The F1 qualifying debate

[chris bailey]

Forgive me if this has all been discussed elsewhere, but I think the new qualifying format is close to being quite good! What it needs is for the "musical chairs" knockout to start a little further into each session, so that it's in operation right up to the end. The other tweak would be to allow the driver on the bump spot to complete the lap they're on, i.e "I've started, so I'll continue", so nobody aborts a qualifying lap. This also obliges the car ahead in the list to get on track to be able to defend its position.

Qualifying has certainly got my attention this year, which has not been the case for a long time!

[Mike Harte]

This has been debated constantly, in the Future Rules thread, Is F1 Broken thread and also in the two race threads.

It would seem, at the moment, that you might be in a minority of only or two who like the new format.

[djinvicta]

Thought you were going to "padlock" this thread then Mike!

[Mike Harte]

Just giving the reader a chance not to miss my wit, charm and scintillating repartee that is contained in the other threads.

[chris bailey]

Sorry. Obviously not paying attention. I'll look at the other threads. My opinion remains unchanged however.

[chillibowl]

well looks like the debate is over.

for what its worth Chris, i agree with you that the new format was very close to being a good one but after seeing it twice even i have to acknowledge the inherent problems - specifically the lack of tires and how long it took to run a cool down lap, get into the pits to refuel and re-tire and then get back out there for a fast lap (instead all they did was retire).

anyways this seems like as good a place to ask this question....sometime after OZ, Pirelli were asked if they could supply more tires. obviously that was logistically not possible for Bahrain so they said they might be able to for China.

so question, should Pirelli still be bringing more sets of the softer compound even if there is an extra cost to the teams?

a reversion to the 2015 format leaves us with the same problem concerning the number of laps anyone is willing to run in Q3.

[JeremySmith]

I don't remember anyone complaining about the qualifying system we had prior to this new idea ?
The extra tyres are a great idea, I would get rid of any fuel restrictions that we cuntrently have ...

[fieldodreams79]

I hate it and it's awful. Anything is better and I have no further thoughts or opinions on the matter.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I don't remember anyone complaining about the qualifying system we had prior to this new idea ?

in fairness, there have been a lot of issues over the years. the three session format started in 2006 and there have been numerous tweaks over the past decade ranging from changing Q3 which used to be run with a race fuel load, a fuel credit system, tires used in Q3 had to be the ones you stared the race on, to the amount of tires etc.

by 2015 they had gotten the system down pretty well but it took a long long time to get it to the 2015 version.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I don't remember anyone complaining about the qualifying system we had prior to this new idea ?

I for one did not really like the system, because I advocate purity and simplicity. That is why I believe qualifying should be a forty-five or sixty minutes free-for-all session without any limitations regarding laps, tires and other consumables and a post-qualifying parc fermé. The qualifying format I advocate is a tweak to the one used prior 2003.

The 2015 qualifying format has become a necessity for ensuring on-track action, because the use of consumables - for example: tires, power units and transmissions - is severely limited. It should be said this was already the case before 2003, as tire usage was limited and qualifying laps were made a consumable - drivers were only allocated twelve of them.

Since 2003, Formula One changed the qualifying formats more often than it did before that in its entire history. But that is the logic result of addressing the wrong issues.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

So it's back to 2015 for the remainder of 2016, with a further review for 2017.

Lets use this thread to give the teams some suggestions, that IF things do have to evolve or change for 2017 lets hear it here first?

More tyres, less tyres, what tyres .... supersofts, mega softs ....how about Quallies.

How about chewing gum soft Quallies... 3 sets in Q2 (if wet can be held over to Q3) and 3 sets for below.
A 30 minute period for all cars where teams must make a minimum number of laps ...lets say 8 laps forcing 3 runs or 2 extended runs.
This means that the fans get to see the cars on the track. You don't do 8 laps you don't progress.

8-10 minutes to adjust the fuel (TV breaks for those that require it)

The top 10 go single lap shoot out using the best/new set of Quallies they have left. Outlaps the teams will want to judge themselves how aggressive they are so will have a 5 second window at pit exit, and the in-laps must be to a delta (set by Charlie after talking to the teams after Q3), to ensure that the next car on it's flying lap isn't effected by a car returning to the pits. The aim would be for 15-20 seconds between one driver finishing and the next starting.

Of the remainder, the fastest laps set the grid, but if you didn't complete all 8 laps, then there is a 3 second hold per lap on your first pit-stop.

The teams have a choice of 2 race tyres something like a current hard and a super soft where hard on full tanks might last close to half distance, with the super soft good for around 1/3 of a race, allowing some cross over or undercutting.

[chillibowl]

Pingguest, i would agree with you that a return to the previous free for all style is ideal (although i did like the one lap shoot outs as that was a good compromise for TV). if cars run they run and if they dont they dont but at least when they do at least we will see low fuel, fresh tires, quali engine set ups....schumi vs mika shoot out styles!

but are you saying that the tire and engine limitation should be removed with current parc ferme rules or are you saying also get rid of parc ferme?

personal preference would be to seriously relax the parc ferme rules...these guys want to spend the money and if they have the money to spend then let them build quali cars, let them use a T-car, swap engines, and let them spend more time changing the setups if it ends up raining on sunday.

frankly i am getting tired of the teams paying lip service to austerity measures while budgets continually go up and up...also bring back testing.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Pingguest, i would agree with you that a return to the previous free for all style is ideal (although i did like the one lap shoot outs as that was a good compromise for TV). if cars run they run and if they dont they dont but at least when they do at least we will see low fuel, fresh tires, quali engine set ups....schumi vs mika shoot out styles!

but are you saying that the tire and engine limitation should be removed with current parc ferme rules or are you saying also get rid of parc ferme?

personal preference would be to seriously relax the parc ferme rules...these guys want to spend the money and if they have the money to spend then let them build quali cars, let them use a T-car, swap engines, and let them spend more time changing the setups if it ends up raining on sunday.

Formula One should get rid of both the regulations limiting the use of consumables like tires, power units and transmissions as well as the post-qualifying parc fermé. If teams would like to use proper qualifying cars including qualifying set-ups, qualifying tires and qualifying engines, there should be no regulation prohibiting exactly that. The abolition of the post-qualifying parc fermé would also allow for the return of Sunday's morning pre-race warm-up session.

A justification for the post-qualifying parc fermé are the labor conditions for crew members. Before 2003, crew members often worked until midnight to prepare the cars for race conditions. However, that issue could and already is addressed by curfews. Without a post-qualifying parc fermé a team could rebuild their car, but only within a relative short amount of time. This would force teams to simplify their cars, which would not necessarily be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

frankly i am getting tired of the teams paying lip service to austerity measures while budgets continually go up and up...also bring back testing.

[dsg]

Scrap qualifying altogether and just start the race in the order the last one finished. Practice on Saturday, race on Sunday.

[steve_r]

What a shambles F1 has become.

Change the popular qualifying system
That didn't work - so lets change it back to 2015 system
We cant agree to change it back because only a revised 2016 system option is available to vote on which is not agreed by everyone, so are left with the rubbish non-revised 2016 system
We agree to change it back to 2015 system
The agreement to return to 2015 is vetoed
Lets change it to an aggregate system that never worked last time we tried it
The aggregate system is thrown out, and we go back to the unpopular new 2016 system
Finally agreement is reached to go back to the 2015 system


It's all a bit keystone cops. Shambolic and totally unnecessary. Who is steering this ship?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Who is steering this ship?

No one, because you can't steer a ship once it's on the rocks!

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by dsg

Scrap qualifying altogether and just start the race in the order the last one finished. Practice on Saturday, race on Sunday.

This format is certainly bold. What I don't like about it is the results of one Grand Prix having an impact on the next one. I feel every event should be an individual one in its own right. In a sense, though, it would be interesting to see drivers have to claw their way up the qualifying order over a succession of races due to getting better and better results. For those who have an accident putting them well back in the race, though, it would have a knock-on effect for too long. A no go-er, I think.

I was generally fine with the hour session. The disadvantage in some people's eyes was that there were large portions of sessions with no-one running (not good for television or spectators at the track). With the Q1, Q2, Q3 knockout format it at least forces people to run regularly and also has them competing three times (if they get into Q3) for quick enough laptimes.

I would be okay with an hour-long session. The quicker times may come earlier in the session, though, making the session an anticlimax and an hour is a long time to watch only to witness an anticlimax when it's only qually and not the race itself. I mean, sometimes a Grand Prix fizzles out but I accept it because it's the Grand Prix itself, but it wouldn't be great if the quickest laptime in qualifying was set after 20 minutes and then there was 40 minutes of depleted action, unless there was at least the chance of competition. Watching drivers strive but fail to beat that time for 40 minutes is sporting action, in my opinion. But if the track dropped off completely or it rained for the rest of the session, that wouldn't be so great.

So, in conclusion, I like the new (old) format we are reverting to for China.

[VIVA GT]

As usual, Sniff Petrol have their take on things (and really, it's not that far away from what's really happened!)
http://sniffpetrol.com/category/pict.../#.VweFncv2bIU

[wnut]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

As usual, Sniff Petrol have their take on things (and really, it's not that far away from what's really happened!)
http://sniffpetrol.com/category/pict.../#.VweFncv2bIU

I wonder who leaked that document!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I would be okay with an hour-long session. The quicker times may come earlier in the session, though, making the session an anticlimax and an hour is a long time to watch only to witness an anticlimax when it's only qually and not the race itself. I mean, sometimes a Grand Prix fizzles out but I accept it because it's the Grand Prix itself, but it wouldn't be great if the quickest laptime in qualifying was set after 20 minutes and then there was 40 minutes of depleted action, unless there was at least the chance of competition. Watching drivers strive but fail to beat that time for 40 minutes is sporting action, in my opinion. But if the track dropped off completely or it rained for the rest of the session, that wouldn't be so great.

This is a valid argument against a free-for-all qualifying session that I proposed. However, that would be the price one has to pay occasionally for a qualifying format that is simple, pure and about true competition. Occasionally, it would naturally mix-up the grid. Both the 1999 French Grand Prix as well as the 2000 German Grand Prix come in my mind. Remember Rubens Barrichello winning the latter despite starting from eighteenth position.

In fact, without the post-qualifying parc fermé, starting grids would be more mixed-up any way. Without this legislation, drivers would not have to qualify with a car in race-trim. The 2002 season is remembered as one entirely dominated by Scuderia Ferrari, but Juan-Pablo Montoya started from pole position no less than six times that very year - and he failed to win a single race.

[S griffin]

I'm so glad the system is back to what it was, but what a shame we had to go for some much unnecessary u-turns to get here. For me they should concentrate on racing first. The first two events have been good, mainly due to bad starts. So it shows we don't need a mixed up grid to make a good race

[Scooter185]

I wonder what the letter from the teams said to get the FIA to back down

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A justification for the post-qualifying parc fermé are the labor conditions for crew members. Before 2003, crew members often worked until midnight to prepare the cars for race conditions. However, that issue could and already is addressed by curfews. Without a post-qualifying parc fermé a team could rebuild their car, but only within a relative short amount of time. This would force teams to simplify their cars, which would not necessarily be a bad thing.

now that could be a very interesting control mechanism that would have some very positive side benefits. but maintain the cap on the number of crew a team can bring with them to prevent the teams from just hiring more people.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Occasionally, it would naturally mix-up the grid. Both the 1999 French Grand Prix as well as the 2000 German Grand Prix come in my mind. Remember Rubens Barrichello winning the latter despite starting from eighteenth position.

2000 germany...is that one where some idiot walked onto the track?

i would also add to that list Japan 2005. rain having an effect between quali and the race and SC period...i suppose it makes sense that they would try to recreate those elements as those are some of the more memorable races of the past 15-20 years.

from a safety side of things though, there is an inherent danger in creating mixed grids as faster cars trying to pass slower ones can and often does lead to accidents.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

now that could be a very interesting control mechanism that would have some very positive side benefits. but maintain the cap on the number of crew a team can bring with them to prevent the teams from just hiring more people.

I agree. In combination with less restrictive technical regulations, it might cause divergence. For example, teams could choose between using either an incredibly complex power unit that cannot be easily changed after qualifying or a less sophisticated one that allows a quick renewal.
Imagine how this would naturally mix-up the starting grid!

Originally Posted by chillibowl

2000 germany...is that one where some idiot walked onto the track?

i would also add to that list Japan 2005. rain having an effect between quali and the race and SC period...i suppose it makes sense that they would try to recreate those elements as those are some of the more memorable races of the past 15-20 years.

from a safety side of things though, there is an inherent danger in creating mixed grids as faster cars trying to pass slower ones can and often does lead to accidents.

Mixed-up starting grids indeed come with a safety risk. But so does the use of a drag reduction system.

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

2000 germany...is that one where some idiot walked onto the track?

Yes. A disgruntled ex-Mercedes employee that wanted to show his irate dismissal... Also Rubinho won Great Britain 2003, also a race with a disruption, when a certain priest, Neil Horan entered on track with his demonstration, until a marshal caught him...

Do not remember who won when Jimmy Jump also entered on track... 2004?