F1 to adopt new qualifying procedure in '06

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Lord Blackadder, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #1
    Apparently Bernie's "option 2" from the web poll is going to happen. I'm assuming that, as before, no tire changes or refuelings will be allowed post-qualifying?

    The Link

    I kinda like it...though DC doesn't, according to the article. WTF, Minardi and Jordan don't get much TV coverage anyway, how will this change things THAT much? :confused:

    Opinions?
     
  2. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #2
    Utter nonsense. :rolleyes:

    They should go back to the 12 laps, 4 sets of tyres, low fuel runs.

    Knock out competition... :rolleyes:
     
  3. Lord Blackadder thread starter macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #3
    Do you think it's better than the current system(I do)? I preferred the previous (to this season) method but it seems that they really don't want people changing tires...qualifying should be an all out attempt to wring a fast lap out of a car, with no implications on what happens to tires/fuel for the race.

    If their purpose is to keep overall speeds down they should go to one spec tire (qualifying, race and wet) and allow unlimited changes during qualifying. It's impossible to put limits on tire performance when you have two manufacturers - one will always be at lieast a little bit better, and not being able to change tires is stupid, ask a certain Finn. Or forget the tires altogether and go with a spec wing or something.

    Still, I think this is better than the '05 quali method. I wonder - will they still begin the first 15 min session in reverse order from the previous race?
     
  4. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #4
    but other than the tyres, this IS what option 2 means: the top 10 cars have the second half hour to do what they want (including fuel). the difference is that they do not have a limit of 12 laps and they do have to put in at least two decent laps in the first half hour to pre-qualify. the format per se is an improvement over the 12 laps/1 hr thingy (where traffic had a significant impact).

    the problem with the one-tyre limit is that teams would use the minimum laps they can to save on tyre wear, so there is a trade-off. the obvious solution would be two have two tyre sets (quali/race) which could be forced to be identical (no special quali tyres).

    I personally would like two see the single lap as is today but with two continuous back-to-back sessions, NO added times and free fuel, settings and tyres. This would allow us to see all laps, equal traffic and exposure, fairer track rubbing (in the second round everybody runs on a rubbed-up track) and the possibility to commit an error which should lead to more laps "at the limit"
     
  5. DarkNetworks macrumors 68000

    DarkNetworks

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    #5
    I do think that DC is right in a way, Minardi and Jordan are the ones that will be the first ones out and will get no TV.Not that it's bad enough that they're always at the back of the grid and get very less attention during race, qualifying is the only place where we get to see the Minardi's and Jordan's so i don;t really understand why they agreed...No that if the qualifying system is changed, they'll get a chance to qualify at the top or somewhere near it...this is wierd, i wonder what are the guys at Minardi and Jordon are thinking...

    Btw, will there be any changes about the one tyre whole race thing?
     
  6. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #6
    I have to say that I had (and still have) grave fears for the safety of the drivers with the current tire rule.

    Personally, I've always been of the opinion that F1 was best when there was (i) simple qualifying, (ii) unlimited tire changing, and (iii) no refueling.

    After all, when a driver makes a mistake about fuel consumption, his car stalls slowly in a straight line. When a driver makes a mistake about tire wear, his car breaks up sideways at high speed. :eek:

    Further, having fuel economy as a concern is a very current idea.

    That's my .02, for what it's worth. Which is, rounded to the nearest whole number, zip.

    I'm just happy that no one has been injured this season. [crosses fingers]
     
  7. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #7
    once the qualifying sessions were great. there was 1 hour time limit to drive as fast lap as possible, having no fuel or tire change or car setup restrictions. teams had special tyres, special engines, special setups, and basically did everything they could to get a flying lap. that was entertaining, and something that senna really mastered.

    then they took the life out of it :(

    the craziest thing is that the fia made up all these problems themselves. when the teams were allowed to use "glue-tires" for qualifying, it didn't matter so much when to drive. naturally, the very last minutes gave a slight edge, but it didn't matter so much. the best time could have been driven in the first five minutes. once fia told teams to use race tyres in qualifying session, the last five minutes became super important, and the first half of the qualifying just died.

    once they realized that the first half was not important and thus not intersting, they failed to see that they made a mistake in the first place; instead, they changed the session to the flop it is today. now it is very easy for them to see that they have mad a mistake at some point, but i believe they still fail to see that the quest for a one flying lap (quali) is totally different beast than the quest for a 300km race.

    for qualifying, let the teams have:
    - one hour session where all drivers can drive at the same time
    - unrestricted fuel/tyre/engine change and spec possibilities
    - possibility to change car setup before the race

    that should actually reduce costs rather than add to them, as it is a lot easier to develop one setting for quali and another for race, instead of testing for such (compromised!) setting that can be used in both.

    at the very least, let the qualifying be on low fuel loads. having race fuel during qualifying is STUPID.
     
  8. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #8
    in one point of view, yes. tv coverage means a lot for the teams, and if slower teams don't get tv coverage, they also won't get good sponsors thus leading to even slower cars and less tv coverage.

    but the fact that there are 20 cars out during last five minutes, that's the whole reason behind the one-driver-at-the-time qualifying. if the top ten drivers get the last half, then that problem is not as huge as it was. (BUT, as i commented before, that was not the initial problem)

    what if the friday practice would be a kind of pre-qualification and then saturday would have two one-hour sessions, the first having friday's slower cars and the last having the friday's top ten drivers. then everybody would get a full hour of tv coverage and the top drivers would benefit from better track and less traffic. that would also make friday session more important from the dull shakedown test it is today.
     
  9. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #9
    I disagree... you simply cannot top the anticipation and suspense that the old format gave, look at the last minute qualifying runs of Senna and Schumacher... they were legendary!!! :D

    Sitting in the pits and holding out till the very last second, only leaving the pits when you had enough time to do your warm up lap before the chequered flag, and bam... gave you goosebumps and shivers up your spine because you knew you were witnessing something special. :D

    The old 12 laps, 4 sets of rubber and low fuel format was the simplest, most pure of formats.

    They messed with something that didn't need messing with... :mad:
     
  10. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #10
    i really don't see the big difference. before was 55 minutes of crickets and 5 minutes of exciting chaos.
    now it will be 15+15 minutes of moderate activity, 25 minutes of crickets and the same 5 minutes of exciting chaos (with less traffic).
    it's just a more tv-friendly
     
  11. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #11
    Doing a quick one with traffic was part of the art of qualifying though :D

    I tell you what would be more TV friendly... 12 laps, 4 sets of tyres, low fuel... and if I have to make a concession... :eek: :p everyone would have to do at least 1 run within every 15 minute slot. How's about that then?

    But all this messing around is just bad for F1... reality was there was nothing wrong with qualifying as it stood, they should have put more energies into sorting out the aero/mechanical grip balance that is currently affecting F1.

    I blame Schu and Ferrari. :eek: :p
     
  12. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #12
    bingo!

    current F1 cars cannot follow another closer than about half a second away. that MUST be changed. i miss the battles of the 80's when the cars could follow each other for many laps, changing positions every now and then. that was because
    1) aero efficiency was lower
    2) accelerating power was higher
    3) braking power was lower
    4) human error rate was higher

    as former champion keke rosberg said, "let's just ban carbon brakes. that would double the braking distance and also make it possible to brake just a little later and still stay on the track". well, he's right. today just about everybody brakes at the very same spot whereas before it was more about the driver's guts.

    i want racing back to the f1, period. now it's battling with the pit strategies and reliability of technology. it's not interesting. for example, last race schumi openly stated that he knew that although ralf was faster at the time, there was no way he could overtake. that's not good sport if the faster car just cannot pass the slower one.
     
  13. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #13
    According to Ralf (and Kimi), schumi was very fast coming out of the last corner, and they just weren't close enough to get a tow down the straight. It's not just being faster over the entire track, but faster at the corner before a good passing corner.
     
  14. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #14
    argh .. a complicated modus _again_

    sure the old 1 hour ,12 laps modus wasn't the most exciting especially during some minutes after the first laps but it was fine

    and that "tires,fuel from qualifying" stuff has to go ... that's ridiculous
     
  15. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #15
    exactly. schumi had to concentrate in making good performance on one corner only, and that's it. and by the way, there is no tow today, but on the contrary, a car following another suffers greatly from the turbulence (drag) that the leading car creates.

    aero efficiency is too high. that not only makes it easy to lead the race, but also difficult to overtake. good for one race leader, bad for all spectators.

    i'm not saying schumi wasn't fast. of course he was, and naturally he didn't make mistakes either. it's just there were faster cars behind him that just couldn't pass - which is a big shame.

    (you do remember the tow effect, do you? back in the 80's when somebody got to half second behind another, his car would just get an instant speed boost that helped one to overtake. most notorious on the old long hockenheim where cars could have speeds over 360kmph, and that was over 20 years ago. today everyone comments how easy it is to get to half a second behind, but then it gets insanely hard to pass. that's quite an opposite for the tow effect. i say bring back the monster tyres and take away the wings...)
     
  16. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #16
    What they need to realize is its not the tires that cost money, its only rubber, its the development. You are barely saving any money by going to a one tire system, because you still have to develop out the wazoo. I think a better system, would be to limit the number of tires allowed to be changed in a race, so they don't go back to eating hundreds in a race weekend. Yet, you only allow one type of tire per race. This way they can get fresh rubber, but they can't get advantages from different types and therefore spend less on trying to make so many types. They would have to focus harder on a hit or miss like they currently have to, except without the durability.


    Another cost cutting idea, half the series. What you do is make to race seasons. Season A is open to everybody. Season B is only open to the top 5 qualifying constructers. That way only the winning, go to Season B, so people like Minardi can run every race of Season A and save money. Then, you just make it so the winning constructer isn't allowed to Race Season A and is automaticaaly added to Season B and if you get a dominating team like Ferrari. They only show up for half the season. I think its a great idea to save money on the Minardi side where its squished and to give the fans more of the people they want to see liek Shumacher, Alonso, and Ice man. Now, why doesn't Bernie come up with logical ideas like that?
     
  17. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #17
    you know, your first sentence (that i quoted) had perfect sense but the rest of the post is just complete rubbish. yes, it's the development that costs, but do you know what? teams could use a hundred sets of tires during each race and test all the available tyre compunds they have time to test with two or three cars, and it would still be very cheap. the costly development work is done BETWEEN RACES and during OFF-SEASON, and the only way to really reduce tire developing costs is to
    1) move to one tyre supplier that tests its tyres with self-built race cars instead of letting each team run their own tyre testing programmes
    2) limit the number of tyre sets the supplier is allowed to deliver for each team between races, and during off-season

    the first point states that the tyre supplier must not ask any particular team to test its tyres, as that team would then get unfair advantage compared to all other teams. it doesn't matter if the tyre supplier's race car is not quite current F1 spec or competitive, as long as the tyre supplier can run its tests and improve its product with non-current-F1-spec car. that is possible right now, as the budget of minardi is only a fraction of a tyre supplier r&d budget and minardi is capable of building its own race car.

    the second point is the meat of the discussion. if the tyre supplier were allowed to deliver only five sets of tyres (for example) for each team between races and fifty sets (for example) during off-season, then the number of tyre sets during the racing weekends would not even have to be limited when there would only be two (for example) supplier-selected compunds available and the teams would be time-wise unable to run specific tyre testing programmes.

    they can cut the costs if they want to. it's just that whenever there's a competition between two suppliers, they cannot want to.
     
  18. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #18
    Well, there is something called Cause and Effect. Only one tire type per race or two races would mean they would only need to test 2 or 3 sets of each one and while they have more than 50 different types, now they would have 5 or 6 to choose from each race as their sole type. I think it would defeintely keep costs down.

    And one tyre supplier is just rubbish. Just because its easier should we all crawl over and go to Windows so there are no compatibility issues in the world, NO. Diversity is what spurs progress, competition makes change. Without Bridgestone, Michelin wouldn't have to even develop it wouldn't matter cause the companies wouldn't have another option. It may be slightly cheaper, however it will easily deteriote the sport when one of the key parts of a race car becomes underdevolped. F1 is suppoed to be the pinnacle of racing, not the series anybody can get it to with $100. I'm tired of these cost cutting measures. Racing equals money, if you want more races the teams are going have to pay more money. Simple. Bernie has a choice, less races, or less teams.
     
  19. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #19
    Well, there is a tow today, it's just much much less than it used to be.
     
  20. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #20
    yes, definetely. the cause of multiple tyre suppliers has effect on developement costs. eliminating the cause either eliminates or at least diminishes the effect it has created, therefore enabling teams to use their budget for HIGHER TECH parts than the 100-year-old rubber tires.

    i want to see tech innovations like in the beginning of 90's. those have been rather nonexistent since 1998 when everybody began concentrating their effort into tyre performance, as it is now more crucial than ever.

    cause and effect, yes. regulate tyres in such a way that teams cannot test and are just given a good set by the supplier, and teams will in effect concentrate their r&d into another areas. that's for sure.
     

Share This Page