21 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

I've always been one to say that you shouldn't handicap success in sport as it makes the competition less meaningful, and more just a show. But F1 has decided that handicapping is the way to go. Teams doing worse get more wind tunnel time. There have been other things before like Q3 teams having to start the race on their qualifying tyres, presumably to penalise them relative to those outside the top 10. Also back in single lap qualifying in 2003 the slower teams went out last (when the track is generally quickest) on in the Friday session which was used to set the running order for Saturday.

 

But this wind tunnel thing is quite explicit. It is a handicap system. It can't be seen any other way. But it's also quite boring as a concept. F1 has thrown away the idea that a serious competition shouldn't be subject to handicapping, so why not do it in a more fun way? And what's more fun than messing up the grids?

 

There are different ways of doing it. It could be done by reverse championship order or the reverse of the last race. Perhaps it wouldn't even need to be a handicap system. We could have random grids. Or perhaps drivers/teams start each season with a certain amount of virtual money and they use it to bid on starting positions for each race. So they might go heavy on Monaco, or perhaps save it for other races knowing other teams will waste a lot on Monaco. It would be quite exciting and actually not a handicap system at all, so better than the wind tunnel thing in every possible way!

 

Obviously I don't really think we should have any of this, but since we have a more subtle (insidious maybe?) form of handicapping anyway that isn't even very fun or interesting, we might as well go the whole hog and go all out for the show.

 

What do you think?

[Nathan]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

Booooo.

 

Let's all first admit.  F1 will never, ever be good enough.

Edited by Nathan, 10 October 2024 - 16:12.

[Sterzo]

I've watched quite a few reversed-grid races in British F3, then GB4 and 3 and some other series. For me it's always: "Oh, this is just the reverse grid one. Never mind, I'll watch it anyway."

 

As with so many "improvements" in motor racing, someone has identified a problem, then tried to distract from it instead of solving it. So we end up with the original problem (e.g. difficulty overtaking) and add another one to it (e.g. a race with meaningless results).

[917k]

Why now? Things are pretty spicy.

[PayasYouRace]

We have the best racing in F1 since probably the mid-1970s right now. No, just no! Stop it.*

 

*This is not a moderation instruction. This is the frustration of an exasperated fan who can’t work out why when F1 has finally become really good, people still want silly things.

[Clatter]

I do find it a bit silly to line the cars up in order of speed, and then complain about the lack of overtaking.

[MikeTekRacing]

these mid year breaks in the schedule are incredible. Every day there is a new topic about how we should completely change F1

[IrvTheSwerve]

Reverse sprints I wouldn’t mind.

 

Reverse Grands Prix, hell no.

[SenorSjon]

Sometimes, I regret burning at the stake isn't allowed anymore.

Just... why...?

[baddog]

No, never ever ever ever. Ever.

[arrysen]

Definite "no" from me - just no, nup, nyet, nope.

 

The big difference between the wind tunnel time adjustment and what you're suggesting here is that the change in wind tunnel time might impact what a team turns up at the track with, but once they're at the track, it's a open competition between all the teams with the equipment they have at that race meeting, at that circuit, on that weekend. 

 

Juggling grids around takes away that open competition. Whilst it might have its place at lower level national or club events (even then I don't believe it adds anything really) mucking around with changed grids is absolutely something that should not be happening in a World Championship.

[PlatenGlass]

OK, so this was largely a tongue-in-cheek thread but also to make a point. The reason I started it was that the wind tunnel handicap seems to have sneaked in with very little backlash on this forum (that I've seen), which I've found a bit surprising as people are generally against this sort of thing. So I thought I'd up the ante with reverse grids with this context to see how people might justify one but not the other.

 

arrysen's post is the only one so far who has compared the two that I've noticed, and I'm interested in other opinions. I agree that reverse grids are more extreme than the wind tunnel handicap, but once you open the handicap door, how far is acceptable?

[FirstnameLastname]

Is the wind tunnel thing less obnoxious than Success Ballast?

[SenorSjon]

You can still get it right with reduced windtunnel time. You only need Neweyo seeing air like the Matrix. Succes ballast is way worse.

[MikeTekRacing]

Is the wind tunnel thing less obnoxious than Success Ballast?

yes.

On race day the cars are technically identical (i.e. identical restrictions). If you are better, you come up with ideas even with less wind tunnel time.

Weight is a serious handicap in racing. cars are not equal from a technical rules point of view

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 10 October 2024 - 22:44.

[baddog]

OK, so this was largely a tongue-in-cheek thread but also to make a point. The reason I started it was that the wind tunnel handicap seems to have sneaked in with very little backlash on this forum (that I've seen), which I've found a bit surprising as people are generally against this sort of thing. So I thought I'd up the ante with reverse grids with this context to see how people might justify one but not the other.

 

arrysen's post is the only one so far who has compared the two that I've noticed, and I'm interested in other opinions. I agree that reverse grids are more extreme than the wind tunnel handicap, but once you open the handicap door, how far is acceptable?

 

Dont post fake threads about things you dont mean, its trolling and it is not okay. If you want to bitch about wind tunnels do that honestly instead of wasting peoples time with this nonsense.

[PlatenGlass]

Dont post fake threads about things you dont mean, its trolling and it is not okay. If you want to bitch about wind tunnels do that honestly instead of wasting peoples time with this nonsense.

It wasn't a "fake thread". It was meant to be light-hearted. Not the same thing. Shut your face.

[noikeee]

I get what you mean but reverse grids, success ballast and wind tunnel hour handicaps are all different things.

Reverse grids and success ballast are something that very physically very directly affects race results. The wind tunnel hours are more indirect, teams can take advantage of it if they're clever... Or not. They don't necessarily translate to laptime or better track position.

[SenorSjon]

I get what you mean but reverse grids, success ballast and wind tunnel hour handicaps are all different things.

Reverse grids and success ballast are something that very physically very directly affects race results. The wind tunnel hours are more indirect, teams can take advantage of it if they're clever... Or not. They don't necessarily translate to laptime or better track position.

 

Case in point: Toyota.

[Larunss]

Absolutely not!
I can share my personal experience. I take part in a local amateur go-karting championship. Yes, it is nowhere near as important as F1, but still a first hand experience of reverse grids.

So in our weigjt class we are around 3 to 4 leaders and then a bunch of lets say midfield guys being some 0.6s to 1.5s slower than our leader group. So after one quali where I get P2 the organisers just gave us a surprise: -> reverse grids lads to spice it all up!!! They tried this a couple of more times during the year.
What happened? So we tje leaders started from P10 to P12. One of tje leaders had an epic opening lap, it was chaotic but he positioned himself well and he was leading by end of Lap1! By end of Lap 4,I was in P2 but some 5 seconds behind. In a 16 lap race no way to claw back the 5s deficit since we have a similar pace. So I just ended up P2. By end of the race most people were more ore less where you would expect based on quali performance. But, we had no real fight for the win. I got held up a bit for the first couple of laps and it was not realistic to close up after I got in free air.

In another of these experiments I benefited from Lap 1 chaos to take lead in Lap 2 while my direct competitors got bogged down. We never battled for the lead since they lost too much time.

Mu takeaway? Yeah, there is sort of more 'fun and action', but it is of less quality and for midfield places. Whoever of the leaders got the bettee opening lap would end up winning, since you just lose so much time in the midfield scraps.

So Max or Lando would still win, but its more likely that there would be no real duel between them.
And with B teams and wingmen, Toro Rosso would let Max past and block his competitors. We already saw the mess Magnussen created with his defensive moves and useless penalties.

Oh and I want to see them reverse Monaco. That would be a farce like I've never seen before

[JimmyClark]

No. The races are generally great at the moment. 

 

In sprints maybe, but only if they are a separate championship or something. 

[LolaB0860]

I get what you mean but reverse grids, success ballast and wind tunnel hour handicaps are all different things.

Reverse grids and success ballast are something that very physically very directly affects race results. The wind tunnel hours are more indirect, teams can take advantage of it if they're clever... Or not. They don't necessarily translate to laptime or better track position.

Indeed. And there's already evidence that it's not automatically transfering to the tech upgrades people are bringing, it's still hit and miss and up to the constructors to make the difference.

Unlike is the case with BoP and other crap where you cannot do anything about it and values forced upon teams can be manipulated by lobbying or improvement of the show.

Edited by LolaB0860, Yesterday, 12:46.