[Rules] "Changes to improve the show"? [current F1 overtaking multi thread merge]

[bjohnsonsmith]

Interesting but the 'problem' is not to do with aerodynamics, the nature of GP racing has now changed; this is what it used to be like.

[NaBUru38]

As said, sprinklers could be added to Middle East circuits, as long as they take water from the sea and it's guaranteed that all drivers get the same water. But let's leave that to Middle Eastern billionaires.

Carbon brakes should be banned. Strong actions against aero downforce should be taken quick. Perhaps if cars were cheaper, drivers would mind less bending them.

[OZ_HCR32]

What was wrong with the racing we had the last few seasons? Bring back refuelling and different strategies and rather then Kers just give them a hit of an extra 3,000rpm for 12 seconds a race, with no more then 3 seconds in one lap. At least that way if you are stuck behind a car that you are two seconds quicker then, you can have a battle, get past and clear on out if you have the pace to go chase down the cars in front.

DONE, now when are the FIA going to give me a job

[rocketracer]

it's funny, but last year's KERS were a large factor in spicing up the racing. Certainly in the early races. mainly due to the mclaren / ferrari / renaults being horrid in the corners, and the williams', red bull, brawn being so planted. It was pretty exciting racing for the most part, but of course, we did still get some very uninspiring races.

anyway, back to this season - surely removing the mandatory pit stop is a smarter idea to increase strategy variations, and therefore on track racing?

The tighter you make the restrictions, the less options you give teams / drivers to make an advantage. And the cars being so aero dependant, if they are all on the same strategy, then last night's race is the inevitable result.

In a scenario where there are no mandatory stops, there would be an ideal strategy to see the end of the race, of say 1 stop on softs at the start, then the rest of the race on mediums. But drivers further down the grid could trade that off against taking a gamble on doing the whole race on a set of mediums where they might get track position by doing a whole race on a single set, but would have to defend against much faster cars on fading tyres... or a driver could gamble on using multiple sets of softs and therefore carry a speed advantage. This sort of scenario has many variables depending on grid starting position. It would be hard for a certain formula (ie all teams using the same strategy) to be adopted, so would remain interesting even after all the teams became familiar with the rules.

This method presumes that the difference between the 2 compounds is significant (say 1-2s/lap), and that the soft tyre option would last about 15-20 laps, and the medium would run well for say 35 laps before they started to struggle, but the fall away of performance was gradual.

These sort of conditions are not dissimilar from what we have had in the past few years, so would not require a drastic (mid-season) change in car design, or regulation, but are likely to greatly enhance the prospect of racing, and therefore excitement.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by rocketracer

These sort of conditions are not dissimilar from what we have had in the past few years, so would not require a drastic (mid-season) change in car design, or regulation.

Except everything has been budgeted for.

[browney]

Why not put a big difference between the soft and hard tyres and let them start on whatever they want, and use whatever tyres they want during the race? You could have someone stop 3 times on soft tyres or once on hard ones?

Why the hell do they have to start on the tyres they qualified on anyway? Seems like a completely arbitory stupid rule.

[Tim the Grey]

Me, I'd make it Pick a Tyre, and stick with it. None of this "You have to run both" rubbish.

Here is tyre A, here is Tyre B. A is 20% faster, but only last 15 laps. Your call, gents.

Run with what you qualied on, but the hard tyre makes more sense in the race. You might get some overtaking as tyres degrade, and guys fight NOT to stop too soon? It may even be that the hard tyre can do the WHOLE weekend, so you run ONE set of hard tyres, for practice, quali, and the race.

Oh. Yes, and TAKE THE DAMN AERO AWAY. Any item NOT covering mechanical parts shall be aero neutral. Should pretty much sort things?

[paddy]

I do agree that the tyre rules are ridiculous. Drivers should be able to run whatever tyre they want and stop as often as they want. Button said that he had loads of life left in his softs when he stopped so why not let him try and one stop on softs? Someone else may try and go full distance on hards. Making the top ten start on their qualifying tyre is ridiculous as well. Firstly it brings tyre management into quali which reduces the drama and secondly it puts those in the bottom half of the top ten at a potential disadvantage to eleventh, twelfth etc.

[Sodemo]

I think no one can deny that aero is the root cause of the problem, the call for more tyre stops is a red herring, and isn't dealing with the real problem.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think no one can deny that aero is the root cause of the problem, the call for more tyre stops is a red herring, and isn't dealing with the real problem.

It's an element of the problem but even so, we'd still have seen good racing yesterday with those cars if they had decent tyres on that didn't degrade when close to another car. I've never known that to happen before

[neiltb]

much less aero, less tyre, no pit to car telemetry. I would bet the engineers were managing the fuel curves to make sure they made it to the end. Put the task of driving back in the hands of the drivers.

[craigd]

These are my suggestions that I also posted on James Allen's site. To me it is by far the best immediate course of action: free up the constraints.

We shouldn’t overreact but I would appreciate you proposing the following ideas to improve the restrictive rules. I don’t wish to sound arrogant but I do believe they would be strong improvements. It wouldn’t cost any money or need tyre design modifications (racier tyres would be ideal but as you rightly state, it would be of no interest to Bridgestone’s image to provide tyres that don’t last)!

In short, they need to:
- remove the mandatory pitstop requirement
- give free reign to which compounds drivers’ wish to use
- BUT keep the rule whereby the top 10 have to start on the tyre they qualify on.

It is exactly what Prost advised in an article I read on the BBC yesterday. It clearly seems the best way to go in my opinion that I’ve been banging my head in frustration! Let me explain my reasoning (partly based on that thing you love Game Theory).

The ban on refuelling is supposed to put the strategy emphasis away from being fuel constrained to tyre constrained, which by definition is more driver skill dependent and should result in more flexible pit strategies. This is a good thing! The FIA however, have ballsed it up by placing too many constraints on the system. There’s now no freedom for the teams – a top team must go soft for grid position; the tyres can last a one stop strategy (if they can last the heat of Bahrain, which included the supersoft, they can last anywhere), so there’s no reason to try to stop twice or more and no stops are disallowed; and as soon as one driver balks for the pits the only way to go is for everyone to immediately follow suit.

The FIA wanted a mandatory pitstop to prevent drivers not stopping at all but a simple analysis of Bahrain shows that wouldn’t be the case throughout the whole grid under these more flexible rules:

In Bahrain the top drivers would still have had to qualify on softs since grid position is so important. However, as they would have to start the race on softs this would have forced them to either pit once or twice for more softs (likely Red Bull) or make a single stop for hards (likely Ferrari). (Incidentally this rule would stop the case of in Monaco say, a driver getting pole on softs then doing the race on hards with no stop and winning through being a blockade.) However, you’d also have had some teams splitting their strategy in qualifying. Those that didn’t have great one lap pace but who felt they could make their tyres last well, such as Button, or Schumacher/Mercedes, would opt for hards in qualifying with the intention of not stopping. You would then have had a situation of the 1 or 2 stopping softs (the ‘hares’) opting for more a sprint race to cover off the no stopping hards (the ‘tortoises’), and ultimately you’d likely have cars on different strategies coinciding on track, with attacking soft-shodden drivers trying to battle past the conserving hards – a la the classic Alonso/Schumacher finish in Imola 2005. There would be so much more unpredictability in the race too as you would be left guessing when and if a driver will stop, will they sprint, will they conserve?

The key aspect is that by allowing flexible strategies, you are much more likely to end up with cars on different tyre strategies, and hence on different performance differentials, which is what is needed to overtake in F1 such is the tremendous difficulty for overtaking of similarly matched cars.

A lack of refuelling is not the problem; it’s the inflexibility over tyre usage that needs correcting. (If say the Red Bulls want to use their one lap pace to go for pole then go for a 2 stop sprint race on softs, let them. If say the likes of Button want to sacrifice a top grid spot, and go for hards and attempt to make the whole race on them, let them.) Let them choose!!!

Also, two mandatory pitstops is NOT the answer. That will not create the flexibility in strategy needed. Drivers will still just mimic each other at each stop and we’ll just end up with sprint races like before – except sluggish ones since they now have a crap load of fuel to carry – and not tortoise/hare mixes of strategies.

[VIVA GT]

/\ /\
That all sounds pretty sensible to me. If the cars are allowed to be different then there's a chance that the faster ones will be able to get past the slower ones.
If the cars are so constrained that their performances are pretty equal, then there's no chance for any overtaking.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Spot on, great post.

It wouldn't require having to spend a damn thing, either.

I read somewhere something along the lines of (on the subject of not stopping the whole race) "but the pit crew would have nothing to do".

Perhaps that's why they've got the manditory stop.

Selby

[jab]

On the other hand, placing the emphasis back on strategy isn't necessarily going to make overtaking any more frequent

I'd say harder tyres were needed. The drivers couldn't attack because their tyres were overheating. In that sense, mandatory 2 stops could increase that because it would allow the drivers to be more aggressive, even though it would remove the strategic variable

It's a tough one. I think we need a temporary quick fix by Europe if it doesn't get any better over the next 3 races, but that wouldn't solve everything. It's a mess

[neiltb]

I'm sure they'd be glad of the rest. alternatively, have them coordinate a meeting between broom and floor.

[ECW Dan Selby]

The trouble is jab, wouldn't we be in the same position as last year? Overtaking via pitting?

Selby

[jab]

With what? Not with 2 mandatory stops, we should see more with that. But we will see overtaking in the pits with no mandatory stops and strategic variety - most of the overtaking with that will be for track position rather than for a genuine position in the overall standings because they'll all be out of sync. We'll be back in the same position of the commentators having to explain to the viewers that despite there being no refuelling, the order still isn't the true representation of the actual order

[Spritle]

Taking away the mandatory tyre change/pit stop that is now in place may do everything craigd suggests but with a 20+ sec bogey time to complete a pit stop for tyres and crummy overtaking venues; I have a feeling once again the majority of passing will take place in the pits because there won't be enough laps to make up that big a deficit over a car that didn't stop. The passing will be by virtue of a MISTAKE in tyre choice but the the pass will ultimately happen in the pits.

While I have no answers, I do remember the early days of the multiple race engine rules. I remember limited running during pre-race tests and I seem to recall some conservative driving until teams got the balls to go the limit and take their chances.

Maybe the FIA, drivers and fan base need to wait until a FEW races are completed before declaring the new rules are a total cock-up. As Jenson willing admitted, he was too conservative and maybe so was the majority of the field.

Till that time I will be hoping for great racing, blistering speed, NO return of JV and a finger of blame aimed squarely at Bernie & Max just in case this latest chapter of "F'ing Up the Sport I Love(ed)" turns out bad.

Maybe they should make up a batch of bad spark plugs, throw them into a bucket and have each team randomly choose the 8 they will use for the race....

Hey FIA, are we saving any money yet?????

[craigd]

Originally Posted by jab

On the other hand, placing the emphasis back on strategy isn't necessarily going to make overtaking any more frequent

I'd say harder tyres were needed. The drivers couldn't attack because their tyres were overheating. In that sense, mandatory 2 stops could increase that because it would allow the drivers to be more aggressive, even though it would remove the strategic variable

It's a tough one. I think we need a temporary quick fix by Europe if it doesn't get any better over the next 3 races, but that wouldn't solve everything. It's a mess

The thing is the drivers are not going to be able to easily overtake with these current cars/tracks. It doesn't matter how many points/carrots you dangle in front of them, a racing driver always has that urge to fight and win but the aerodynamic instabilities are too great. And if everyone is on the same type of rubber at the same time, it doesn't matter how 'juicy' (grippy/marginal) the tyres are, the cars are too similar.

We'll still see overtaking with these rules at the tracks we normally do, Interglagos, Montreal perhaps, and I don't think the new rules adversely affected on track overtaking in Bahrain - there was no more or less than last year). I believe strategy still needs to play a part - it just needs to be more driver emphasised.

And they'll still be the case of overtaking with no mandatory pitstops, since they'll be cases of quicker drivers on quicker tyres knowing they have to get past harder tyred drivers that may or may not be stopping, or their race is screwed. And as they'll be more of a performance differentiator in this situtation, overtaking is more likely to happen.

For unpredictability and exicting races you need lots of variables. Shifting the attention away from fuel to tyres is ok, but they need to allow more variables for the tyres. Freedom is key, not the FIA trying to artificially manufacture exciting racing.

Lastly, I do appreciate another point on pitstop crews having nothing to do for a non-stopper but if you think about how race strategy would pan out, you just won't get a case of everyone qualifying on hards, not stopping and putting Mr Tyre Gun out of a job. If that were the case Force India say, will go, 'Well if we just go soft we might get pole and have more chance to score higher than qualifying 9th and being stuck there as no one else will stop'. Then that logic will filter through to other teams and you'll end up with a nice mix!!!

[Graz]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't want to be a kill joy but I saw some very dull, processional races, with drivers making up places because the other guy had retired due to mechanical failure.

Yes, some, the same way as some football matches are nil-all draws. Overall it was better becasue cars could follow and pass each other, certainly a lot more than now.

Martin Whitmarsh in Autosport moaning about a change being needed said that Hamilton was clearly faster than Rosberg but couldn't get by. Artificially imposing pitstops and so on is just crap in fairness. This is the typical complaint so the only way to make the racing better is by slashing the aero - skinny wings front and rear with no diffusers.

[jab]

Originally Posted by craigd

The thing is the drivers are not going to be able to easily overtake with these current cars/tracks.

Well they were normally able to overtake at Bahrain before they had to worry about conserving tyres that were overheating when in another driver's slipstream

I'm sorry but your idea would just be brushing other problems under the carpet. It would place the emphasis back on strategy again, which wouldn't do anything for overtaking. The current strategic lack of variables wouldn't have been so bad if the cars could overtake, which isn't the norm for Sakhir. Yes, we need variables, but the reason for the lack of overtaking yesterday was not as much the aero as it has been, or the lack of variety in strategy, or whatever. It was down to the tyres. We normally get overtaking at Bahrain but we didn't get much yesterday. Bahrain, in theory, should've been one of the better races for no refuelling

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by craigd

These are my suggestions that I also posted on James Allen's site. To me it is by far the best immediate course of action: free up the constraints.

We shouldn’t overreact but I would appreciate you proposing the following ideas to improve the restrictive rules. I don’t wish to sound arrogant but I do believe they would be strong improvements. It wouldn’t cost any money or need tyre design modifications (racier tyres would be ideal but as you rightly state, it would be of no interest to Bridgestone’s image to provide tyres that don’t last)!

In short, they need to:
- remove the mandatory pitstop requirement
- give free reign to which compounds drivers’ wish to use
- BUT keep the rule whereby the top 10 have to start on the tyre they qualify on.

It is exactly what Prost advised in an article I read on the BBC yesterday. It clearly seems the best way to go in my opinion that I’ve been banging my head in frustration! Let me explain my reasoning (partly based on that thing you love Game Theory).

The ban on refuelling is supposed to put the strategy emphasis away from being fuel constrained to tyre constrained, which by definition is more driver skill dependent and should result in more flexible pit strategies. This is a good thing! The FIA however, have ballsed it up by placing too many constraints on the system. There’s now no freedom for the teams – a top team must go soft for grid position; the tyres can last a one stop strategy (if they can last the heat of Bahrain, which included the supersoft, they can last anywhere), so there’s no reason to try to stop twice or more and no stops are disallowed; and as soon as one driver balks for the pits the only way to go is for everyone to immediately follow suit.

The FIA wanted a mandatory pitstop to prevent drivers not stopping at all but a simple analysis of Bahrain shows that wouldn’t be the case throughout the whole grid under these more flexible rules:

In Bahrain the top drivers would still have had to qualify on softs since grid position is so important. However, as they would have to start the race on softs this would have forced them to either pit once or twice for more softs (likely Red Bull) or make a single stop for hards (likely Ferrari). (Incidentally this rule would stop the case of in Monaco say, a driver getting pole on softs then doing the race on hards with no stop and winning through being a blockade.) However, you’d also have had some teams splitting their strategy in qualifying. Those that didn’t have great one lap pace but who felt they could make their tyres last well, such as Button, or Schumacher/Mercedes, would opt for hards in qualifying with the intention of not stopping. You would then have had a situation of the 1 or 2 stopping softs (the ‘hares’) opting for more a sprint race to cover off the no stopping hards (the ‘tortoises’), and ultimately you’d likely have cars on different strategies coinciding on track, with attacking soft-shodden drivers trying to battle past the conserving hards – a la the classic Alonso/Schumacher finish in Imola 2005. There would be so much more unpredictability in the race too as you would be left guessing when and if a driver will stop, will they sprint, will they conserve?

The key aspect is that by allowing flexible strategies, you are much more likely to end up with cars on different tyre strategies, and hence on different performance differentials, which is what is needed to overtake in F1 such is the tremendous difficulty for overtaking of similarly matched cars.

A lack of refuelling is not the problem; it’s the inflexibility over tyre usage that needs correcting. (If say the Red Bulls want to use their one lap pace to go for pole then go for a 2 stop sprint race on softs, let them. If say the likes of Button want to sacrifice a top grid spot, and go for hards and attempt to make the whole race on them, let them.) Let them choose!!!

Also, two mandatory pitstops is NOT the answer. That will not create the flexibility in strategy needed. Drivers will still just mimic each other at each stop and we’ll just end up with sprint races like before – except sluggish ones since they now have a crap load of fuel to carry – and not tortoise/hare mixes of strategies.

Great Post, so good I've quoted it in full so taht everyone gets another chance to read it.

I was so pleased when they agreed to ban refuelling and utterly appalled when they didn't drop the mandatory two compounds thing. the whole point of banning refuelling is to introduce varying strategies and above all uncertainty about strategy, in fact they ought to take the stripes off the tyres and only have the team, the driver and the officials know which tyres are on the car, let everybody else, especially the other team's engineers guess.

[neiltb]

2 mandatory stops would stop the conservative driving we had yesterday (we could give the drivers flat caps instead of crash helmets and put a nice little tea room at half way) but 3 sprints on softs doesn't work either 1) they'll all do it and 2) half the time they were conserving fuel also.

reduce downforce = reduced drag = better fuel economy
reduce downforce = lower speeds = better fuel economy

unfortunately then the designers would build smaller tanks to make the car ilghter and mandating larger fuel loads that must be used isn't exactly good from an environmental point of view. I think they have me beat

[davyboy]

In terms of sporting rules... How about a fuel load lottery ? Everybody is only permitted to make one stop for fuel... but each car is given a different starting fuel load prior to the race. This means that everyone would be able to go at different speeds at the during the race [meaning overtaking could happen]. Also, you wouldn't be allowed to stop for tyres and fuel at the same time... adding a bit more spice to the mix.