this. He was a little too fast on a red flag lap, entering the pits while there was a problem on the main straight I believe. A place he could never reach due to being red flagged into the pit. Yet he still got the penalty.



#59 SpeedRacer`

SpeedRacer`
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 September 2019 - 07:56

I think the time allowed should be quite generous, like 140% of your best laptime or something. But the only penalty should be if you drop below it, then the following quick lap is void.



Advertisement

#60 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:12

I don't think the same issue from Monza is going to crop up anywhere else.

 

 

There is more to it than that. In Monza it looked farcical, but the race before at Spa it was totally dangerous, Verstappen came through Blanchimont at over 300kph and there were about half a dozen cars dawdling along at 30kph. All it would have taken is one not to hear the radio message and Max could have ended up in the trees. If it gets to the stage where a radio is a more important safety device than a halo, it's probably time to change things.



#61 CornishFellow

CornishFellow
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: July 19

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:27

There already was a maximum lap time in play at Monza. They had until the clock hit 0:00 to finish their outlaps, but they still didn't make it.

 

These things are ultimately self-regulating. Drivers & teams don't want to miss out on doing their qualy lap, so they will make sure it doesn't happen next time.

 

Leave it alone.



#62 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,645 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:33

There is more to it than that. In Monza it looked farcical, but the race before at Spa it was totally dangerous, Verstappen came through Blanchimont at over 300kph and there were about half a dozen cars dawdling along at 30kph. All it would have taken is one not to hear the radio message and Max could have ended up in the trees. If it gets to the stage where a radio is a more important safety device than a halo, it's probably time to change things.

And there should have been penalties handed out. Dawdling on a straight, off the racing line is likely not going to cause any problems. Do it on the racing line, and/or on the bend it will. The drivers should be able to figure that out for themselves and put a spurt on when in a dangerous position.

#63 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 11,875 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:35

Looks like another overreaction by the government body.



#64 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:38

If it is done on safety grounds then fair enough.


I would assume so. If it was only about the sporting side then I also think it should be left as it is, but there is a very obvious safety aspect related to this. Think of Belgium or Germany in 1982 if you want examples of what could go wrong when cars on their flyers are approaching slower cars trundling around on their in- and out-laps.

All in all I think that there are very few downsides to this. It’s not like anyone’s watching qualifying for the thrill of seeing cars go round the final few corners as slowly as they can...

#65 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,495 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:48

... and frees up a lot of Saturdays for me as well!


A win-win if I ever heard one!

#66 sgtkate

sgtkate
  • Member

  • 5,558 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 17 September 2019 - 09:03

Problem is that ”unnecessarily slow” is subjective. Minimum sector times are not.

I think you can imagine this sort of like a reversal of the pit speed limiter. Imagine if we had a rule that didn’t state that the driver must drive through the pit lane below a set speed - instead it would just state that no driver should drive ”unnecessarily fast” through the pits. Where would you draw the line? Not so easy after all, there are always going to be grey areas, and once you’ve accepted that a guy running through the pits slightly higher than the current speed limit without any problems then the precedent gets pushed further and further.

Yes, I can see that point of view. But I don't think it is as simple as comparing it to driving through the pits. In fact it can be argued that speed limits encourage people to drive faster than they would do without them as there is a belief that if it says you can do 50 mph, you can ALWAYS do 50 mph. If you say you must drive safely at all times (it can be worded better but you get the idea) then you might decide to driver at 30mph because it's been raining for example. But then again these are racing drivers, not your average commuter, and their job is to drive as fast as they can with safety being a secondary thought so perhaps we shouldn't apply the same logic to their decisions as we should for road users.

 

My concern is that the rule seems very knee-jerk and ill-thought out. Several posters have already found holes in it that could be used to exploit an advantage or to ruin a quali lap of a competitor. Then when that happens we'll need another rule and another and another, when all along we've had rules for dangerous driving that could have sorted everything out if it was used correctly.

 

However, there will always be a danger of a high speed collision with how qualifying is now, and I do agree with Jazza here that we have waved yellows or SC when a car is stationary near the track but nothing when a car is nearly stationary ON the track. It is ridiculous and it does need fixing, my only issue is with this new rules rather than looking to wholesale change qualifying for next year because even with a minimum time you will STILL get cars crawling through corners to make a space or to protect their tyres and whilst Monza was an outlier every weekend you see cars flying past another one with a speed differential of over 100mph and if what someone posted earlier is correct, that F1 cars are only crash tested at 51kmh(?) then that still nearly 3 times the safety rating.

 

I don't see that this rule will fix anything and I can see it being used strategically to compromise another driver. I would much rather than change qualifying to a single lap shoot out with only 1 car on track at any one time, perhaps with the same Q1-3 knockout like we have now. It might 'ruin' the spectacle for some, but for me it would be immense to see the drivers really under pressure to deliver straight off the bat with only one chance, and it would improve safety immeasurably. Plus qualy would be longer giving me even more of F1 :clap:



#67 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,279 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 September 2019 - 09:41

To be honest one lap qualifying wouldnt be even that bad if it happens only 2-3 times per year where it's needed. 22 times per year on the other hand: yeah no :)

#68 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 17 September 2019 - 09:52

There already was a maximum lap time in play at Monza. They had until the clock hit 0:00 to finish their outlaps, but they still didn't make it.

 

These things are ultimately self-regulating. Drivers & teams don't want to miss out on doing their qualy lap, so they will make sure it doesn't happen next time.

 

Leave it alone.

The pitlane exit could simply be closed 1:40 minutes before the flag to prevent the very specific Monza occurance.



#69 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 17 September 2019 - 10:32

To be honest one lap qualifying wouldnt be even that bad if it happens only 2-3 times per year where it's needed. 22 times per year on the other hand: yeah no :)


Exactly this.

#70 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:03

Yes, I can see that point of view. But I don't think it is as simple as comparing it to driving through the pits. In fact it can be argued that speed limits encourage people to drive faster than they would do without them as there is a belief that if it says you can do 50 mph, you can ALWAYS do 50 mph. If you say you must drive safely at all times (it can be worded better but you get the idea) then you might decide to driver at 30mph because it's been raining for example. But then again these are racing drivers, not your average commuter, and their job is to drive as fast as they can with safety being a secondary thought so perhaps we shouldn't apply the same logic to their decisions as we should for road users.

My concern is that the rule seems very knee-jerk and ill-thought out. Several posters have already found holes in it that could be used to exploit an advantage or to ruin a quali lap of a competitor. Then when that happens we'll need another rule and another and another, when all along we've had rules for dangerous driving that could have sorted everything out if it was used correctly.

However, there will always be a danger of a high speed collision with how qualifying is now, and I do agree with Jazza here that we have waved yellows or SC when a car is stationary near the track but nothing when a car is nearly stationary ON the track. It is ridiculous and it does need fixing, my only issue is with this new rules rather than looking to wholesale change qualifying for next year because even with a minimum time you will STILL get cars crawling through corners to make a space or to protect their tyres and whilst Monza was an outlier every weekend you see cars flying past another one with a speed differential of over 100mph and if what someone posted earlier is correct, that F1 cars are only crash tested at 51kmh(?) then that still nearly 3 times the safety rating.

I don't see that this rule will fix anything and I can see it being used strategically to compromise another driver. I would much rather than change qualifying to a single lap shoot out with only 1 car on track at any one time, perhaps with the same Q1-3 knockout like we have now. It might 'ruin' the spectacle for some, but for me it would be immense to see the drivers really under pressure to deliver straight off the bat with only one chance, and it would improve safety immeasurably. Plus qualy would be longer giving me even more of F1 :clap:


I agree with most of your points, but I’d just like to point out that the information that comes out to us is most likely just a fragment of what’s being discussed. Of course the rulemakers would need to identify and mitigate potential loop holes (such as by mandating minimum ”mini-sector” times rather than minimum lap times).

#71 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 17 September 2019 - 13:45

To be honest one lap qualifying wouldnt be even that bad if it happens only 2-3 times per year where it's needed. 22 times per year on the other hand: yeah no :)

 

Baku, Spa & Monza I presume.  Since "Quali Races" are going to be a thing, they should take say 6 F2 spec cars (1 as spare) to those 3 tracks. It could run as follows:

 

1. Draw 5 drivers numbers and grid slots 1-5 from pots.

2. Race for 5 laps in the identically set up F2 cars.

3. Repeat 3 more times (based on a 20 driver grid), take the winners of each race and fastest loser to go through to race 5.  Race times from the 4 heats define grid slots 6-20 and the 5th race slots 1-5.

 

Lots of on track action for the Saturday & potentially Sunday too.  Real driver skill required to get a good grid slot and potential for mixed up grids.

 

Now bring on the criticism, I promise to ignore most of it. :rotfl:  ;)



#72 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 708 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 17 September 2019 - 16:54

All well. But teams have real time GPS data and would have warned drivers if a car was coming up to them on a flying lap. So in essence, your rant is not valid.

 

Radio communication from the teams is worth squat for the reasons I mentioned in the very post that you quoted.

 

Keep up.


Edited by NotAPineapple, 17 September 2019 - 16:56.


#73 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 7,164 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:27

Like someone said, art is not about a lap time, more about the sector time, I believe.

Like in Monza, the first sector was extremely slow and the second the third was on the edge, which made perhaps the lap time delta not as obvious.

 

Besides, there was this elements of cars working in a certain condition.

A slow lap from a single car is not enough o delay the whole grid, perhaps two cars would be not enough.

Like more than three, four cars in combination had made the situation...



#74 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,279 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 18 September 2019 - 11:58

 

“Everyone in the room, sporting directors and drivers, acknowledge that there is not a simple regulatory fix for it,” said Masi. So that’s something we had already agreed with the sporting directors.

 
“We’ll have a more in-depth discussion at Singapore and a few of the teams have already started coming up with simulations of how that could possibly be rectified because it’s in everyone’s best interests. So I think that’s the best comment out of that one.”
 
F1 tried to pre-empt the situation which unfolded at Monza by informing drivers the minimum Safety Car lap time would be used to judge if they had driven too slowly on their out-laps. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff believes a version of this approach could solve the problem.
 
“I think defining some kind of minimum lap time delta for an out-lap [is] something which we should try to achieve,” he said when asked by RaceFans. “I think it’s achievable.
 
“Nobody wants to see what happened [at Monza].”

https://www.racefans...monza-q3-farce/

 

 

 

 a few of the teams have already started coming up with simulations of how that could possibly be rectified

Yes, you totally need a simulator to figure that out



#75 JeePee

JeePee
  • Member

  • 5,907 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:05

Yes, you totally need a simulator to figure that out

After 2 weeks of non stop simulation work, the quickest PC in the building said "leave the pits 15 seconds earlier"

 

All the engineers:

 

tenor.gif



#76 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:13

To be honest one lap qualifying wouldnt be even that bad if it happens only 2-3 times per year where it's needed. 22 times per year on the other hand: yeah no :)

 

We already kinda have one lap qualifying, except everybody does it together at the end of Q3 so we only see one of the laps on TV instead of all 10! 



#77 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,495 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:18

We already kinda have one lap qualifying, except everybody does it together at the end of Q3 so we only see one of the laps on TV instead of all 10!

 

But how will we know whether we're enjoying it if David Croft isn't shouting?



#78 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 18 September 2019 - 13:11

We already kinda have one lap qualifying, except everybody does it together at the end of Q3 so we only see one of the laps on TV instead of all 10!


This is a seriously good point. Only exception is that we allow the top teams to put in banker laps on the first run so as to guarantee that a f-ck up doesn’t cost them too much.

#79 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 September 2019 - 13:44

This is a seriously good point. Only exception is that we allow the top teams to put in banker laps on the first run so as to guarantee that a f-ck up doesn’t cost them too much.

Yes, so to be very generous, we see 2 laps, albeit one of them often doesn't matter! And the fact that the top teams with their performance advantage to save tyres in Q1, have 2 goes, whereas teams like Haas or McLaren getting into Q3 often have to make do with only 1 lap (which we rarely see as the TV companies usually priorities the top teams banker lap), adds sporting insult! And now everybody is getting in each others way to boot! 

 

In downhill skiing, its one run. They draw lots for which order they go. Sometimes the first to run gets the best conditions, sometimes it's who goes last. And sometimes it stays pretty consistent throughout. And we see all runs on TV or at the slope. In downhill, "qualifying" is the race and it's frickin awesome. And nobody gets in the way. 



Advertisement

#80 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 18 September 2019 - 13:45

Yes, you totally need a simulator to figure that out

It's a game theory situation, so yes, it actually helps a lot.



#81 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 708 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 18 September 2019 - 17:05

https://www.racefans...monza-q3-farce/

 

Yes, you totally need a simulator to figure that out

 

Simulation =/= driving simulator...

 

Most likely means one of their existing offline strategy analysis and simulation tools.



#82 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,279 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 18 September 2019 - 17:09

Simulation =/= driving simulator...

That's not what I implied lol

simulator as in the computer tool.



#83 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:31

i am amazed i've seen 0 crashes so far because of this incredibly dangerous situation that needs mitigating so far

Have you forgotten?



#84 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:43

Something has to be done. F1 has been very inconsistent in this area for many years now.

When a car pulls off the track, even though it is well off the race track and not in the firing line, we will always get a VSC or SC so the car can be removed. The argument being that if another car goes off (even if it is not in an area that cars usually go off) it would be extremely dangerous to leave the stationary car there. Likewise, if a car spins off and is on the side of the road -irrespective of whether the car can rejoin or not under its own power - there will always be waved yellows. Again, the reason being so that another car won’t go off and hit the stationary or slow moving car. Now contrast the above common sense safety measures with having several cars almost stopped on the actual race track itself whilst other cars pass them at full speed on qualifying laps on the very edge of the car’s limits. How does that make any sense?

Either the FIA are being over cautious when it comes to cars parked off the race track during the race, or they are being insanely irresponsible during qualifying by letting this continue. It has to be one or the other because it makes absolutely no sense to take such radically different approaches to safety.

 

 

You are onto it.

It does also suggest the simplest solution:

As soon as someone slows below X% of their normal pace in qualifying, a VSC automatically kicks in.

Let's see how many stupid games get played with that rule - it's self enforcing.



#85 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:48

Yes, so to be very generous, we see 2 laps, albeit one of them often doesn't matter! And the fact that the top teams with their performance advantage to save tyres in Q1, have 2 goes, whereas teams like Haas or McLaren getting into Q3 often have to make do with only 1 lap (which we rarely see as the TV companies usually priorities the top teams banker lap), adds sporting insult! And now everybody is getting in each others way to boot! 

 

In downhill skiing, its one run. They draw lots for which order they go. Sometimes the first to run gets the best conditions, sometimes it's who goes last. And sometimes it stays pretty consistent throughout. And we see all runs on TV or at the slope. In downhill, "qualifying" is the race and it's frickin awesome. And nobody gets in the way. 

 

 

We could send cars out at 30 second intervals, three times (or whatever) so that viewers get a decent eyeful.

I used to think one-lap qualifying was ok. It was just too little, felt that way to me anyway.

 

How long is a single DH Ski run in time?



#86 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:59

We could send cars out at 30 second intervals, three times (or whatever) so that viewers get a decent eyeful.
I used to think one-lap qualifying was ok. It was just too little, felt that way to me anyway.

How long is a single DH Ski run in time?


It’s pretty close to a F1 lap time.

#87 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 19,631 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 19 September 2019 - 05:12

Hope Jean Todt doesn't forget the big picture when approving new rules.

 

If start position wouldn't be that important, we'd have less of that qualifying stupidity. If Alain Prost would be an active F1 driver these days, he'd be completely screwed and probaly without a championship.

 

For those needing explanation, Prost set up his car for the race, and had several times coming from a few positions behind to still win the race. These days, be on the front row and most likely win the race.

 

Qualy still should be a show, but should not determine the race outcome so heavily as it does these days. It also would  giving less encouragement to do the things that has been happening.

 

Should a driver still insist on slowing down like they did at the last 2 races, have them line up at the end of the field. Do it repeatedly, sit out a race or two. Problem mostly solved IMO.



#88 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 19 September 2019 - 05:39

It’s pretty close to a F1 lap time.

 

It's been a while since I watched an event (on TV). It is very compelling viewing, the sense of them being on the edge is palpable.

 

That is the element we could do with more of :)


Edited by Murl, 19 September 2019 - 05:40.


#89 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,956 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 September 2019 - 05:43

Hope Jean Todt doesn't forget the big picture when approving new rules.
 
If start position wouldn't be that important, we'd have less of that qualifying stupidity. If Alain Prost would be an active F1 driver these days, he'd be completely screwed and probaly without a championship.
 
For those needing explanation, Prost set up his car for the race, and had several times coming from a few positions behind to still win the race. These days, be on the front row and most likely win the race.


Well apart from the fact that due to parc ferme rules, everyone has to set their cars up for the race in modern F1. Prost had that luxury because it suited his style, but he was perfectly capable of putting in a good lap in qualifying when he needed to.

#90 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,537 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:27

Yes, so to be very generous, we see 2 laps, albeit one of them often doesn't matter! And the fact that the top teams with their performance advantage to save tyres in Q1, have 2 goes, whereas teams like Haas or McLaren getting into Q3 often have to make do with only 1 lap (which we rarely see as the TV companies usually priorities the top teams banker lap), adds sporting insult! And now everybody is getting in each others way to boot! 

 

In downhill skiing, its one run. They draw lots for which order they go. Sometimes the first to run gets the best conditions, sometimes it's who goes last. And sometimes it stays pretty consistent throughout. And we see all runs on TV or at the slope. In downhill, "qualifying" is the race and it's frickin awesome. And nobody gets in the way. 

 

You forget that after the banker lap, we only get pitbox shots of the top 4, while other cars are trying to get a fastest lap in. 



#91 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:13

Yeah, it's always puzzled me why people are so fond of the current system. Basically, the whole session is pointless apart from the final minute of each segment - during which all cars are on track simultaneously and the director (and commentator) is struggling to give you a clear picture of what's happening. Then the camera focuses on the start/finish straight and you just see a bunch of cars crossing the finish line. Now, that's sort of entertaining I guess, but there's little or no story in how the session evolves. You never ever get to see the entire pole lap live (I honestly don't think that's ever happened in the Q1-Q2-Q3 era), and since banker laps are possible to set the top cars will at worst qualify in sixth place on merit (might start lower down due to penalties, but that's another question altogether). 

 

Qualifying is actually more compelling to watch on the live timing app (which should say something), as there it's at least possible to get a feel for the relative strength of each drivers lap when they are on track at the same time. Oh, and this is assuming that the director is actually showing you the cars on track, which we know is something that only happens on rare occasions these days.


Edited by Rediscoveryx, 19 September 2019 - 10:15.


#92 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,645 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:18

Hope Jean Todt doesn't forget the big picture when approving new rules.

If start position wouldn't be that important, we'd have less of that qualifying stupidity. If Alain Prost would be an active F1 driver these days, he'd be completely screwed and probaly without a championship.

For those needing explanation, Prost set up his car for the race, and had several times coming from a few positions behind to still win the race. These days, be on the front row and most likely win the race.

Qualy still should be a show, but should not determine the race outcome so heavily as it does these days. It also would giving less encouragement to do the things that has been happening.

Should a driver still insist on slowing down like they did at the last 2 races, have them line up at the end of the field. Do it repeatedly, sit out a race or two. Problem mostly solved IMO.

Back in the day when there was a qualifying only engine, qualifying tyres, virtually different car which was rebuilt for the race. No amount of wishful thinking will take us back to that.

#93 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:31

Back in the day when there was a qualifying only engine, qualifying tyres, virtually different car which was rebuilt for the race. No amount of wishful thinking will take us back to that.

 

While I suspect you're right - qualifying tyres shouldn't be that difficult to bring back. Also, if regulations around fuel flow and energy storage were set a bit more loosely for qualifying then I'd guess that we could have a bigger "party mode" effect on the engines as well. So it should at least be possible to achieve a wider level of discrepancy between qualifying spec and race spec than we have today. 



#94 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,645 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 19 September 2019 - 21:30

While I suspect you're right - qualifying tyres shouldn't be that difficult to bring back. Also, if regulations around fuel flow and energy storage were set a bit more loosely for qualifying then I'd guess that we could have a bigger "party mode" effect on the engines as well. So it should at least be possible to achieve a wider level of discrepancy between qualifying spec and race spec than we have today. 

 


Almost any change will only benefit the top teams, and I doubt the status quo will be greatly affected. A bigger difference between Q and the race isn't going to make the racing any better.

#95 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 29,408 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 20 September 2019 - 02:26

We could send cars out at 30 second intervals, three times (or whatever) so that viewers get a decent eyeful.

I used to think one-lap qualifying was ok. It was just too little, felt that way to me anyway.

 

How long is a single DH Ski run in time?

 

This disadvantages drivers at random with regards to track evolution, and rain forecast.

 

Which isn't neccesarily a bad thing I suppose.  Races are more entertaining when fast cars start further back. Well specifically, when Hamilton or Verstappen don't start from pole, and preferably alongside each other...from the back row  :cat:


Edited by ARTGP, 20 September 2019 - 02:27.


#96 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,413 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:35


Almost any change will only benefit the top teams, and I doubt the status quo will be greatly affected. A bigger difference between Q and the race isn't going to make the racing any better.


I disagree.

Of course the top teams will always comenout on top unless you randomize everything including the end results. No regulation is going to change that. It’s about adding variables that forces teams to compromise so that it won’t be possible to have a var that’s optimized in all conditions.

The main reason why the last few races have been good is that the Mercs haven’t locked out the front row. They have the best car in race consitions but not necessarily in qualifying. Had Hamilton started from pole in Hungary or at Monza those races would have been over by the first corner.

If you have qualifying tyres that only last about one lap then that would force teams to compromise their car design between favoring tyre warm up vs tyre degredation in a different matter. Those that get the car into the right operating window on qualifying tyres might struggle in the race and vice versa. This is pretty much what we’re seeing now on a small scale with Ferrari having an engine edge in qualifying but not as much in the race.

#97 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,645 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 20 September 2019 - 07:21

I disagree.

Of course the top teams will always comenout on top unless you randomize everything including the end results. No regulation is going to change that. It’s about adding variables that forces teams to compromise so that it won’t be possible to have a var that’s optimized in all conditions.

The main reason why the last few races have been good is that the Mercs haven’t locked out the front row. They have the best car in race consitions but not necessarily in qualifying. Had Hamilton started from pole in Hungary or at Monza those races would have been over by the first corner.

If you have qualifying tyres that only last about one lap then that would force teams to compromise their car design between favoring tyre warm up vs tyre degredation in a different matter. Those that get the car into the right operating window on qualifying tyres might struggle in the race and vice versa. This is pretty much what we’re seeing now on a small scale with Ferrari having an engine edge in qualifying but not as much in the race.

The tyres often already barely last a the lap in Q3. It still makes next to no difference to the final result.