83 replies to this topic

[Limits]

Ok, this is maybe a bit far fetched, but qualifying is simply not qualifying anymore.

to fit by training, skill, or ability for a special purpose b  (1) : to declare competent or adequate

It is used to be a way of deciding if a driver/car combo was quick enough to take part of the race. At some times the elimination process was called pre-qualifying, but the general principle stands.

Now all cars that are in F1 will start. There has been a problem that the quickets cars and drivers always starts first so Max and Bernie (why don't anyone make them into a comic?) started to experiment. We all know what happens when people start to make experiment without proper education.

What was their idea?
1. To prevent the teams to make special qualifying cars
2. To prevent the teams to make far-going qualifying modifications to their cars
3. To spice up the grid to get more action.

I have the solution.

Let the drivers qualify.

With the GP 2 cars. Or karts. Or a spec Q car. Or in a simulator.
Would be great because we would also see the relative strengths of the drivers differently. The Spyker pilot that starts from pole every race but finish out of top ten will propably get a good car next year.

Drawbacks? Well, the obvious is of course that it would cost extra to have another set of cars. But if they go back to one car qualifying it would be enough with 5-6 cars for the drivers to choose from. 10 minutes of checking and preparing (seats etc).

Maybe it is impossible, it was just an idea I got when reading Alesis idea of having GPM, GP2 and F1 on the same weekend. A true "drivers competition" would be a great topping.

Tell me why it would not work.

[kos]

Why use cars at all?

Let them run a lap around the track - that way we'll see who's quickest

[AyePirate]

It would break 50+ years of tradition of the fastest car/driver combination of qualifying being on pole.

Sponsors would hate it.

Within a couple of years all of the fastest gp2/sim drivers would be signed to the fastest cars
and we would be back to where we started.

I have a feeling though that results wouldn't be that different than the current system.

It would be interesting though, kind of like when we occasionally get to see F1 drivers in karts or ROC type situations.

I have always thought that it is arrogant to declare the F1 champion the WDC anyway. It would require a combo of rallying, sportscars and open wheel racing to decalre a true WDC.

[Limits]

Originally posted by kos
Why use cars at all?

Let them run a lap around the track - that way we'll see who's quickest

Would also be an improvement

[Ricardo F1]

12 laps. Low fuel. Must run 3 laps every fifteen minutes. One hour.

[carbonfibre]

I don't see why anyone has a problem with the quickest one actually starting on P1.

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
12 laps. Low fuel. Must run 3 laps every fifteen minutes. One hour.

Great solution, i would love to get the normal 12 laps quali back, and the rule that they should do a run every 15 min would at least guarantee some cars ontrack.

Originally posted by Limits

That was broken 4 years ago or something, when the started with the "qual with race fuel" thing.

Exactly.

[Limits]

Originally posted by AyePirate
It would break 50+ years of tradition of the fastest car/driver combination of qualifying being on pole.

That was broken 4 years ago or something, when the started with the "qual with race fuel" thing.

[Clatter]

Qualifying has always been to establish the starting position of the drivers on the grid.

Pre-qualifying has only been used when there are more entrants than grid positions, therefore some sort of elimination was required.

The only other requirement used to be the 107% rule, whereby the really slow were eliminated, but there were dispenastion rules, and it was rare that someone was not allowed to start.

F1 is about driving and racing in F1 cars. I fed up enough with MM's attempts to "Spice up the show", without some crap about using different cars or a playstation.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
12 laps. Low fuel. Must run 3 laps every fifteen minutes. One hour.

The way I see it, IF we go back to old quali...NO artificial rules to guerantee there are lots of cars on track. Just accept every system has its flaws.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
12 laps. Low fuel. Must run 3 laps every fifteen minutes. One hour.

Yeah yeah, I am sure there is a million ideas, but what about the idea described here?;)

I can tell you why the "old" version does not work though: "Ladies and gentlemen - SAVE YOUR ENGINES!"

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by Spunout


The way I see it, IF we go back to old quali...NO artificial rules to guerantee there are lots of cars on track. Just accept every system has its flaws.

And can you even call it a flaw?

I mean i always loved it when they would all go out and it was so busy on the track and everybody was beating their best times etc, very exciting.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Limits
Yeah yeah, I am sure there is a million ideas, but what about the idea described here?;)

I can tell you why the "old" version does not work though: "Ladies and gentlemen - SAVE YOUR ENGINES!"

A free hour unlimited laps would be best. But if it doesnt work due some enginerules, then one lap qualifying on LOW FUEL.

Last years qualifying was worst till now. And reading the proposals here, it doesnt seem like getting any better.

[Limits]

Did you quit smoking on new years eve?

[Spunout]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
And can you even call it a flaw?

I mean i always loved it when they would all go out and it was so busy on the track and everybody was beating their best times etc, very exciting.

Uh, I meant the first 15-30 mins when there are no cars on track. But since you mentioned it, it was often annoying to miss so many laps...

[Tolyngee]

Originally posted by Limits

That was broken 4 years ago or something, when the started with the "qual with race fuel" thing.

While I don't agree with it, as there are too many variables to this term, and can just be manipulated anyway, but having cars qualify in race trim and keep that trim exactly does make a lot of sense...

I mean, back when the actually had Q cars basically, they were qualifying in cars that could never last a race distance...

It really was a display of who was faster IN A DIFFERENT CAR THAN THEIR ACTUAL RACE CAR on race day...

When looked at that way, it makes sense to me...

Problem is, how exactly do you define "race trim"? If someone just wants pole, you can almost just set-up the car for that, or even just do a low-fuel run... That's happened... If you know your car just can't be competitive, or just outright won't last a race distance, why not manipulate the system and get noticed?

I do like the old system though, where you basically knew who the fastest driver was in just a single lap... But it seriously really wasn't their race car...

Ricardo F1 probably has the best idea... And although I understand what he's getting at the "3 laps/15m" rule, that would create situations you don't want, so it would get at least modified... Even a "gotta hit the track every 15 m" rule would create a situation you don't want (altho a "tough ****" rule to teams might seem okay, but it just looks like the 10-position engine change crap again, and I can see teams sending a car out, realizing something is wrong, bringing it in (without doing three laps), working on the car, and then just sending it out again withing 15m, irregardless of if they are done, wihch could obviously be dangerous, just so they don't get DQed or sent to the back of the grid? You don't want a car on the track that just shouldn't be there, but do we really want to keep a car to the back of the grid because in Q they needed to do a 30-min fix job to grab pole?)

I want a fair system, and that 3lap/15m thing only serves to keep some semi-ARTIFICIAL action on the track...

Besides, if no one wants to go out 'til the final 10 minutes, that's plenty of time for coverage of the babes in attendance.

Bob Varsha (and especially David Hobbs) could learn to shut their yaps during a race... But, then again, Varsha's (and, again, especially Hobbs'!) reactions to the babes are worth leaving the audio on for!

(now I can't help but wonder if someone's already done a YouTube vid of their stuff...)

[stevewf1]

I miss the days of the old qualifying sessions.

When the whole package of driver/team/tires/setup/etc/etc would go out at just the right time for a banzai qualifying lap...

Watching the old one-hour qualifying session was more exciting to me than the race itself...

OK - those days are gone... Since the FIA wants to "spice" up the show (and cut costs), why not just have a drawing for starting spots? Imagine the tension as names are drawn out of the hat...

That way, a Grand Prix could be reduced to just a one-day show, saving money...

:

[Limits]

Good post Tolyngee

Yes, you are right of course. I think the 12-lap format seems so good only because the new one(s) have been so bad. Maybe there was nothing wrong with the format itself, but it all became more of a battle of resources.

-"Hah, we can afford so spend an engine for the last lap only!"
-"Hah, WE can afford to build a completely different car for the qualifying!"
-"No you can't!"
-"Yes we can!"
-"Can you? Max, can they?"

I think it started to go wrong already with the (later banned) qualifying tyres. Propably even before that.

But it was still better than the current format because no matter what, the fastest car and driver had pole! Of course, there was always "I had traffic" and so on, but a pole ment something, it gave bragging rights and regardless if you followed a team or a driver, a pole gave you, as a fan, some kind of satisfaction. The current format does not. At best cases you know after the race is finished who did a good qualifying, but most of the times you never really know.

That is why I was thinking that they might as well drive a completely different car to the one they race with, just like in the good old days, but instead of spending an insane amount of money on creating that car they might as well use a cheap, spec, one

[Georg_Kuyumji]

The 1 hour and 12 laps Qualy was the Best

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Limits

Let the drivers qualify.

With the GP 2 cars. Or karts. Or a spec Q car. Or in a simulator.
Would be great because we would also see the relative strengths of the drivers differently. The Spyker pilot that starts from pole every race but finish out of top ten will propably get a good car next year.

Tell me why it would not work.

I thought this was a joke at first.

[Limits]

Qualifying has been a joke for the last 4 years. But when Max makes a joke, nobody laughs.

It's not a joke. It is unrealistic and so on, but not a joke.

[Option1]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
12 laps. Low fuel. Must run 3 laps every fifteen minutes. One hour.

Please don't make sensible suggestions! It has no place in modern F1. Sadly.

Neil

[Limits]

Originally posted by Option1
Please don't make sensible suggestions! It has no place in modern F1. Sadly.

Neil

Well, it is not very sensible. It is sensible, but not very. As Tolyngee pointed out, forcing them to do laps that does not really matter does not solve anything at all. That is were the current system fails. Actually, the current system would be ok if the cut the silly race fuel part at the end and instead let them keep their best time from each session, meaning that if for instance Alonso really go for it on his first time lap, he can stay in the pits until the very dying minutes of the last session. Or even the whole session. Then there would be a reason to drive fast. To save tyres, to save the car. The elimination thing of the current system is actually quite good I think, it keeps the track cleaner for the last efforts by the top pilots, but unfortuantely the good is overshadowd by the bad.

[kamix]

I come to watch F1 not a complete circus show (using other cars).

[Limits]

I have no problem with people finding my idea silly, after all it is propably impossible in many ways. But this is a discussion board I think and I doubt very much that what we write here will change the sport in any way. But one idea leads to another idea and so on.

So, just laugh if you want to, but what I find amusing is the arguments used.

"I come to watch F1 not a complete circus show"
"It would break 50+ years of tradition of the fastest car/driver combination of qualifying being on pole."
"I don't see why anyone has a problem with the quickest one actually starting on P1."
"I fed up enough with MM's attempts to "Spice up the show", without some crap about using different cars or a playstation."

All the arguments above can be used against F1 as it stands, except for the Playstation bit (but a car/driver change was once seriously discussed)

So, I ask again - why would it not work?

[RichardVirenque]

It can be unfair as it is F1. There are several examples where a driver was (wasn't) the best in other series, and is no longer in F1. (see ROC for example where DC get beaten by Pastrana, Muller, Hk by Mattias, etc...).
IF they use kart for example, Liuzzi will always start from pole (or near the top).
So it is unfair as we follow F1, therefore the clasiification shoulr rely only in F1 IMO.

[Agnis]

I think that single lap qualifying wasn't that bad idea. It mixed up the field and made interesting grids. But I think there was no need for other changes. Qualifying engines, Q tyres, Q setup, but just one flying lap. No second chance to improve. In changing weather conditions qualifying must be postponed.

[Imperial]

To be any sort of motorsport fan I think you have to take a step back and accept there will always be certain situations you just have to accept (or 'put up with') and in different series it's different things.

In F1 the thing you really have to put up with is qualifying. It has pluses and minuses in all of the guises it has run under, for both the Saturday and Sunday of a race meeting.

Whatever modifications have been made to qually so far, I consider them to have been a waste of time as the fastest cars are always towards the front of the pack, regardless of what tyre they run or how much fuel is in the tank.

I would however put up with the foibles that make-up F1 qualifying than something altogether more artificial like success-ballast, the scurge of the European tin-top scene (an example of what fans of tin-top racing have to put up with).

At the end of the day, qualifying only became really 'important' to the average Joe (i.e. all of us on this forum) when it started receiving extensive TV coverage and more recently major media exposure (through the interweb).

Watching F1 in the late 80's as a pre-teen there was no qually on TV and obviously no internet then, and I personally didn't think too much about qualifying. Sure you'd see the qually results before the race and shrug if your fave driver was in 8th instead of 1st, but so what - there was still a great race to look forward to.

Of course if something can be made better then it should be, so I would never say forget qually completely, but in my opinion there is too much emphasis on it these days (from a viewers perspective).

[Gemini]

Originally posted by Georg_Kuyumji
The 1 hour and 12 laps Qualy was the Best

Boy, how I miss Watson/Edwards commentators' team

[tifosi]

I've never understood why people want to keep messing around with qualifying. What was wrong with qualifying in the first place. One hour of all out going for the fastest lap possible. Ahy are so many people against that?

[Limits]

If we forget about qualifying for the moment and think about the sport itself.
A big problem F1 is facing is that people do not really care. With Schumi and smart marketing by Bernie, F1 grew enourmously during the nineties. The fact that Schumi went to Ferrari to "bring them back to the top" was a great material for any PR guy. It was a bit "David against Goliat" were Ferrari was David and "Goliat" was the evil British empire. That also stirred up interest in UK, since they in a way were under attack. David eventually won and turned into Goliat II and many of them who started watching in the mid nineties went on to other things. The fight was over. There was no new David, just some weak attempts by Goliat I to stand up again. Schumi went on winning and winning and winning. Seven titles. Seven times World Champion of motorracing. That is a huge achievement, the best in the history of motorsport. On his way there he beat almost all the records available and it is very unlikely that anyone will even come close to his records.

Was he worth it? Many says yes, but many says NO. No doubt he was a great driver and all that, but was he really THAT good?

"Michael Shumacher - World Motorracing World Champion 2002!"

How many of you thought "wow, he was great" and how many thought "my granny could have won the title in that car"?

Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso are propably the two biggest talents so far this decade. What would have happened if they both made a debut at Minardi? Would Ron and Flavio have recognized their talent and brought them to the "real" F1? Or would we have thought "Minardi is quite good this year, only 2 seconds off pace"? How would they have reacted by being team mates, knowing that their career depended on winning that internal struggle? It is likely that they would have charged a bit extra, taken a bit more risks, had a few more accidents... The Minardi would still have been last but now the two drivers would not look so good anymore, accident prone as they are.

Top Team problem #1
"The cream always float to the top". Yes, that is true, normally, but apart from the example I gave above - what is "the top"? Kimi thought for sure that he had floated to the top when he signed for McLaren. He was wrong.

Top Team problem #2
A team is good. It attracts sponsors, top staff and top drivers.
It stays good

Top Team problem #3
A team is not so good. It attracts no one, have to pay for everything.
It stays bad.

Apart for the tifosi, do a fan in general follow a driver or a team? I think that those who follow a team are finding it increasingky diffucult to do so, except the tifosi of course. McLaren is Ron and Mercedes. What happens when Ron has enough and says "**** all"? Williams have had a long slump and are propably not winning many new fans and the loyal fans they have must look for a secondary team to cheer for. Or just someone to cheer against.

Honda, Toyota, BMW and Mercedes are to corporate for many. Or am I wrong? Do all the Toyota owners cheer for Toyota? I don't, so it has to be everyone but me in that case.

Back to the drivers and my original idea (who is really intended as a "food for thought" topic). I thougt about it some more during breakfast. What if it became true?

First of all, driver talent would be much more obvious. The audience could see the drivers themselves compete and not only the cars. Had this been during Schumis career and he would still have the number of pole positions that he have, NOBODY would have doubted his greatness.

Second, a team that has the great driver that stands on pole every second race will be attractive to sponsors. They would get more money and better possibility to improve. A solid contract with Alonso driver could possible have made Minardi a top team (unless he had been paired wit Kimi ;) ).

Third. Since the actual skill of a driver becomes important, a small team would ask a driver "Now, how fast can you go?" rather than "How much can you bring".

I have more, but now I must eat

[Limits]

Originally posted by tifosi
I've never understood why people want to keep messing around with qualifying. What was wrong with qualifying in the first place. One hour of all out going for the fastest lap possible. Ahy are so many people against that?

It was nothing wrong really. They just needed a quick fix for the fact that special qualifyng cars were being in construction and the qualification tended to dig a too deep hole in the budget. Qualifying position IS important and whoever wanted to win HAD to keep up in the spending.

The quick fix was a bit too quick and failed basically because they wanted to "kill two flies in one smack" (spice up the grid) and made a mess of the whole kitchen. Later, ll the quick fixes to fix it have made it worse.

[Option1]

Originally posted by Limits

It was nothing wrong really. They just needed a quick fix for the fact that special qualifyng cars were being in construction and the qualification tended to dig a too deep hole in the budget. Qualifying position IS important and whoever wanted to win HAD to keep up in the spending.
...

Bull!

The only reason they changed was because sponsors complained that their cars (i.e Minardi, Jag, everyone else at the arse-end of the field) didn't get enought TV time. Same reason they added the fin to the engine covers, more visible sponsors.

Understand that F1 is no longer a sport for spectators, it's now an iconoclastic wankfest for commercial enterprises of which we are unfortunately the conned marks.

Neil

[Limits]

Originally posted by Option1
Bull!

The only reason they changed was because sponsors complained that their cars (i.e Minardi, Jag, everyone else at the arse-end of the field) didn't get enought TV time. Same reason they added the fin to the engine covers, more visible sponsors.

Neil

Sorry, but you are wrong there

Seriosuly, you are. If the sponsors wanted more TV time, why did they not ask their teams to go out when the track was empty? Plenty TV time was up for grabs.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Limits

It was nothing wrong really. They just needed a quick fix for the fact that special qualifyng cars were being in construction and the qualification tended to dig a too deep hole in the budget. Qualifying position IS important and whoever wanted to win HAD to keep up in the spending.

Then do away with q-cars. Why come up with an entire new format when even you say the old format was nothing wrong????

[Limits]

Originally posted by tifosi


Then do away with q-cars. Why come up with an entire new format when even you say the old format was nothing wrong????

It was nothing wrong. Well not so much wrong, but it became wrong. Now F1 has gone in a direction were it is not possible to go back. The bridges are sold. You can not have the old format AND parc ferme rules AND 3 or 4 REAL attempts to go fast. The car, tyres and engine has to be saved for later, you remember? They can do away with the race fuel thing though.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Limits

It was nothing wrong. Well not so much wrong, but it became wrong. Now F1 has gone in a direction were it is not possible to go back. The bridges are sold. You can not have the old format AND parc ferme rules AND 3 or 4 REAL attempts to go fast. The car, tyres and engine has to be saved for later, you remember? They can do away with the race fuel thing though.

They could go back easily if they wanted. Fridays are no longer covered by the two race engine rule, so there is absolutely no reason why qualifying could go the same way.

The best qualifying was twenty years back - two one hour sessions, one on friday, one on saturday, no holds barred all out blasts.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Lifew12


They could go back easily if they wanted. Fridays are no longer covered by the two race engine rule, so there is absolutely no reason why qualifying could go the same way.

Except for the small thing that it would bring back the qualifying engines and basically kill the spirit of the current engine rules. Not that there is much life to kill in it...

[kismet]

Wouldn't parc fermé regulations have taken care of the alleged qualifying car problem?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Limits

Except for the small thing that it would bring back the qualifying engines and basically kill the spirit of the current engine rules. Not that there is much life to kill in it...

No it wouldn't - engines are homologated and limited to 19000 revs.

[Limits]

Originally posted by kismet
Wouldn't parc fermé regulations have taken care of the alleged qualifying car problem?

It would, but as I said, they wanted to fix something that was not broken as well (randomize the grid, which did not work).

But in reality, parc ferme rules would have forced the teams to save the engines.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Lifew12


No it wouldn't - engines are homologated and limited to 19000 revs.

It does not matter, it would mean that the teams, also the smaller ones, would need extra engines, need to make extensive changes to the car (change engine after Q - how do you check that everything else is the same?) and performance is more than revs.

[Limits]

To make it really interesting, they could use the GP Masters cars

[tkulla]

Am I the only one that likes the new three-phase quali system? The only change I would make is to take the race fuel requirment out. Paring it down to the best 10 means much less traffic than the old free-for-all system.

[Option1]

Originally posted by Limits


Sorry, but you are wrong there

Seriosuly, you are. If the sponsors wanted more TV time, why did they not ask their teams to go out when the track was empty? Plenty TV time was up for grabs.

Geez, perhaps you might like to check your facts a little more closely. Even Berniemax admitted the reason for the change was to give sponsors more TV time.

Instead of doing the sensible thing and mandating a change that required at least 3 leaps every 15 minutes as suggested by Ricardo earlier, they went and ****ed over the whole concept of qualifying by trying to out Nascar Nascar. Your suggestion is in the same realm of non-racing racing. Means Berniemax will probably absolutely love it.

Neil

[Limits]

Originally posted by Option1
Geez, perhaps you might like to check your facts a little more closely. Even Berniemax admitted the reason for the change was to give sponsors more TV time.

Instead of doing the sensible thing and mandating a change that required at least 3 leaps every 15 minutes as suggested by Ricardo earlier, they went and ****ed over the whole concept of qualifying by trying to out Nascar Nascar. Your suggestion is in the same realm of non-racing racing. Means Berniemax will probably absolutely love it.

Neil

I read some of your posts of the last few days and I must say that the bitter, non constructive, sarcasm that they are full of does not appeal to me. Have your wife left you? But that's just me, maybe they adds to someone elses life. In any case, if berniemax told you that the reason for the change was to give sponsors more TV time, they lied to you.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by tkulla
Am I the only one that likes the new three-phase quali system? The only change I would make is to take the race fuel requirment out. Paring it down to the best 10 means much less traffic than the old free-for-all system.

I agree. Its just the fuel burn session that is a bit of a bore.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Clatter


I agree. Its just the fuel burn session that is a bit of a bore.

I go with that (current, but without fuel burn/race fuel), but I would also add that they bring/keep their best time into the next session. That would give them enough reason to try harder.

[Option1]

Originally posted by Limits

I read some of your posts of the last few days and I must say that the bitter, non constructive, sarcasm that they are full of does not appeal to me. Have your wife left you? But that's just me, maybe they adds to someone elses life. In any case, if berniemax told you that the reason for the change was to give sponsors more TV time, they lied to you.

ROFLMAO. So when confronted with facts your response is a personal attack. How nice. Oh well, says more about you than me.

Of course, if you'd actually followed F1 at the time of the qualy changes you'd already have known why the changes were made. Obviously you didn't.

Neil

[smartie_f1]

Originally posted by tkulla
Am I the only one that likes the new three-phase quali system? The only change I would make is to take the race fuel requirment out. Paring it down to the best 10 means much less traffic than the old free-for-all system.

no i quite like the new three stage qualifying, but like you i'd take out the fuel burning phase and have them on low fuel shooting for pole.

Either that or in the final session the top 10 do one lap shoot out, using their times from session 2 to decide who goes first etc. That would encourage banzai laps in Q2 also, rather than just doing enough to get through.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Option1
So when confronted with facts

No use in arguing about it, but you did not confront me with any facts. I know that the wish for more coverage for the small teams was part in the equation, but it was a very small part and definetly not the reason. About the "personal attack" thing - I thought someone that just had posted "Oh look a moron wandered in. Take a seat over there please sir. The doctor will be with you shortly." as a reply to a poster on this board would not be so sensitive ;)