TLicense Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 I reckon... Points for qualifying... reverse the Grid for race. I agree with that. It makes little sense to have a process that sorts out which car is going to be fastest and which is slowest, then line them up with the fastest at the front and expect the cars that we've already established as being slower to overtake the faster cars. My vision of qualifying would involve a similar shoot out, with points for final position when in the top 10, however there would be a final shoot out between the 1st and 2nd place. Line both the cars up on the grid and 1st one to do 1 lap get's pole. Get rid of the parc ferme rule so that if they do crash they'll get to repair the car, but it would be good to see the two fastest drivers actually in a real no holds barred head to head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 How would that work, wouldnt you get teams with a known quicker driver/car holding back in qualifying so they are closer to the front Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 Also, what's wrong with removing some of the rule limitations, add some variability into it again and make it the best of everything once more. Teams with different engines and adjustable wings and stuff would add a massive variation in performance between teams, even if you end up with teams that are being lapped 5 times it'd be much more exciting to watch! The problem with unlimited racing is currently only 2 teams could afford to do it. They would romp off into the distance and leave the rest of us behind. The championship would be dictated by whichever team had the largest wallett. It wouldn't be a problem if it were a new formula with all new teams. We're kind of between a rock and a hard place. People want F1 to be technilogically advanced, but at the same time want close racing. The two, unfortunately, don't go hand in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 How would that work, wouldnt you get teams with a known quicker driver/car holding back in qualifying so they are closer to the front But they'd lose out on the points they would gain by qualifying higher, and it's championship points that drivers / teams want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 Afraid theres only 1 real answer Moto GP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 Moto GP Not quite Moto GP but I did go and see the SBK at Donington last year, lot of action and a great day! If I knew who was who it would have been even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon F Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 People want F1 to be technilogically advanced, but at the same time want close racing. The two, unfortunately, don't go hand in hand. The main problem is that the teams themselves don't want close racing as that is the worst scenario for them. They are trying to get a car from A (the start) to B (the finish) in the shortest possible time, hence the number of strategists and sim programmes used these days. Getting involved with overtaking or defending against another car just loses time and is to be avoided at all costs. It's all down to the mathematics I'm afraid so if you want to watch live sums on TV, try giving the OU channel a try. You may end up with a degree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 I agree with that. It makes little sense to have a process that sorts out which car is going to be fastest and which is slowest, then line them up with the fastest at the front and expect the cars that we've already established as being slower to overtake the faster cars. My vision of qualifying would involve a similar shoot out, with points for final position when in the top 10, however there would be a final shoot out between the 1st and 2nd place. Line both the cars up on the grid and 1st one to do 1 lap get's pole. Get rid of the parc ferme rule so that if they do crash they'll get to repair the car, but it would be good to see the two fastest drivers actually in a real no holds barred head to head. You summed it up perfectly. A faster car qualifys top and we put them at the front. If their car deteriates in balance with full fuel, all will to different variying levels but never enough to make a massive battle of cars on our hands. Imagine.... Watching Alonso, Hamilton,Schumacher, Button, Massa come through the field whilst battling each other. You'd see button nip past barrichelo with alonso trying a cheeky one too, potentially being 3 cars abreast down the straights where barrichello had held up button so alonso was close on his rear wing as they came on to the main straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Would be interesting to see if Schumi decides that its not worth continuing, he looked fairly bored towards the end of the race Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 How about an excessive, but agreed between the teams, budget cap, and as long as the safety aspects for the driver are sorted, anything goes?... That's racing... Bahrain wasn't racing IMO... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soop Dogg Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 It's all down to the mathematics I'm afraid so if you want to watch live sums on TV, try giving the OU channel a try. You may end up with a degree And I wouldn't feel that I'd totally wasted 2 hours of my life! Good idea, Gordon. I'll look into that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jdwals Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 What about scrap qualifying all together? The position you start on the grid at the begining of the race is the position you finished in the last race? That way pretty much every team would be fighting for every position each GP as that dictates where they start in the next one. Shouldn't that ensure that pretty much everyone tries their best to get a few more places up the field to get the higher starting point next time out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 What about scrap qualifying all together? The position you start on the grid at the begining of the race is the position you finished in the last race? That way pretty much every team would be fighting for every position each GP as that dictates where they start in the next one. Shouldn't that ensure that pretty much everyone tries their best to get a few more places up the field to get the higher starting point next time out. You would possibly end up with all the fastest staying at the front, how about reversing the winning order for the next race without any qualifying. So the teams need points, to get them you need to finish in the top ten but if you win the race for the most points you are placed at the back for the next race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 You would possibly end up with all the fastest staying at the front, how about reversing the winning order for the next race without any qualifying. So the teams need points, to get them you need to finish in the top ten but if you win the race for the most points you are placed at the back for the next race. You'd have a few laps of chaos At least it would be entertaining unlike what we have now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 You would possibly end up with all the fastest staying at the front, how about reversing the winning order for the next race without any qualifying. So the teams need points, to get them you need to finish in the top ten but if you win the race for the most points you are placed at the back for the next race. repost People say it would mean that the race before Monaco (et al) drivers would purposefully lose to get near the front on the street circuit where there's limited overtaking - I say; So what! If that's the tactic they want to choose then they have every right - it might mean the slower drivers win on that race instead and then lose on Monaco (but get some testing in instead or at least save an engine), sounds like a great season of racing to me! They'd have to fill Saturday with something though, some fun shootouts and stuff would do - champ points being given away or maybe you win an extra engine allowance or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jdwals Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Guess they could do a test session on the Saturday - looks like we have solved the problem - now all we need is the FIA to look at this thread and we'll have decent F1 action to look forward to again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 You would possibly end up with all the fastest staying at the front, how about reversing the winning order for the next race without any qualifying. You'd have everyone outside of the points fighting to come last, and whoever finishes 11th is the big loser. Doesn't seem too fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 You'd have everyone outside of the points fighting to come last, and whoever finishes 11th is the big loser. Doesn't seem too fair. That's why I said you'd have to change the points again so that the top 15 or 20 cars get some points - someone running in 17th looking at 3 points isn't going to drop back into the 20s for the sake of a pole position are they? //edit: Even if they do, so what? The cars moving back and forth deciding what's the best strategy for them is a GOOD thing, it means more overtaking as cars that WANT to win come through the pack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Funniness: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/giles_smith/article7062874.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I was looking forward to the race and after the initial build up and 2 laps i was disappointed. What is the point of having some of the most skilled drivers nursing their tyres and engines and trying to eek out an extra couple of laps by saving fuel endurance racing fair enough but this is supposed to be F1 Wouldn't a small turbocharged engine reduce engine costs significantly compared to the current high revving NA engine producing the same power ? Or would the fuel economy upset the greenies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 "Seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher has revealed he found F1 easier than expected on his return to the sport with Mercedes in Bahrain. "The race wasn't very hard for me," said Schumacher. "We are a lot slower than when I was driving before because of the tyres we have now. It's not possible to push as hard, so therefore it's easier for the driver." F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone is concerned that allowing team technicians and scientists to write the technical regulations has led to a decrease in the spectacle of the sport. "I had a meeting with the teams and tried to explain to them what our business is about — racing and entertaining the public, not about playing with computers and going fast over one lap," said Ecclestone. Not one for agreeing with Berni that often, however I can see the sense in what he is saying above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I was looking forward to the race and after the initial build up and 2 laps i was disappointed. What is the point of having some of the most skilled drivers nursing their tyres and engines and trying to eek out an extra couple of laps by saving fuel endurance racing fair enough but this is supposed to be F1 Wouldn't a small turbocharged engine reduce engine costs significantly compared to the current high revving NA engine producing the same power ? Or would the fuel economy upset the greenies. I can't think of anything that would be more expensive than a wholescale change of the engine regs, especially one that also introduced forced induction! I know that the engine manufacturers only build single cylinder models when developing the engines, but with just the actual build costs of an engine being circa £300,000 I can see the development costs of something like that being between £7 - 10 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 Making the whole track availble to overtaking manouvers is really key...if you're scared of having no grip or easily fooking your tyres when throwing it up the inside then you're not going to try so much and you'll wait for a clearer oppertunity. Harder tyres fixes both issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Making the whole track availble to overtaking manouvers is really key...if you're scared of having no grip or easily fooking your tyres when throwing it up the inside then you're not going to try so much and you'll wait for a clearer oppertunity. Harder tyres fixes both issues. I dont think that would work as breaking distances are so short anyway and the racing line will always be cleaner. they cant get close enough to the back of the cars coming out of the corners so longer lasting tyres (harder) would make no difference to that as its still take long time to crawl up to the back of the car for the slipstream ready for the next corner, as it takes half the straight to gain to the back of the car at moment. what we need are tyres that change over the laps and change dramatically. That way drivers make errors coming out of corners with small slides or wheel spin and the car behind can get closer. This way cars are closer coming out of the corner and level coming into the corner,meaning braking isnt as important or daring as before. Also early on people can overtake who think they can look after their tyres better then when they wear down the others who have looked after theirs better will be able to re overtake. The key is the tyres are too good at their job, its better to have a lot of grip that goes away alot so the cars slide, so the tyres need to be even softer. Thats good for us, not the teams or tyre manufacturer And who will produce a tyre that is crap....no one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 And who will produce a tyre that is crap....no one Could be the same company that is currently signed up to supply tyres for next year then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.