83 replies to this topic

[Option1]

Yawn. So you finally admit that changing qualy rules did include more TV coverage for sponsors. Sheesh and to think earlier you claimed it had nothing to do with it at all.

Anyone who buys the cost-reduction stuff is at best naive. Do you honestly think any of the teams spent a single penny less when the rules changed banning qualy engines? Do you honestly believe those companies said, "Oh look we no longer need to build special engines for qualifying. Let's cut our budgets for F1 right now."?

As for my response to that poster, you might like to put things in context perhaps? No I didn't think so. Oh well, I will. Anyone who claims anyone should hang for anything they did in F1 is a moron and will be called such.

Anyway, this discussion is dead as a dodo. It's obvious that like so many now days, you're right even if you're wrong, no matter what the evidence. You'll do great here.

Neil

[Limits]

Originally posted by Option1
Yawn. So you finally admit that changing qualy rules did include more TV coverage for sponsors. Sheesh and to think earlier you claimed it had nothing to do with it at all.

Anyone who buys the cost-reduction stuff is at best naive. Do you honestly think any of the teams spent a single penny less when the rules changed banning qualy engines? Do you honestly believe those companies said, "Oh look we no longer need to build special engines for qualifying. Let's cut our budgets for F1 right now."?

As for my response to that poster, you might like to put things in context perhaps? No I didn't think so. Oh well, I will. Anyone who claims anyone should hang for anything they did in F1 is a moron and will be called such.

Anyway, this discussion is dead as a dodo. It's obvious that like so many now days, you're right even if you're wrong, no matter what the evidence. You'll do great here.

Neil

It is indeed a dead end, but you are not being honest. I never claimed TV coverage had nothing at all to do with it. I just said you were wrong when you said:

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.

And you were. Wrong.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

The only real problem with the current system is that the top ten drivers have to qualify with race fuel levels. Get rid of that, make qualifying meaningful again, problem solved.

[Jerome]

Actually, the best way to make the drivers qualify for the race, instead of their respective (qualifying) car... is not to qualify.... but to decide the grid by the last race. So drivers who are either a. fast enough to race in front, are in front, b. either reliable/consistent enough start relatively near the front (think of Monteiro).

Would it make the race mor exciting. Not by much. But if the poster wants fair qualifying, I think this is it...

[angst]

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.

Especially given that it seems to have worked so well on TV. But, that last section ought to be, as you say, devoid of the race fuel requirement. That would open the door for more of a mixture of pit-stop 'tactics' - especially if one could reduce the aero sensitivity of the cars.

[tidytracks]

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

BINGO. Although I'd say one timed lap every 20 minutes. Keeps it closer to "Proper" qualifying but ensures interest for fans and TV broadcasters.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Limits

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.

The problems you mention will follow from Friday running, which is now free from the engine restrictions. Extending it to qualifying, therefore, is simple.

If ever there was a time to re-introduce the free for all qualifying, this is it.

[Beamer]

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.

Nope you're not the only one! I really like the current format except for the race-fuel requirement. Take that out and it'll perfect!

[Beej]

Originally posted by 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.

I am sorry to disagree but in the days of pre qually, pre qually was used to reduce the field to 30 cars and the qually was used to reduce that to 26 cars. So the 2 day qually was used to eliminated as well as set grid position.

[chris_canuk]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
I don't see why anyone has a problem with the quickest one actually starting on P1.
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.
Exactly.

Uh, normal was unlimited laps over a one hour period and there was no idiotic rule about having to do a run every x minutes.

It worked fine. That was the REAL only qualifying format.

[chris_canuk]

Originally posted by 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

Go look up which team Alonso made his F1 debut with.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Option1


As for my response to that poster, you might like to put things in context perhaps? No I didn't think so. Oh well, I will. Anyone who claims anyone should hang for anything they did in F1 is a moron and will be called such.

Actually, it was you who took it out of context. You clearly don't understand a sarcastic remark unless it's accompanied by pictures.

I doubt anyone else took it seriously.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by chris_canuk


Uh, normal was unlimited laps over a one hour period and there was no idiotic rule about having to do a run every x minutes.

It worked fine. That was the REAL only qualifying format.

Absolutely.

[Limits]

Originally posted by chris_canuk


Go look up which team Alonso made his F1 debut with.

Alonso was the third-youngest driver ever to start a F1 race when he made his debut with Minardi at the 2001 Australian Grand Prix.

http://en.wikipedia....nso#Formula_One

Are they wrong?

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Limits


http://en.wikipedia....nso#Formula_One

Are they wrong?

No, but I think you need to go back and read what you said about KR or FA being noticed if they had driven for Minardi.

[Jerome]

The point that the original poster wanted to make was that the F1 people already knew who Alonso was before he drove for Minardi. Then again; Alonso drove so well for Minardi that I am sure he would have been noticed by the big guns if he had been as relatively unknown as, for example, Christijan Albers. Yes, Alonso was THAT good in the Minardi... And if Albers would crush Sutil this year (which I think he won't), he will go up a notch as well.

BTW Fisichella did get noticed in the Minardi, was he not? Gerhard Berger got noticed in the ATS (basically a one of rentadrive, Hockenheid, 6th place), Lauda in the March, etcetera.

So I know what the poster intended. He is not entirely right...

[Limits]

Originally posted by Clatter


No, but I think you need to go back and read what you said about KR or FA being noticed if they had driven for Minardi.

I meant that if they had been team mates at Minardi (they both made debut 2001), it is very likely that none of the would have outshone the other. Alonso was driving against Alex Young and Tarso Marques and he drove circles around them. He would not have done that against Kimi. Both of them might have been considered as "talents", but there is a lot of talents from lower formulas that suddenly looks quite bleek in F1. Justin Wilson, Sebastien Bourdais, Timo Glock and Bjorn Wirdheim just to mention some of the most recent.

If two complete rookies with equal talents are teamed together in a lousy team - how do you know that they are the two best drivers in the world? There is nothing to compare with.

EDIT: When one looks at Alonsos performance in F3000, before joining Minardi, it was far from obvious that he was a future champ. He finished fourth behind Bruno Junquiera, Nicolas Minassian and Mark Webber. It was his Minardi season that made his career and Tarso, an experienced driver on his third F1 season and F3000 career similar to Alonsos (one race win), and Alex Young that helped key people to evaluate him. Kimi was paired against Nick who in turned had been compared to Alesi, so that was easier.

EDIT 2: I know Bourdais never raced in F1, but he did a test and did not manage to convince that he was quick enough.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by chris_canuk


Uh, normal was unlimited laps over a one hour period and there was no idiotic rule about having to do a run every x minutes.

It worked fine. That was the REAL only qualifying format.

YES!!! Someone else gets it! Thank you!

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by Spunout


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...

That didnt happen much, maybe the first 15 minutes yes but most of the time you would see a Minardi going out etc etc. And you would get a whole lot of action in the last 30 minutes.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by Limits

EDIT: When one looks at Alonsos performance in F3000, before joining Minardi, it was far from obvious that he was a future champ. He finished fourth behind Bruno Junquiera, Nicolas Minassian and Mark Webber. It was his Minardi season that made his career and Tarso, an experienced driver on his third F1 season and F3000 career similar to Alonsos (one race win), and Alex Young that helped key people to evaluate him. Kimi was paired against Nick who in turned had been compared to Alesi, so that was easier.

You're looking at numbers and ignoring facts.

It was Alonso's first F3000 season in a series that was rapidly becomming one that took multiple seasons to master. He started slow as anyone would in those conditions and won the last race at Spa in massively dominating fashion for a team that was absolutely nowhere and indeed didn't last very long after that year.

And it wasn't really "Tarso's 3rd season". He hadn't even done a full year worth of races before partnering Alonso.

Plus it was probably his raciness against the Benettons early in 2001 and his fantastic drive in Japan that year that raised eyebrows far more than his performances against his teammates.

BTW Fisichella did get noticed in the Minardi, was he not? Gerhard Berger got noticed in the ATS (basically a one of rentadrive, Hockenheid, 6th place), Lauda in the March, etcetera.

Indeed. Trulli also debuted in a Minardi too, Wilson got a Jaguar drive off his performances at Minardi and only lost it because he didn't have $8million from Red Bull. Alessandro Nannini was a race winner after leaving Minardi too.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Dudley


You're looking at numbers and ignoring facts.

Really, are those numbers not facts?

It was Alonso's first F3000 season in a series that was rapidly becomming one that took multiple seasons to master. He started slow as anyone would in those conditions and won the last race at Spa in massively dominating fashion for a team that was absolutely nowhere and indeed didn't last very long after that year.

"Excuses, excuses, if Alonso had any talent, he would have been better in F3000. Not a single point in the first seven rounds and then he ended the season with a lucky win at Spa were everybody else guessed the weather wrong. Bah, good riddance! And that finn, what was his name, Kim? What happened to him?"

And it wasn't really "Tarso's 3rd season". He hadn't even done a full year worth of races before partnering Alonso.

Did I write "third full season"? He had a lot more experience than Alonso that he had, among other things, gathered in Fromuka one over two seasons. Remember that his F3000 was almost identical to Alonsos, one win, but ended fifth instead of fourth. He was a man to beat, that was expected. But Alonso made him look like a bus driver. That was not expected, Alonso impressed.

Plus it was probably his raciness against the Benettons early in 2001 and his fantastic drive in Japan that year that raised eyebrows far more than his performances against his teammates.

How do you know it was fantastic? Had he finished behind, or only a fraction ahead of, Kimi (had they been team mates) most would have said "Minardi is getting their act together".

Indeed. Trulli also debuted in a Minardi too, Wilson got a Jaguar drive off his performances at Minardi and only lost it because he didn't have $8million from Red Bull. Alessandro Nannini was a race winner after leaving Minardi too.

You miss the point. My point was that the drivers can only be compared against their team mate. If two rookies are equally good and drive for the same team it is extremely diffucult to know if the are extraordinary or just plain ordinary.

[Jerome]

Well, because racing of even the lower classes are less well attended than in the past, but much more publicised, it is, I admit, difficult for a team to get someone so unknown in their team who can suprise the teamowners... but I still think it's possible. Alonso shone against better cars. Perhaps he finished behind faster cars, but people know the Midland for example should be slower than the Red Bulls. So if Albers or Monteiro is faster without the other cars having bad luck... people will notice. And when Alonso outdrove the Arrows cars and a Benetton, well... that was really astonishing.

So back on topic: even with the current qualifying sessions, drivers do show their worth, unless the difference in cars. (Think of Doornbos and his qualifying for Red Bull. That was impressive stuff.)

It would only be better if the current shout out (or how do you call it?) where only ten drivers finish would be improved by letting them choose their own fuel (I mean: 1 lap or two laps of fuel).

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Limits

You miss the point. My point was that the drivers can only be compared against their team mate. If two rookies are equally good and drive for the same team it is extremely diffucult to know if the are extraordinary or just plain ordinary.

To you and me perhaps. Not to those on the inside who see these guys day in and day out.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
And when Alonso outdrove the Arrows cars and a Benetton, well... that was really astonishing.

Aaargh!;) You STILL miss the point, IF Kimi had been his team mate it is likely that BOTH and Alonso at some points would have been done amazing races, BUT then there would be no refernce saying that it was the DRIVER that was doing something very special, it would have more likely had boosted Brunners and Stoddards reputation instead since they put a really good Minardi on the grid that season.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Limits
Aaargh!;) You STILL miss the point, IF Kimi had been his team mate it is likely that BOTH and Alonso at some points would have been done amazing races, BUT then there would be no refernce saying that it was the DRIVER that was doing something very special, it would have more likely had boosted Brunners and Stoddards reputation instead since they put a really good Minardi on the grid that season.

2000 Minardi was already very good. They were not so much off the pace even if they were last. I think 2001 Minardi should have been just as good as well, but they lacked testing and budget and it took a while till Alonso and the team understood how to show what the car was capable of.

[prty]

Originally posted by Limits

Really, are those numbers not facts?

"Excuses, excuses, if Alonso had any talent, he would have been better in F3000. Not a single point in the first seven rounds and then he ended the season with a lucky win at Spa were everybody else guessed the weather wrong. Bah, good riddance! And that finn, what was his name, Kim? What happened to him?"

About F3000, Armonico posted a while ago a 2001 intereview. The translation of that part:

Q: In F3000 at the end of the day you did fairly well, although you had bad luck too.

FA: Well yes, the F3000 season was a very weird one.

Q: Antonio García told us that the F3000 is not a good car to learn: it was archaic, very hard and it's like starting from scratch

FA: It was a very hard car, very similar to a touring. It's like a touring car with the bodywork of an open wheeler.

What happened in Astromega? I mean the set up thing, engineers, etc., because as far as I know, there were disagreements

FA: Well... there were problems. I finished 9th or 10th, having qualified 15th or 16th in the beggining of the season. The car was understeering a lot in each corner, and I arrived to it, I was breaking softly because I knew that if I don't do that, I would turn the wheel and understeer. And those Englishmen at Astromega were "very donkeys" [Spanish expression which means that they didn't change of opinion easily]

They had the test programme, they knew beforehand which spring or bar they were going to change. Then I tell him "the car understeers". They looked at the programme and they answer... "change spring". And that programme was made at their home beforehand... if the car understeers, change whatever bar.

They changed what they had written in the programme and the car didn't change at all. We told them again and again. It can't be like that, the car could have gone well last year, but for my driving style or whatever... I don't race like that... and nothing, nothing, nothing. In the 5th race we said: "look: either we go out there with a different workstyle or I won't race anymore this year", because it was no use, and I could race for another team. In that race they said "OK, we'll go out there however you want".

Then with the engineer we said: OK, we went well with this spring in Imola, etc. We did the car more neutral. I went to qualifying and ended up 3rd in the grid... and there they were confused... the only thing is that the fuel pump broke during the race. Since then, I was 6th in qualifying in Germany, and I went off when I was 4th in the wet, in Hungary I finished 2nd and I won in Spa.

audio

PS: In that same interview he said that from the windtunnel data, the 2001 Minardi had more drag and less downforce than the 2000 one.

[Limits]

Actually to take that a bit further - I think even Paul admitted that they could not field two good cars and Tarso and later Alex Young had to take what they could get. Had Kimi and Alonso been team mates, maybe one of them would have indeed "shined" through. The other would no longer be in F1.

[Limits]

Originally posted by prty



About F3000, Armonico posted a while ago a 2001 intereview. The translation of that part:

Q: In F3000 at the end of the day you did fairly well, although you had bad luck too.

FA: Well yes, the F3000 season was a very weird one.

Q: Antonio García told us that the F3000 is not a good car to learn: it was archaic, very hard and it's like starting from scratch

FA: It was a very hard car, very similar to a touring. It's like a touring car with the bodywork of an open wheeler.

What happened in Astromega? I mean the set up thing, engineers, etc., because as far as I know, there were disagreements

FA: Well... there were problems. I finished 9th or 10th, having qualified 15th or 16th in the beggining of the season. The car was understeering a lot in each corner, and I arrived to it, I was breaking softly because I knew that if I don't do that, I would turn the wheel and understeer. And those Englishmen at Astromega were "very donkeys" [Spanish expression which means that they didn't change of opinion easily]

They had the test programme, they knew beforehand which spring or bar they were going to change. Then I tell him "the car understeers". They looked at the programme and they answer... "change spring". And that programme was made at their home beforehand... if the car understeers, change whatever bar.

They changed what they had written in the programme and the car didn't change at all. We told them again and again. It can't be like that, the car could have gone well last year, but for my driving style or whatever... I don't race like that... and nothing, nothing, nothing. In the 5th race we said: "look: either we go out there with a different workstyle or I won't race anymore this year", because it was no use, and I could race for another team. In that race they said "OK, we'll go out there however you want".

Then with the engineer we said: OK, we went well with this spring in Imola, etc. We did the car more neutral. I went to qualifying and ended up 3rd in the grid... and there they were confused... the only thing is that the fuel pump broke during the race. Since then, I was 6th in qualifying in Germany, and I went off when I was 4th in the wet, in Hungary I finished 2nd and I won in Spa.

audio

PS: In that same interview he said that from the windtunnel data, the 2001 Minardi had more drag and less downforce than the 2000 one.

As I "said", excuses ;)

[Jerome]

Aaargh! You STILL miss the point

No, I don't. I disagree with you. You seem to think that the moment a Minardi of sorts gets better, the teamowners immediately think it is because of the car, and that the only comparison they evalue is the difference with the respective teammate.

Well, it is a good measure, especially for us. But teammanagers have eyes in their head, they sit close to the track, have tons of material. They can see where people brake, steer in, and on top of that have tons of trackdata on which they can see their cars, but also that of the lesser teams of the grid. Jos Verstappen in the Arrows sometimes was faster through some turns than cars that were two seconds faster... setup, or no setup, people notice that. Alonso did the same stuff every now and then. It gets noticed.

Believe me: if both Alonso and Kimi had debuted at Minardi, it would have been plain to see for the teamowners they both were very good. But that's hypothetical, ofcourse, because Minardi or Midland would never have two drivers of that calibre in their team.

[Limits]

If I had a cent for each time I heard a team manager, a journalist or a TV commentator say "you are compared against your team mate", I would be able to pay you enough to agree with me.

[Jerome]

Indeed. But that doesn't make it true necessarily. But I grant you this: a driver has to be of a Schumacher or Alonso like quality to be noticed in a Minardi. Very, very good drivers like Fisichella or Trulli need some help from management to get to better teams.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Indeed. But that doesn't make it true necessarily. But I grant you this: a driver has to be of a Schumacher or Alonso like quality to be noticed in a Minardi. Very, very good drivers like Fisichella or Trulli need some help from management to get to better teams.

mmm, not so sure about that - Webber and Martini spring to mind.

[Jerome]

Webber was helped by Briatore, no? And Martini... don't know really why he didn't go places.

Can you explain what you mean, exactly?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Webber was helped by Briatore, no? And Martini... don't know really why he didn't go places.

Can you explain what you mean, exactly?

I don't think you really need to be an Alonso or Schumacher to be 'noticed' in a Minardi (I take it we're using Minardi as a benchmark for what they once were?)

Gianni Morbidelli was noticed, and even Fabrizio Barbazza put in a couple of impressive performances!