Only 8 finishers all season?

The rule needs to be amended. Which is no big deal because I'm starting to think the FIA is just making this stuff up as they go. I don't mind the 2 weekend engine rule, but this loophole is making a mockery of things.

 

I wouldn't expect to see that behaviour in the next race, because all teams get a clean slate in race 3 anyway.

If the loophole isn't closed, expect to see the same actions in the 3rd, 5th, etc races.

 

I see your point but wonder whether this isn't a floating 2 race count: Schumacher will get a fresh engine next race, but then will have to keep that one for two races.

So eventually each driver will fall into his own 2 race rhythm.

Anyway, I was surprised to hear about that loophole. Just as I was surprised to hear about the various loopholes regarding tires and the rules regarding qualifying.

I agree with Koby: In the beginning they decide 1 engine/2 races and 1 tire/race and as they go along they come up with all the twists to it. Just not thought through properly. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised by additional rules or some "clarifications" and further changes.

It's all a tad silly really.

 

Based on the discussion over at Atlas F1, it appears it is a floating 2 race term, so MS will need to do 2 races with the new-for-Sepang engine. An interesting point about this is that it potentially interferes with Ferrari's plans to release the F2005 at the forth race, as MS will be breaking a 2 race steak on his next motor. Specualtion is that they may need to bring out the 2005 a race earlier or later, or lose 10 grid positions when they do.

This is just plain silly!

 

If you expect anything in f1 to be logical or rational, your'e dreaming. These new rules are really silly.

 

Just make it 80% of the race distance or something.

 

Well, this exception to the rule is not really needed at all:

The rules want you to drive two races with one engine. So if your engine seizes to operate in the race, you DNF and get a new engine next time and loose ten spots on the grid as you should. So what is the point of this exception? IMHO they made this exception to soften the blow of a car that was in an accident where the engine might have taken a hit, but it isn't obvious.

Thinking about it I'm getting the creeping suspicion, that this is exactly what went through Brawn's and Todt's head and *maybe* they asked Michael to provoke a simple accident so they could gracefully retire and get the free engine for the next time.

Turns out, that wasn't even necessary, as long as you retire (like BAR), you'll get a free new engine. Which might be in the rules, but probably wasn't in the spirit of the exception.

I didn't think MS did the accident on purpose, but now that I think about it, I'm not so sure anymore. After all Ferrari was the first team to "try it out". Only thereafter was BAR so bold as to just retire without an incident.

 

Let me get this straight....
MS gets a new engine for Sepang, he will have to keep for Bahrein and in Imola he can have a new engine. Imola is the 4th race and that's when Ferrari plans to release the F2005. If they release the F2005 for Bahrein, MS will lose 10 grid positions.

 

"How convenient!" says the church lady. Der Masterplan works perfect, doesn't it?

 

Who cares about the less than 8th position finishers anyway ... I don't.

Pete

 

Create a stupid rule and the teams will poke holes in it faster than Paris Hilton will drop her knickers.

I return to the fact that rules must be created to maintain the sport, not to create a TV show. Max does not understand the sport IMO and keeps on trying to tarten up the show ... wrong move.

Pete

 

She actually wears some?

 

I get the impression that when they wrote this rule (granted they are a bunch of dumbasses) they were working under the assumption that the points leaders will rarely be out of places 1-8, and will therefore always have an incentive to finish. For the stragglers that rarely score points, finishing 9th is better than 10th for the final standings, etc. so their incentive will be there still also. In other words, Jordan still benefits when they finish 15th because they are beating Minardi who’s in 17th, and as a result get greater compensation when they all stick there hands out for money at the conclusion of the championship.
Only when a competitive team is out of the points will they benefit from pulling it in the garage, as Ferrari and BAR did on Sunday. The only problem with this rationale is that there are now 5 proven competitive teams that could theoretically win; Ferrari, Renault, BAR, McLaren, and Williams. So, by default two drivers should always pull in the garage. And if a supposed straggler like Red Bull (too early to tell, but they look like they could be a 6th competitive team) pulls two points spots then 4 “leading” drivers should pull in, but this all goes back to the fact that a bunch of dumbasses came up with all this.

 

Wonder if we also saw some of this in qualifying. If you're down enough in the first round so that the second one won't give you a meaningful improvement on the grid, what's the point of stressing tires and engines? Take "no time" and save the machinery. Sure a disincentive to spending much time in front of the TV watching qualifying or buying tickets for Friday or Saturday.
John

 

So what is the reason for the 2 race/engine, 1 tire set/race rules? Is it to reduce the cost of the sport? I don't think these rules have that much an effect. F1 is still extremely expensive.

-F

 

Yes I did watch the qualifying. The first session was a joke and made Fisi look far better than he is ... but that is life.

The second session was a little exciting for me cause I was very stressed about how MW was going to go, and he did a great lap ... the best of the session.

BUT I agree that the qualifying format is not in the right spirit ... but neither was the single session of a single lap. IMO they need to return to the 12 laps in 1 hour qualifying session, whatever fuel and setup you like ... and thus lets see some dynamic laps by REAL racing drivers.

In the end the fastest should win F1 ... it is not a lottery or a TV show.

Pete

 

Yes, please bring it back. I believe this added much to the drama, excitement, show, or whatever word you want to use. One driver goes out does a couple of hot laps another driver answers back with one quicker and so on. What's wrong with that (unless you're a sponsor - I guess)?

 

Many years ago I was at the Adelaide GP and was lucky enough to witness a real qualifying session like this ... and it was bloody fantastic, far better than the race.

The most drama filled motorracing experience I have ever witnessed, especially the last 10 minutes. Two things were happening, 1. the slow teams were struggling to qualify, and 2. the top guys were knocking each other off pole. I had a seat opposite the pits and you could watch each teams excitement and dissappointment as the session unfolded.

I personally think they stopped it because it was simply too good , and they are fools thinking money is everything. Without the sport the money will dry up faster than the sport will dry up without money. While the money dictates how fast we race, removing it does not stop us racing ... the machines just get simplier and cheaper! Thus the sport must come first.

Pete

 

What was wrong with the 12 lap qual format was the 20-30 minutes of empty track at the start of each session. Then all the quick laps coming at once making it impossible to see any of this drama. Let's not forget the traffic that often ruined otherwise hot laps.

 

Just added to the drama to me ... and the clever drivers learnt how to get it right.

We either have drama, or we have a lottery ... currently we have a lottery.

Pete

 

I like the lottery.


From a more serious racing perspective the current format gives you a chance to see every driver and what lines they take and how they perform etc. All drivers are more visible, not just the superstars.

That's why I like the single driver qualification format from the beginning. What they should do though is more comparison shots on TV: Slow motion shots of two images overlapping so you see immediately where they loose time and where not. Alpine skiing has done just that for many years.

 

That idea came up on another forum and I think it would be brilliant, overlapping the footage to see where one driver/car loses or gains time. The WRC Virtual Spectator technology would be perfect for this.

I guess I just don't understand this "lottery" comment. Q1 in Australia was a lottery, but that had nothing to do with the format, it was the weather. Even so if that session took place mid-season we'd all be cheering for it because it was a change of pace.