Proposal 1: - 60-minute session, split into two 25-minute halves with a 10-minute break. - drivers may run as many laps as they wish, but must set a time in each half. - each drivers best times from the first half is added to his best time from the second half to produce a final time to determine the grid. - no fuel restrictions - cars may refuel during and after the session. Proposal 2: - 60-minute session. - after 15 minutes, the five slowest cars must retire from the session and will qualify 16th to 20th on the grid. - after a further 15 minutes, the five cars slowest during that period (times cannot be carried over from the first 15 minutes) must also retire from the session. They will qualify 11th to 15th on the grid. - for the final 30 minutes the remaining 10 cars will compete for first to tenth place on the grid, based on the best times set in that period (times cannot be carried over from the first 30 minutes). - drivers may run as many laps as they wish in each period. - no fuel restrictions - cars may refuel during and after the session Current format No preference You can vote here: http://www.formula1.com/news/3312.html Proposal #1 for me.
Option #4 60 Min Qualifying race with a minimum amount of laps to be completed by all cars. Then the each driver will pick out the actual grid position out of a box using the fastest lap time creating the order of picking. Then you give the drivers passing points for each pass they make out on the track. The FIA wants overtaking on track? this is a sure fire way to get it done since fastest lap does not = pole position on the grid. The racing will be exciting and drivers cannot blame a car holding them up on the drivers flying lap as the grid is done by luck of the draw. This also takes passing on using pit stops out of play as there will be no passing points for passing in the pits. Also a driver can make more points by making passes durring the race than they can with finishing position. Go with this method and F1 will become the most exciting racing that has happened in a long time. Anyone that saw a CART race with the "HANFORD" device on the car knows what i am talking about as it created close racing with lots of passing.
Don't know about passing points. I'm old school.. Before messing with the point system... We need one tire manufacturer only, slicks tyres, get rid of downforce, no traction control, minimal aero grip, spec brakes, Manual shifters, reducing electronic driver aids. The current F1 cars are really nice and have lots of technology. I can spend an entire day looking at all the details. But at the end of the day I came to see a race with some passing and not a parade with drivers driving a car computer. Some come for the cars and others to see the drivers. I would hate to see F1 becoming a spec racing series but if that's what it takes to see the drivers skill then go for it. Btw if you want to see more passing..1 set of tyres for saturday and sunday has to go. Qualifying should go back like in the old days. Minardi and Jordan won't like it because they will get no tv coverage. But who cares! + everyone has the same amount of fuel for the whole qualifying session.
Actualy when there was a 60 min qualifying session Minardi got lots of TV time when they were the only ones on track at the beggining of the session. Speaking of old school the idea of passing points was created in the mid 80's my Micky Thompson's Ultracross series. The top qualifiers started on a second gate that was delayed to drop after slower riders went off. The fastest riders had ribbons on the helmets so that spectators could see who was the second gate starters. It was very exciting race series until Mr. Thompson was gunned down in broad daylight, after that the series died away.
I think the options given are rubbish. We want qualifying to be simple and exciting. Aggregating times and knocking certain cars out after a time are all complications that we don't need. I won't be voting.
Looks like someone agrees with me: http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=25216
Option one is the most simple, other than that aggregate stuff, still better than what we have, i voted one
RIGHT ON. I hereby nominate JT for president of the FIA !! Agreed. These options are limited. I can't say that either option is better than another or that either would help the current qualy dilemma. If anything I'd vote to return to the old format of do what you can do in 1hr is the way to go.
I would hate to see F1 as spec racing, one tire manufacturer only, slicks, no downforce, etc . . . . . - I would probably have re-think spending the amount of money and time that we do attending live F1 races if it became spec racing. If I want to see that type of thing, I can drive about 45 minutes up the road to MSR and watch for a $5 grounds fee. Is not F1 suppose to be the pinnacle of the motorsport world? If it goes to specs, why not really save money and run with the Miatas or even combine F1 with the troubled IRL? Then we could have the 40+ cars on the track like NASCAR and have a demolitation derby event. Why go backwards instead of forward?? I think there's plenty of skill on the part of the driver even with the "modern" driver aids. I agree with Anthony_Ferrari - keep it simple and exciting - what's wrong with going back several years and reinstituting how it used to take place. I'll vote for that!! Carol
I haven't voted yet, neither of those options does it for me. On a sepearate note, I'm getting so sick and tried of these gloom and doom F1 articles. It's like ever since Indy, which was simply an unavoidable situation, any loony with an axe to grind is popping out of the woodwork with a "see-I-told-you-so" on how F1 is on the verge of collapse because of exactly whatever his particular agenda happens to be. ....Yet apparently we are all still turning on our TVs every other Sunday.... F1 is dead -- Long live F1! Imperial- FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE 8, Place de la Concorde 75008 Paris France Telephone: +33 1 43 12 44 55 Facsimile: +33 1 43 12 44 66 Services Administratifs / Administration : 2, Chemin de Blandonnet 1215 Genève 15 Suisse / Switzerland Telephone: +41 22 544 44 00 Facsimile: +41 22 544 44 50 (Sport) Facsimile: +41 22 544 45 50 (Tourisme et Automobile) there you go, now you can stop asking for comment sections, just write a damn letter and be done with it!
The Hanford Device was a addition to the rear wing on CART Champ cars that slowed the cars down by creating lots of Aero Drag the side effect to this was it also created a huge hole in the air behind the car that allowed the car behind to be sucked up and could sling shot by the car in front. At the first race they ran the HANFORD at it was not uncommon to see 3-4 lead changes per lap. It was the Aerodyanamic version of NECKCAR restictor plate racing except for comments that drivers could still get a tow 20 car lengths behind the car in front of them where in NECKCAR it was perhaps 4-5 car lengths
One other thing i came up with last night while i was a sleep. Each team will run 3 cars + 3 drivers in practice and qualifying. The 2 fastest drivers for each team draw for the "grid lottery" the 3 drivers take grid position 21-30 based upon there lap times. This way we have larger grids, More passing, it gives teams a chance to develop there cars further on race days with less testing, and develops the drivers for the future. All of these are things Max Mosley wants in F1 to begin with.
The old way is best...simply the fastest time in a 1 hour session, where tires, motors, and anything else can be changed.
proposal two sounds best, if it canbe orgainized... They give a 20 minute grace period, for drivers to get in their best times, then they start removing drivers who have the slower times, from the session. They would then start that 15min deal once the first set of slow drivers have been removed from the session. Works out well, because towards the end of the session, the top 6 drivers will be fighting for a podium grid position, for the start of the race... This way, slower drivers aren't allowed to join the session much later, when for example, Michael Schumacher decides to start his, on his free will. Rather, when he starts his qualifying, there will only be fast drivers on the track, sort of making it into a small pre-grand prix, with them racing for the best time, at the same time.... but with this, everyone would have to do a laptime in the beginning, to set their own standerd, then work their way with the faster drivers, leaving the slower ones out after the 'grace period' segment.
Agreed on allowing changes made to the cars, but completely disagree on the open 1 hour. As Rob said: In the past qualifying was 55 minutes of total boredom with a couple of Minardis on the track and then 5 minutes of total chaos where you couldn't read fast enough who was on pole. I like the least tinkering with qualifying, but teams have to be forced by the rules to do laps over the entire hour (split in 15, 20 or 30 minute slots, whatever). Oh and one more thing: No more of that parc ferme nonsense. I want teams to do qualifying setups and then being able to change to racing configuration. That is the only way to make the pole position meaningful again and not just a speculation that the guy was on fumes.
Look, the point is that the current rules in F1 are: 1) Hard to follow: Only a handful of people can tell you if the cars are on Engine 1 or Engine 2 2) Absolutely make no sense: Cars that suffer an engine failure get a 10 spot penalty but cars that suffer electronics failure get to repair any problems. 3) A complete lottery system: If you do not do well in one race then you get a bad qualifying spot in the next race so you do bad in that race too. 4) Unsafe and a risk to racers: We nearly saw Ralf, Kimi and Zonta die as a result of the inability of Michelin to produce safe tyres. F1 was fine just the way it was in 2000. The FIA and Bernie changed the rules because of pressure from idiots like Paul Stoddart. He wanted more TV coverage. Even options 1 and 2 will not give his cars TV coverage, so he will complain that it is Ferrari's fault again! The 2005 season is a complete farce and even if Renault and Alonso do go ahead an win the championship it will be a hollow victory which means nothing! The rules were changed again and again to give Ferrai a disadvantage in car development. We all know that if the 2005 rules had stayed the same in 2005 Ferrari would have walked all over the competition again. Now the FIA and Bernie are releasing these stupid surveys to show fans they care. Where were FIA and Bernie when the old way of qualifying was working just fine and was very entertaining? Why did not release a survey before they changed qualifying?
The old way was not fine. It was boring. But honestly you lost me on the Alonso part. That is just sour grapes.
There is a fantastic article on pitpass... take a look at it http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=25216 The old format did have about 20 minutes of in activity but it was 100 times more entertaining than this boring one lap garbage. Do you really think that Renault would have been this dominant if it were not for the ever changing rules? The rules were changed to support the development of McLaren and Renault. The new rules did not support the direction Ferrari had taken in its development program. Besides that Renault provide Fisichella with an unreliable car and give him a poor race startegy to let Alonso come out in front of him. Renault should let Fisichella and Alonso race on the track with equal cars instead of sabotaging Fisichella's chances of winning. The 2005 championship is a hollow championship and means nothing.
What bothers me about the current qualifying format is not knowing who is on what fuel load and that makes the pole less cherished. The one lap qualifying I personally like as it gives me a perspective on how each driver is doing, something you don't see otherwise when the cameras are only on the top drivers. I compare it to alpine downhill skiing, but that's just me. Regarding Renault (or the competition in general): a) The rules were clearly changed to break the dominance of the leading team. It was not against Ferrari per se, but against the dominance. A practice FIA does also in other sporting series (e.g. endurance racing). So that is neither anything new nor anything to get upset about. *IF* Renault were to dominate the next four years, they would change the rules again to give the others (including Ferrari) the advantage. b) I remember in the mid nineties Bernie and to some degree the FIA bending backwards to give Ferrari some kind of advantage to finally clinch the title. There was a lot of bad blood coming from the other teams (mostly Mc Laren) and cries for how unfair they were treated. A lot of that was noise, some of it had some justification (e.g. the weird pro Ferrari decision by the FIA regarding the bending barge boards). I'm not saying they helped Ferrari, but they certainly were not against Ferrari. Nobody on the FIA/FOCA level hates Ferrari, they just want different winners once in a while. c) The rules are the same for everybody. Live by them, die by them. d) Ferrari enjoyed the benefits of a tire company focusing on the scuderia for the past few years. This year the strategy backfired. Too bad. e) Not respecting the current season and the other team winning is unsportmanlike and certainly not what the Scuderia has in mind. I'm sure people like Brawn, Todt, Schumacher and Enzo respect somebody else as a winner. So if you consider this year a farce, well that's your choice. To me this season and whoever wins it, will have my respect as just about any other season in F1's history.
Qualifying definitely has to be changed to better reflect race pace. Otherwise you get faster cars stuck behind those who qualified ahead either by a 1-lap fluke or by doing it on fumes instead of a full tank. Regarding the "boring" show aspects of the old system... so what. I doubt if the tv income from qualifying is a major fraction of the overall race weekend. F1 should also appeal to the most interested and educated fans. You are not going to be able to compete with the Walmart-Kmart crowd following NASCAR who can just barely grasp the concept of round and round fender banging since it how they drive their pickup truck. The loss of tire changes made pit and race strategy much much less important. The advanced aero technology will always keep the cars from being able to overtake so, like last year, a big part of the racing and excitement should come from race strategies that are changing on the fly.
Not to go off on a tangent but IMHO Fisi is not in the same league as Alonso. Stalling in 2 races in a row are mental errors that Alonso doesn't seem to have the propensity to do. That's why he's leading the WDC. Just like Kimi is faster than JPM, MS faster than RB etc. Do you really think a team would send out a driver in sabotaged circumstances ? But apparently you do if you think that Renault winning this year would be hollow.
