Are F1 races too short ?

[Kirk]

In a recent interview with a well known F1 veteran, the question asked: What would you do to improve F1? He had several suggestions including re-introducing slick tires. One of the more interesting recommendations was:
Make the races longer. Well there should be no doubt that today's F1 car is easier to drive, the circuits have not changed much, driver electronic aids are sticking around like bubble gum on hot pavement. My question, is F1 in need of lengthening it's races? As I stated in another post, I think an extra half hour from the current 2 hour max (or the approximate equivalent in length of circuit) would be appropriate? Thoughts ?

[Kicking-back]

The current distance is about right.

[Gt_R]

I believe that it should be made longer.

Not by extending the maximum time of 2 hours, but rather, the distance

Hardly did we have a race stopped due to exceeding the 2hours limit. However, due to the dramatic increasing speeds of cars, races are getting shorter in time every year, some races last barely an hour and half.

Personally, i'd like the distance limit (which dictates the number of laps) to increase. And also, new tracks ought to be longer per lap so that we have less "repetitions" (it's real boring seeing cars run around 70 times on a short track when we can have it 50 times on a longer one) and that the luxury of a longer lap would allow tracks to be designed with more overtaking opportunities AND less chance of being hindered by backmarkers.

Yes, i'd like the race to be increased..it's getting short. In fact, races should be at LEAST an hour and half, or the dictated laps, whichever comes last.

[Viceroy]

In my opinion the races should be longer. They should go back to the original 500km distance-no time limit, no exceptions. Most races would last less than 2 hours, but we would have a nice long race in Monaco, and probably 1 or 2 afternoon-filling rain races each season.The present situation-80 minute sprints consisting of 3 or 4 mini sprints are unsatisfying for me.

[type49]

More cost for the engine makers, larger maintaince costs for the circuit owners, tougher fitness regimens for the drivers. The television directors would be hollarin' because there would need to be more personel,cameras,camera perches, etc. Without higher car counts there wouldn't be much to see in a runaway race. Much less of a chance for points in the event of a simple puncture or penalty. Mind you, I wish those days would come back too. In it's current form things are just about right.

[Teretonga]

If they were longer you would get away from the 3 or 4 short sprints and strategy would become far more important. reliability would be an issue again but it would throw up a few problems like some increased costs and the longer television time would be a hassle. that might reduce the returns to Bernie and co and that is the reason that it will probably never happen.

[stoned pony]

Sorry, folks, but I disagree. I think F1 races are too long now and tend to (mostly) become quite boring beyond two-thirds race distance.
Rather than go back to the "good old days" when races used to run 500km I would change the format to two or possibly three heat one-hour races per round over a full weekend with aggregated points after the final heat.
Just for a bit of interest you could make tyre changes and refuelling optional (not that I think a F1 car would run an hour on one set of tyres or one tank of fuel) so that tactics could be brought into the equation.
Just a thought.

[Snrub]

I tend to agree with bedeme. Most F1 races have little of interest occuring in the last bit. However, with the level of competitiveness increasing, who knows, maybe they will be at each other's throats right to the end and thus I'd support longer races.

[Miss Hardt]

I think they're long enough...but I admit it would be nice watching longer races so the engines can blow up...until they'dget used to it again.

[Aysedasi]

I don't think it matters how long they are. A ten-lapper FF1600 can be a lot more exciting to watch than a 60 lap GP, because the drivers are actually racing - passing etc. An 80-lap procession isn't going to be more fun to watch than a 60-lap procession.....

[MRJUCY]

Originally posted by bedeme
Sorry, folks, but I disagree. I think F1 races are too long now and tend to (mostly) become quite boring beyond two-thirds race distance.
Rather than go back to the "good old days" when races used to run 500km I would change the format to two or possibly three heat one-hour races per round over a full weekend with aggregated points after the final heat.
Just for a bit of interest you could make tyre changes and refuelling optional (not that I think a F1 car would run an hour on one set of tyres or one tank of fuel) so that tactics could be brought into the equation.
Just a thought.

They tried that in the touring cars in Australia but now for the most part have gone back to longer races. Sprints become so boring cause the race is usually won at the start. Longer races have more strategy from the drivers not just the pits & as cars tyres & brakes etc wear down & drivers get weary it can bring the field together for some late passing

[DriverT]

I would like to see them longer in distance at least. The fast GPs like Monza finish in 1h20m. It's not enough really.

The longer you carry on, the more action is likely to happen, especially with the 1-weekend engine rules.

[Adam43]

I would introduce variety into the F1 distance. Some races (the faster tracks ones?) could be up to 300miles. This would perhaps favour some over others and help reduce F1's uniformity. It would be something proper to consider and discuss rather than what Trulli is cooking for tea.

Like most on this thread I wouldn't go shorter. (although Monaco is and that is alright, maybe a 500mile Monaco is out of question nowadays!). I see nothing special about 195ish miles either.

[Glen]

An hour and a half is about right for TV - and that will dictate everything else. Wthout TV exposure F1 would not exist.

It's ok as it is with me - the consistency between cars is already spoiling the fun for a lot of people... all that would happen in longer race is that the leaders would be a little further ahead.

Just to pick up on somthing earlier in the thread - is stopping for fuel and tyres mandatory? I don't think it is - you can do the whole rae in one if you want. Or am I wrong?

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Glen
Just to pick up on somthing earlier in the thread - is stopping for fuel and tyres mandatory? I don't think it is - you can do the whole rae in one if you want. Or am I wrong?

You are right it isn't mandatory, however as we know fuel tank sizes are too small for current distances, as we know. When refuelling was introduced the FIA put a maximum size on the tank so that it made it impossible. I am not sure if this still applies as it has become redundant. Didn't Tyrell achieve a race distance at Monaco in the wet (1997?)?

[BootsOntheSide]

2 hours seems like a good length to me, which would mean expending Monza to perhaps 65-70 laps. The ultra-long races of the past would not be exciting, and very impracical in terms fo TV and mechanical considerations.

The veteran F1 driver whose interview was mentioned above might eb craving a go at Le Mans.

[Smokey 6 litre]

i think we all know who's going to win after two hours anyway, and if it was made longer the top teams would only benefit from their better reliability.

[Gt_R]

I think pitstop for fuel/tyres are optional. Teams are allowed to go for a race without pitstops, but nobody would do it because the time loss with a slow and heavy car is far more than the time taken for cars to pit.

[Frank_White]

i am confused.
the starter of this topic said that, "an old veteran said that because the cars are so easy to drive races should be longer."

however, just yesterday, i read in an article somewhere that most drivers who get their first F-1 test fail to impress because they get tired after 15 laps, and i got the impression that he was talking about seasoned drivers who came up through the ranks.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Smokey 6 litre
i think we all know who's going to win after two hours anyway, and if it was made longer the top teams would only benefit from their better reliability.

So longer races would favour the teams who made more reliable cars, the teams that did the better job. I don't have a problem with that.

I don't think it would make significant different to it, but a longer race surely means there is more chance a top team/driver may slip up. Allowing those with slower cars to pick up the odd scrap.

[Glen]

There would not be an increased chance of a top team slip-up - why would there be? The mid-field and bottom order teams have a hard enough time to complete the current distance as it is - they are the ones that would suffer (as always).

Seems to me that this whole idea is based on faulty thinking anyway - I don't know who the veteran in question was, but it suits those driver's egos to assume that it is much too easy these days. They might be correct in thinking that the old cars were harder with respect to things like steering weight, but they conveniently ignore the fact that current cars have double or more the cornering, acceleration and braking force. As Niki Lauda very amusingly proved, a modern F1 car isn't nearly as easy to drive as the "look back with rose tinted specs" brigade would have you believe.

With regard to no-stop races - this is an idea I'm against too, because I remember the days of economy-run races and they could be very dull. The modern equivalent of that would be excrutiating, because the science is so good now that they would be running so well within ther limits to conserve tyres and fuel. This was actually the situation that we reached a couple of years ago, when the mid section of the race was a boring session of conserve fuel to try and stretch your stint beyond the opponents' pit-stop window. The parc fermé rules have changed all that, with shorter, more aggressive, flat-out sprints - albeit with increased pit-stop confusion.

[Adam43]

I think it is more likely that a small team would slip up in a longer race than a big team. However absolutely there is more chance that a big team will slip up (engine blow etc...) in a longer race and a small team (the one that didn't slip up) will get some reward.

On the subject of economy runs, surely the main reason we had those was because the fuel allowed for the race was too low (used in a way to reduce the power of the turbos). If you have a long race with no refueling, but allow as much fuel as you want then economy runs wouldn't happen.

You are right about the relative (close) performance being the thing that limits overtaking. However if stops are defined by tyre wear 9and drop of performance) then (I think) significant performance differences will creap in at different parts of the race. I guess you do need a tyre war for this to work.

[Glen]

I think they would tend to go for the theoretical quickest elapsed time, and then just try and run the cleanest race possible - especially if stopping were totaly banned... they'd never go near each other or dream of risking a flat spotted tyre. Economy would play a crucial role. No way would they carry fuel such that there more than a thimble full left at the chequered flag.

[ralf fan]

the race distances are about right. i sont think people want 100 laps which is boring. Maybe Monza could be extended to a 65 lap race or something or the track layout changed.. but apart from that i dont thin the races need be any longer.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Glen
No way would they carry fuel such that there more than a thimble full left at the chequered flag.

To a certain that is only like it is now in the final stint, but I take your point. However if one team goes for economy (i.e. got it wrong for the pace they were running) then another will be OK on fuel and be able to hound them at the end? I don't think we saw economy runs post the turbo era.