F1 Qualifying (The new setup)

miley_bob

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,362
Location
East Yorkshire
Qualifying has now beeen changed for 3 consecutive years, and by the looks of it this new system is shaping up to be the worst one yet (last nights qualifying was terrible, i dont know why i stayed up to watch it). Its no longer a level playing field because drivers simply have to take their chance with the weather as opposed to the old system of 12 laps over an hour long spell, when they could go out when wever they chose to. Personally i dont think there was anything wrong with the old pre 2003 system, and why the FIA keep fecking around with it, rather than going back to the old syatem i do not know.

What are other peoples views on this matter?
 
miley_bob said:
Qualifying has now beeen changed for 3 consecutive years, and by the looks of it this new system is shaping up to be the worst one yet (last nights qualifying was terrible, i dont know why i stayed up to watch it). Its no longer a level playing field because drivers simply have to take their chance with the weather as opposed to the old system of 12 laps over an hour long spell, when they could go out when wever they chose to. Personally i dont think there was anything wrong with the old pre 2003 system, and why the FIA keep fecking around with it, rather than going back to the old syatem i do not know.

What are other peoples views on this matter?
Click to expand...

F1 is gonna get worst by the season.
 
I don't get it at all, I agree that the 12 laps/1 hr format was the best and there's no need to feck around with the rules.

Each team had its dominance and that doesn't mean you have to change the rules, no other sport except F1 does that
 
Interesting as it may be but too complicated for me


:wenger:
 
They might as well have a raffle. Qualifying as it stands is pointless. F1 used to be about the best cars, the best drivers and the best succeeding. If qualifying is supposed to give teams an opportunity to show their competitiveness so that they can earn a grid slot, then that's fine. But if they just want to mix things up, why package it as anything other than what it really is; a lottery

I wont be wasting my time watching any more qualifying sessions. The original formula was the best, and I think you'll see the big teams getting gradually more and more pissed off with the FIA.
 
I think they originally wanted to make Gp's more compact, i.e. having only Saturday and Sunday as competitive days. I can see the logic in that fair enough, and I can see the logic in the one lap qualifying scenario....make a mistake and you suffer. The hope here was that front runners would make a mistake and increase the entertainment by driving through the field. They made a bollox of it by compounding the cars overnight and not allowing any refuelling, repairs, set-up work, tyre changes etc..between qualifying and race. In effect, qualifying became the first lap of the actual race, and that bred new cloak and dagger strategies and tactics far removed from what the authorities had hoped. It also meant that nobody had a friggin' clue what was going on, not just TV viewers in far flung corners of the world, but spectators at the circuit, and unbelieveably, even teammates alongside each other in the garage were kept in the dark at times. Bizarre.

As for this years system, well it hasn't played out fully yet, and rain always puts the cat amongst the pigeons, but I can only see it being further removed from the pure spectacle of what qualifying should be. Amalgamated times over 2 sessions?, I can see the reasoning behind it. But I'll bet it won't play out the way the authorities hope.

For pure spectacle, unpredictability, bravado and skill, I'd go with one a one hour session on a Saturday lunchtime, slick tyres, low fuel, one lap, have it.
 
Keane16 said:
........... that bred new cloak and dagger strategies and tactics far removed from what the authorities had hoped. It also meant that nobody had a friggin' clue what was going on,..............

For pure spectacle, unpredictability, bravado and skill, I'd go with one a one hour session on a Saturday lunchtime, slick tyres, low fuel, one lap, have it.
Click to expand...


Yes and Yes on both counts. That way you have the spectacle of both qualifying, showing the true colours of the teams, and that of the race.
 
Well seems that there a unanamous feeling for the 1 hour session with 12 laps. The FIA need a kick up the arse and instead of changing the rules, just do their fecking job and regulate the sport and not ruin it.
 
Well I am happy , Narain is 9 th on the grid so far, thanks to the weather :D

I am a fan of one shot qualification though.
 
I think it would be a bit harsh to judge the new format on this GP. To get such a radical set of weather in an hour was unforunate in the extreme, and just think how that would have panned out under the old 12 lap system.

On the whole I think the new setup is much better. One shot qualifying removes the lottery you play with other cars on the track, and gives the drivers a tough challenge to set a good time rather than put in a safe banker lap and then throwing all caution out the window. Having aggregate times stops fuel loads being so prevalent in qualifying, and will (normally) reduce the luck element.
 
So, Fisichella on pole. Not very surprising given the buffer he had from yesterday. Looking forward to the race, I think it should be interesting, not easy to predict the winner today. McLaren and Renault look strong though I think
 
It's still massively overcomplicated for such a simple requirement as the need to position the cars at the start...but it's a product of its time, I suppose.

I can see the logic in it Forza, but I can't help feeling that they have the wrong end of the stick. The problem with F1, to me, wasn't the format - it was/is the cars. Now it's the cars and the format/procedures. it was the lack of overtaking and over reliance on strategy that bored and continues to bore people to death. Lower the aerodynamic downforce properly (they'll always get it back eventually), remove refuelling, slick tyres, tight controls on electronics....there you have it, heavy cars, low grip, care needed, driver skill required. Obviously F1 is as much a technical challenge as a driver competition, but technical advances for the automobile industry as a whole are surely now advanced to the stage of alternative power system development....nowt to do with F1, which was largely based on aeronautics rather than automobile anyway....
 
I havent seen the second session, but I followed it on the net, and it's more of a true session than the first one. Just taking today alone, and not bothering with yesterdays anomaly.....the frankly bizarre mysteries of the fuel stipulations notwithstanding of course, you get Mark Webber the quickest.

1. Mark 1:28.279
2. Fisi 1:28.289

Interestingly, BAR not at the races, Bunsen over 2.4 behind on just today alone! and Ferrari over 3 seconds behind, with Rubens (Michael bottled it).

Fuel plays a part I'm sure, but still...
 
Just a quick one as well for all you Coulio fans out there, he was third quickest today on 1:28.892 in our adopted Redcaf' Red Bull.

Nowt wrong with that.....apart from the fact that there's probably more petrol in me ma's Clio.

Expect an early stop.
 
Keane16 said:
Just a quick one as well for all you Coulio fans out there, he was third quickest today on 1:28.892 in our adopted Redcaf' Red Bull.

Nowt wrong with that.....apart from the fact that there's probably more petrol in me ma's Clio.

Expect an early stop.
Click to expand...

:lol: when did we adopt red bull. brilliant idea.

I can always hope DC isnt running on less fuel than u can fit in a shot glass.
 
I think F1 is trying to make rules so Ferrari don't win everything again. You basically have a 1 horse race and I think all the other teams are putting bressure on the F1 to level out the playing field.
 
Hats off to Redcaff Red Bull, Klien and especially Coulthard. I was sure he'd have to pit after a handful of laps, but they held off Williams and McLaren for the whole day, fair play....don't know how they could have managed that.
 
miley_bob said:
Qualifying has now beeen changed for 3 consecutive years, and by the looks of it this new system is shaping up to be the worst one yet (last nights qualifying was terrible, i dont know why i stayed up to watch it). Its no longer a level playing field because drivers simply have to take their chance with the weather as opposed to the old system of 12 laps over an hour long spell, when they could go out when wever they chose to. Personally i dont think there was anything wrong with the old pre 2003 system, and why the FIA keep fecking around with it, rather than going back to the old syatem i do not know.

What are other peoples views on this matter?
Click to expand...
I prefered the old 12 lap routine....far more exciting when there used to be a mad dash right at the end.
F1's getting on my tits a bit now....I like the sport and will always watch it but every season they have to change all the rules and regulations to make it more exciting dont they!....there not making it more exciting...there messing about and its stupid.
This all started because people werent happy with the fact that Ferrari where winning all the time...personally it never botherd me that Ferrari were winning but the funny thing is that it hasnt stopped Ferrari from winning has it.
 
Dave, the main reason thatn they changed the rules for 2003 was due to the ferrari's dominating in 2002 and winning something like 15 out of 17 races. The following season was close, but ferrari were still by far the better team, and last season they won i think 15 out of 18 races. Yet to the best of my knowledge they never changed the rules after 1988. When Mclaren won 15 out of 16 races. So basically this lets change the rules lark is utter bollocks. Its has done nothing for the sport, and IMO has made F1 boring. The sooner they go back to 12 lap qualifying the better, i say.
 
miley_bob said:
Dave, the main reason thatn they changed the rules for 2003 was due to the ferrari's dominating in 2002 and winning something like 15 out of 17 races. The following season was close, but ferrari were still by far the better team, and last season they won i think 15 out of 18 races. Yet to the best of my knowledge they never changed the rules after 1988. When Mclaren won 15 out of 16 races. So basically this lets change the rules lark is utter bollocks. Its has done nothing for the sport, and IMO has made F1 boring. The sooner they go back to 12 lap qualifying the better, i say.
Click to expand...
Exactly...thats what I said but I didn't go into a shed load of detail like you have...basically they're trying to stop Ferrari winning and it aint happening. Is it even fair come to think of it...Ferrari are obviously the better team not only because they have more money but because they have worked at it, so is it fair to change the rules to stop them?? I dont think it is.
 
Dave_B said:
......Ferrari are obviously the better team not only because they have more money but because they have worked at it, so is it fair to change the rules to stop them?? I dont think it is.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Now I dislike Ferrari as much as the next man, but I can accept the are the best on merit. To try and make rules to artificially change this IS unfair. As you correctly point out F1 success is not guarenteed by throwing cash at the problem (ala BAR a few years back). It comes from expertise and experience. To try and alter the natural outcome is in my view detremental to the sport.
 
Where has this idea that the new rules hurt Ferrari come from? If anything the new qualifying rules will favour the best car, and the two races an engine rule certainly will suit the uber reliable Ferrari of recent years. Then there are the tyre restrictions which will hurt Schumacher, but will hurt Montoya and Alonso a lot more if they keep up their erratic habits...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in the new rules that hurts Ferrari more than anyone else... quite the opposite in fact.
 
The cap that has effectively been placed on performance and the benifits that come from being able to carry out unlimited testing surely harms a team like Ferrari more than it harms others. It means Ferrari can't exploit to the fullest extent it's competitive advantage over its rivals. the cost reductions, implementation of single sets of tyres and (seemingly) lottery-nature of the qualifying system introduces uncertainties that mean its harder for them to win.

Heres an example(fictitious):

If Ferrari usually does 1000 hours of testing per winter.
If Minardi usually does 100 hours of testing per winter.

If the cap is set at 500 hours of testing per winter.

Then logic would suggest ferrari has underutilised its resources and Minardi has excess capacity. Net result.... Ferrari aren't as far ahead of Minardi as they could be. Now take the example and supplant williams or Mclaren in Minardi's place, change the scale, and you have the same net result.
 
Fine theory... only trouble is the testing cap isn't a rule. It is just a gentleman's agreement between nine teams. The other team has no intention of limiting itself, and that team is of course Ferrari.

The teams wanted a testing limit for the same reason as the other rule changes; to cut costs. Typically Ferrari veto the one change that would impact upon them more than the rest.
 
the anti-ferrari rules has been tried and implemented for the past few years,this year's qualifying was a joke,i never bothered watching it and the race and qualitying is now a lottery instead of a race,i would to see some stability in the rules from year to year and not radical changes to the rules every single year
they should revert to last year's qualitying which IMO was very interesting
 
Forza Viola said:
...... It is just a gentleman's agreement between nine teams. ......
Click to expand...

Didnt realise that was the case. Hence, you have a point.

Whilst I'm not going to base my entire opinion on one race, I must state that I was very dissapointed with what I saw this weekend. Drivers no longer willing to take risks. Most drivers going into economy mode if it becomes slightly obvious they're not going to get points. I mean look at how Ron lambasted Montoya for getting his tyres dirty! At this rate, we'll simply end up with 60-odd parade laps. The new cost saving and performance limiting rules are annoying. They interfere with the racing and as someone pointed out on the weekend, what the hell is a 10second/lap slower vehicle doing on the track? Maybe this has its roots in the dissapearance of cigarette sponsorship and the need for new sponsors to get more air time, but I sure as hell am missing the 90's. :(
 
In fairness to Ron, with the tyres the way they are this year, care is vital. It was a mistake by JPM and Ron reckons it cost them second place. That's enough of a reason to lambast Montoya.....but that's not your point nav113 I know. The real problem, and I agree, is the shambolic situation whereby the concept of refuelling has become almost untouchable. Of all the changes made over recent years, refuelling has remained constant. Yet, if you consider it, the re-introduction of refuelling in 1994 is what has precipitated the high speed political chess to which we are now subjected every second Sunday.

Here's a crazy idea - let's fill the cars up with fuel, give them as much slick tyres as they want, peel back their aero and let's have a flippin' motor race. All that strategy of two days of amalgamated qualifying, fuel windows, passing in the pits, fuel strategies, pit lane chaos.....gone at a (admittedly fairly substantial) stroke. In and out for fresh boots in 4 second pitstops, no tactics hidden behind a strategy, just pure racing.....why not that? Why absolutely everything but that?
 
I just heard if you finished the race, you have to start next race in the same engine?

Is this true?
 
Is there really any logic behind this?
It will aid ferrari more than other cars, their engine relaibilty is much much more than others, I would be suprised to see if Renault's or williams engine lasted for 3-4 races in a row.
Plus many top teams wont bother finishing if there in top8, hell some may even scrifice a point or two for a new engine.
 
The solution....

Qualifying:

(copyright holder, David Coultard)
"It should be one hour, four laps and you've got to do a lap in every 15 minutes, with all the cars out there."

Race:

(copyright holder, Keane 16)
"let's fill the cars up with fuel, give them as much slick tyres as they want, peel back their aero and let's have a flippin' motor race.... In and out for fresh boots in 4 second pitstops, no tactics hidden behind a strategy, just pure racing....."

Sounds good to me guys!
 
I don't like the new qualifying at all. But the argument is that if you go back to the 1 hour, especially in Monaco you have to be very lucky to get a flying lap in without disruption and it isn't fair on all.

As for the race, this idea of no tyre changes is interesting and i'll be interested to see how it works in the long run. It may even things out but i'm not sure.
 
nav113 said:
Qualifying:

(copyright holder, David Coultard)
"It should be one hour, four laps and you've got to do a lap in every 15 minutes, with all the cars out there."

Race:

(copyright holder, Keane 16)
"let's fill the cars up with fuel, give them as much slick tyres as they want, peel back their aero and let's have a flippin' motor race.... In and out for fresh boots in 4 second pitstops, no tactics hidden behind a strategy, just pure racing....."

Sounds good to me guys!
Click to expand...


Couldnt agree more. The current set up is an absolute joke ad needs to be rectified.
One question though. The new engine rule is unfair, in that if the manufacturer brings a more powerful model out, they cannot use it for the next race. Also some races are harder on engines than others, so there will be more likelyhodd for engines to let go at say the next race after a tough one. This is unfair, as some cars may have a new engine for this race whilst others will have to nurse thier cars home.
 
crappycraperson said:
Is there really any logic behind this?
It will aid ferrari more than other cars, their engine relaibilty is much much more than others, I would be suprised to see if Renault's or williams engine lasted for 3-4 races in a row.
Plus many top teams wont bother finishing if there in top8, hell some may even scrifice a point or two for a new engine.
Click to expand...

The most it has to last is for two races, after that you can change it.

Looking Busy said:
I don't like the new qualifying at all. But the argument is that if you go back to the 1 hour, especially in Monaco you have to be very lucky to get a flying lap in without disruption and it isn't fair on all.
Click to expand...

I can see how it would be fairer for everyone to run individually, but getting a clear lap on a crowded circuit as the qualifying hour came to a climax, was once considered a skill in itself....one I appreciated to be honest.

Looking Busy said:
As for the race, this idea of no tyre changes is interesting and i'll be interested to see how it works in the long run. It may even things out but i'm not sure.
Click to expand...

As long as refuelling remains a tactical variable, people aren't going to know what's going on. I don't see the point of it confusing everyone when they are trying to get people back into the sport. As it stands, the necessity to look after the tyres will probably lead to conservatism as pointed out by nav113. To be honest it's a bit of a mess. Is anyone happy with it?

miley_bob said:
Also some races are harder on engines than others, so there will be more likelyhodd for engines to let go at say the next race after a tough one. This is unfair, as some cars may have a new engine for this race whilst others will have to nurse thier cars home.
Click to expand...

Good point. I think they are allowed to perform certain maintenance procedures between races. They can't run the eingine though (they can turn it by hand) or break any of the FIA seals, so I'd imagine the work allowed is fairly rudimentary.
 
Keane16 said:
Here's a crazy idea - let's fill the cars up with fuel, give them as much slick tyres as they want, peel back their aero and let's have a flippin' motor race. All that strategy of two days of amalgamated qualifying, fuel windows, passing in the pits, fuel strategies, pit lane chaos.....gone at a (admittedly fairly substantial) stroke. In and out for fresh boots in 4 second pitstops, no tactics hidden behind a strategy, just pure racing.....why not that? Why absolutely everything but that?
Click to expand...

Think you are right. My fiancee is a F1 nut, loves Schmacher and Ferrari and even she, for the first time, got bored. I saw one of the sponsors was Accenture, a bloody accountant. Either accountants have got more exciting - which I doubt - or F1 has got too bloody safe and boring. An accountant! Maybe there's your answer there.
 
Keane16 said:
The most it has to last is for two races, after that you can change it.
Keane16 said:
Yeah it only has to last 2 races, but like last year they will not change the setup because all the new cars have been designed with this qualifying in mind, so any changes would be dificult to get an agreement on, and will benefit some teams more than others.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't know what the rule changes have been and I don't care. F1 has been unwatchable for years. I haven't been really interested since Mansell retired and even though I had a passing interest after that I now haven't watched a race for years. The Melbourne GP used to be big news down here and even the Gold Coast Indie seems to get more coverage now. And touring cars are far more popular here is Australia. And that is despite Webber getting a decent car this year.

Something is wrong with the sport that is for sure.
 
couldhart said something in the papers,he said the new qualifying is a joke
the irony is that he benefited from it
oh well at least he is honest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.