[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

But nowadays, Formula One goes far beyond the typical United States series.

"Oh there's a butterfly vaguely near the track surface while Kyle Busch is leading by 5 seconds. That's a yellow at least".

I think the qually idea is awful but I don't think they're in THAT ballpark yet.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

If you want to make qualifying exciting, what about just giving teams one lap? As in literally, just one lap.

Car in the garage? Tough luck. Drive span on his hot lap? Tough luck.

I think it would be really exciting as it would put a heap of pressure on drivers to deliver, and the inevitable mistakes would create some interesting grids.

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but didn't they try that system shortly before the current qualifying was introduced. If I am right, it was a huge flop, both from the paying spectators point of view and especially to the TV viewers. One car circulating at a time was a big disappointment.

[Alfaholic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

F1 are thinking of removing the fuel limit, for next year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122945

Won't make any difference - teams will still only put in the minimum amount of fuel they think they can do the distance on due to the weight penalty so drivers will still be driving to a target useage.

[Sodemo]

I think most of the 2017 technical changes seem quite positive. The only things I think are a mis-step are;

- Making the front wing even wider
- Making the front tyres wider

The front wings are already too large and hamper cars following each other when close. Forcing teams to make these things smaller and have less elements would help cars follow each other as they would be less reliant on them in the first place.

Wider front tyres I am not strictly against, however a 6-7cm increase seems like a lot, I think the wider rears are a good idea, but the fronts? Maybe a 2-3cm but 7cm seems a lot.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but didn't they try that system shortly before the current qualifying was introduced. If I am right, it was a huge flop, both from the paying spectators point of view and especially to the TV viewers. One car circulating at a time was a big disappointment.

i think we we *told* it was a huge flop... iirc wasn't it the first serious change in the qualifying system for a long time? i know they went from two sessions over 2 days to just the one, but wasn't the one lap shot thing the first big change?

in which case it's not surprising it went down like a poo sandwich... i bet it wouldn't get such a grouchy reception now...

[Chaynes321]

Originally Posted by bella

i think we we *told* it was a huge flop... iirc wasn't it the first serious change in the qualifying system for a long time? i know they went from two sessions over 2 days to just the one, but wasn't the one lap shot thing the first big change?

in which case it's not surprising it went down like a poo sandwich... i bet it wouldn't get such a grouchy reception now...

Although it did throw up that great race in Suzuka 2005 maybe a few others?

[Born Racer]

I quite like the idea because it rewards consistency to a degree, although if you happen to have a bad one at the wrong moment, you're in trouble (not that different to the previous system, though with that it was more about the rght operating

[Sodemo]

Was it Silverstone 2004 where the cars were deliberately spinning during qualifying?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but didn't they try that system shortly before the current qualifying was introduced. If I am right, it was a huge flop, both from the paying spectators point of view and especially to the TV viewers. One car circulating at a time was a big disappointment.

they did.

pre 96 the classic method (low fuel quali trim or T-cars) but between 96-2002 they set a maximum of 12 lap within which to set your quali time.

2003 was a low fuel run on friday to set up the running order for a one lap shoot out session on saturday.

2004 the same but they moved both session to the same day.

some drivers were indeed spinning out/messing up during the low fuel run in order to to place themselves in a 'better' position for the second session. if memory serves they did this when they thought the weather might change on them as the day progressed so running early in the second session was preferable kind of thing. (was seen as hugely manipulative).

2005 was the year that they had a low run on saturday and race fuel session of sunday and then added the two times together. i believe this only lasted for a handful of races before they switched back to one session on saturday with a race fuel lap.

2006 onwards has been a evolution of the knock out format with various different rules tweaks. all in all the knock out method has been gotten much better as they have worked out tire allotments and fiddled around with fuel level rules.


when money wasnt an issue, pre 96 was the best but then money became an issue so they got rid of quali trims and spare cars.

after that it was an issue of how much of the TV broadcast actually had cars on the screen. these things increasingly were an issue after the broadcast moved to ITV (97?) so all the changes since then really might stem from that one decision.

no system has been universally loved. each with their pros and cons and ultimately being unraveled when the teams became too clever and figured out how to game the system.

2004 was my favorite because we actually got to follow each driver around for a full lap. we had never seen that before and have not since seen it. we used to get some wonderful on boards and got to see how different drivers approached different sections of track. plus the different engine noises. i found it great but im weird

personally i dont see the new format being all that different to what we have had over the last several years. just another evolution of what was already in place.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Although I have been a Formula One fanatic for about twenty years, the constant artificial manipulation seriously makes me lose interest. I am really sick and tired of it. What purity is left in Formula One? Twenty years ago, Formula One fans were saying 'their' series was a sport and NASCAR a fake show. But nowadays, Formula One goes far beyond the typical United States series.

This exactly reflects my feelings about F1 Pingy.

Plus 1.

[wnut]

Hamilton, "F1 taking the wrong decisions"



http://www.racer.com/f1/item/126448-...rong-decisions

We do know what is not good. For those who have been driving 10 to 15 years and have been through all the different rule changes, they know which ones worked and which ones didn't. So I would say it [a lack of consultation] is a bad thing."

Go Lewis!

[wnut]

And again.

http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/hamil...s-rules-138640

"One such change is upping weight of the cars from 702kg to 722kg while moving to wider tyres also mean more weight."

BIGGER, FATTER, UGLIER.

[Born Racer]

The one-lap system was good in the sense that it put a lot of pressure on one lap, but this was arguably pressure that was out of proportion to the importance of qualifying (grid position was even more important at that time due to the increased difficulty of overtaking). The other disadvantage was that there was disparity among the drivers' allotted times to do a lap - sometimes track conditions would worsen, thereby giving drivers unequal chances. I liked being able to watch everyone's hot lap, though.

[Mike Harte]

But was it not fraught with problems at the time? it was supposed to run seamlessly when it was time for the second car to participate, with one car on an out lap, one on it's hot lap and a third one on it's in-lap. But there were times that this didn't happen, and cars were baulked, and other times when the 3rd car in the sequence failed to make it to the pit exit on time, sometimes by milliseconds.

I freely admit that I hate change, but I think that the current system is working well as long as the FIA ensures that all cars that are able to participate in the relevant session, do so, i.e. no sitting out Q3 to save tyres or mileage on PUs.

[claude2cv]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hamilton, "F1 taking the wrong decisions"



http://www.racer.com/f1/item/126448-...rong-decisions

We do know what is not good. For those who have been driving 10 to 15 years and have been through all the different rule changes, they know which ones worked and which ones didn't. So I would say it [a lack of consultation] is a bad thing."

Go Lewis!

Try reading a little more carefully as he also easy he does not know if they have been consulted, showing that he does not participate outside of racing or the authorities must coming begging for his opinion.

[S griffin]

So good to hear from Lewis. He is proper old school racer and quite rightly wants spectacular. Full kudos to him for speaking out and telling the fans what they want.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Although I have been a Formula One fanatic for about twenty years, the constant artificial manipulation seriously makes me lose interest. I am really sick and tired of it. What purity is left in Formula One? Twenty years ago, Formula One fans were saying 'their' series was a sport and NASCAR a fake show. But nowadays, Formula One goes far beyond the typical United States series.

I tend to agree with you but this new qualifying format looks like it will shake the grid up and that can't be a bad thing.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I tend to agree with you but this new qualifying format looks like it will shake the grid up and that can't be a bad thing.

This is the problem with you young things; I don't want to shake and bogey, nor do I want the F drivers to either. For me in road circuit racing, the fastest car in practice/qualifying has always gone on pole, and it was the drivers' or teams' decision at what point they made their attempt for their best time. The current system carries on that tradition albeit with the splitting of the sessions, which I fully understand was introduced to allow the faster cars more space to qualify, especially on the road circuits such as Monaco.

I have always (well, since I grew up) said that if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. I learnt my lessons the hard way as a nipper, taking things apart and not being able to put them back together again.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This is the problem with you young things; I don't want to shake and bogey, nor do I want the F drivers to either. For me in road circuit racing, the fastest car in practice/qualifying has always gone on pole, and it was the drivers' or teams' decision at what point they made their attempt for their best time. The current system carries on that tradition albeit with the splitting of the sessions, which I fully understand was introduced to allow the faster cars more space to qualify, especially on the road circuits such as Monaco.

I have always (well, since I grew up) said that if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. I learnt my lessons the hard way as a nipper, taking things apart and not being able to put them back together again.

Don't get me wrong, I like the format that's been used up until now and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. However, like a lot of things in F1, the outcome has been very samey and somewhat predictable. Mercedes' domination hasn't helped, so if the grid gets mixed up a bit I'm fine with that. I'm also intrigued to see this format in practice. Btw, I'm in my mid 50s Mike.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Btw, I'm in my mid 50s Mike.

As that esteemed lady, Judge Judy, would say: 'I've got food older than that in my refrigerator'.

[Mystery]

What's wrong with the fastest car always winning? It's not domination that's turning fans off. I'm fairly sure of that.

Next we'll say Usain Bolt has to start his races from sitting in a deck chair to help spice up "the show". Leo Messi is going to make scoring less predictable by wearing an eye patch.

Good grief...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I tend to agree with you but this new qualifying format looks like it will shake the grid up and that can't be a bad thing.

The thing that bothers me, is the artificial manipulation. Replacing qualifying by a lottery is closer than ever. In fact, it would be fairer than a reversed grid. Ironically, it seems that the new musicial chairs was the teams' alternative to Bernie Ecclestone's proposal of a reversed grid. I am very sorry, but words fail me.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This is the problem with you young things; I don't want to shake and bogey, nor do I want the F drivers to either. For me in road circuit racing, the fastest car in practice/qualifying has always gone on pole, and it was the drivers' or teams' decision at what point they made their attempt for their best time. The current system carries on that tradition albeit with the splitting of the sessions [...]

As the post-qualifying parc fermé is still in place, no much work is allowed to be done between qualifying and the start of the race. Hence, cars are set-up in race trim. Therefore, qualifying results do not reflect the actual cars' speed.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

2004 was my favorite because we actually got to follow each driver around for a full lap. we had never seen that before and have not since seen it. we used to get some wonderful on boards and got to see how different drivers approached different sections of track. plus the different engine noises. i found it great but im weird

Not that weird because I completely agree, or maybe I'm weird too.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mystery

What's wrong with the fastest car always winning? It's not domination that's turning fans off. I'm fairly sure of that.

Next we'll say Usain Bolt has to start his races from sitting in a deck chair to help spice up "the show". Leo Messi is going to make scoring less predictable by wearing an eye patch.

Good grief...

who is saying that the fastest wont be on pole or will win the race?

that element will remain. this format change, and the reason there will be mixed up grids, is because some drivers will make more mistakes then others because the challenge of qualifying has become harder (or more confusing but that may amount to the same thing).

this format change, imo, speaks directly to the level of driver challenge, that having the fastest car does not necessarily guarantee you pole.

i guess i would describe this as a refinement of the process rather than an attempt to change the nature of racing.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Not that weird because I completely agree, or maybe I'm weird too.