17/07/2005
NEWS STORY
 |
Race fans, courtesy of Bernie Ecclestone's website, are being offered the opportunity of giving their opinion on a new qualifying format that could be in place for the 2006 season.
We say, "giving their opinion", whereas the reality is that fans can choose one of two new suggestions, stick with the current format or admit to having no preference.
The first format put forward consists of two 25-minute sessions - separated by a ten-minute break - during which drivers can run as many laps as they wish, but must post a time in each session. The times are then aggregated to decide the grid. There would be no fuel restrictions and cars could be refuelled during and after the session.
The second option is a little more complicated.
Cars would take part in a 60-minute session, which, after 15 and then 30-minutes would see the slowest five cars drops out. In the final 30 minutes the remaining ten cars would battle it out for the top ten positions on the grid, but times set in the first two 15-minute sessions would not count. Drivers may run as many laps as they wish in each period and there would be no fuel restrictions, with cars allowed to refuel during and after the session.
Still with us?
Pitpass, in its infinite wisdom, declared that both formats appeared overly complicated. However, a well-placed F1 insider - who wishes to remain anonymous - who regularly reads the best independent F1 website, wrote in to say that we are not giving these formats a chance.
His e-mail was thought provoking, and we repeat it here:
"For goodness' sake Chris, give the qually formats a chance...
12 lap qually was OK but of course the fans wanted that, because the people who voted in the FIA survey are all fans who watch everything and remember "how good" it used to be. How many other alternatives were they given to choose from in the survey? What opportunity did they have to propose alternatives? And although this survey is all very well, what is a format that can interest people who don't currently watch at all?
The second option will be pretty good - you will have action all the way through; lots of controversy with people in each other's way and blocking; interviews throughout as people who are forced out in the early half are available for TV; and people will have to run in spite of the engine formula.
The 12 lap format would not really work very well under current engine regs, because if you had set a good time, that would be it; you would not risk another high-revs lap for little or no return. So it could be that you still see one or two laps only from each car... So maybe forty-five minutes of inactivity, not just twenty.
Under this format, you are guaranteed at least one lap from all cars, probably more in the opening scramble; more in the second for the top 15; and then the tactical battle at the end of the session as the top ten out-fox each other. You have the chaos element that will keep the grid mixed up with the odd mistake in the opening session and the time pressure to set a lap meaning ALO or MSC are in the first five once in a while...
Basically, since 2002, the attempt was to diminish the importance of qualifying in the interests of what really matters, the RACE - hence mixed up grids, better racing, more boring qualifying. Because in spite of the TV coverage, it is only a sideshow - a way of ordering cars. Don't forget it used to be drawn out of a hat in the 1930s. The real problem is not the format, but the fact that it is televised and hence needs to be entertaining rather than just a mechanism for ordering cars means we are in a realm of artifice already.
People did not like the one lap idea, so teams and Bernie are now trying to really tackle the problem by making it into a show, keep some chaos element so that it is not a case of automatically ordering the cars fastest to slowest, and imposing MINIMUM lap limits because otherwise people won't go out with the engine regs favouring limited mileage. If we go back to 12 lap qually, we have: a grid ordered from fastest to slowest; even worse racing; people complaining that qually is more interesting than the race. What really matters? Race or qually? Unfortunately, at the moment with the cars as they are, you cannot have both... and a pragmatic decision has to be made."
As we said, thought provoking.
Now, Bernie's site doesn't give you the option for giving any further feedback other than clicking on a button, but that's not the Pitpass way. We want your opinion.
What do you think of the two suggested formats, what are the strong points and what are the weak? Having read through 'our friend's' e-mail several times, we can see that he has some valid points. But what do you think, and why?
The best e-mail gets to learn 'our friend's' true identity, and which team he's with. ;-)
Chris Balfe
Editor
To send your thoughts, click here
Note: Please include your full name - without a valid name we will not publish your entry.
Michael Angiono - South Africa
Thank you pitpass, for at least giving an option to contact your website, unlike Bernie's formula 1 website.
Why does the FIA/Bernie have to complicate the qualifying so much? The only positive thing about the two proposals is the fact that there are no fuel restriction. That at least allows the cars to go as fast as possible around the track. The whole thing about aggregated time is so obvious, it's there to increase the chances of drivers making a mistake and dropping down the order. If they want to jumble the grid, why hide it then, just put the 20 names in a hat and draw out... How smart do you have to be to see that having a fast car starting down the order is not a great idea? Just look at Kimi and his last two outings, that should be proof enough.
Personally, the old system, 12 lap 1 hour etc etc, was perfect. I used to never miss a qualifying session, this year I've watched one.
Formula 1 is simple, who can make the fastest car, will win the race, if people find that unfair, then they must watch saloon cars or karts.
The only reason why Formula 1 is supported is because people like a team or a driver or both, not the FIA, Max or Bernie.
Jennie Crosier
First I would like to thank Pitpass for the opportunity to actually say which format I would like to see.
I did go to the survey but did not like the two options presented, and as I do have an opinion I could not click the last option. I then looked for the 12 lap old still option. As you have already pointed out there is not one, also no where on the site is there a communicate with the site button. If they really want to know they should have given us all the options and not just the two they want to force on us.
Option 1. Why aggregated, it is not necessary. What do we want a 10 minute break for in the middle.
Option 2. Even worse than option 1 they are still missing the point as did the letter.
I understand that the old still qualifying was dropped because Minardi and Jordan wanted more TV time. Yet in
my opinion they ended up with less. At least in my house, I used to watch all of the old still format but since the single lap format I just watch the drivers I like.
Before I would watch the whole hour, even the first 20 minutes just to see what might happen. It was not
always empty, mostly the Minardi's etc would come out and clear the circuit. It was a good time to watch
them as there was all ways the possibility that some one else would come out.
I would have to disagree with the person who sent the letter as with 12 lap 1 hour qualifying the fasted racer was not always the poll sitter. I believe that Schumacher is the fastest over a GP distance, but he is not the fasted Qualifier. This was apparent against Mika and then again against Montoya in 2002. Even though the Ferrari was the fasted and Schumacher won the most races, Montoya was able to get pole at lest 7 times, usually at the last minuet. This was great because it kept you on the edge of your seat until the end of Qualifying and then you new that come Sunday Schumacher was going to have to get past Montoya.
12 lap 1 hour qualifying is the only system that Allows for changing weather and the odd one lap mistake, so that no driver is disadvantaged. With option 1 a driver must do at least 2 good laps or the aggregate system gets them. So the driver would still have to be carefully and not full on. We would not get Qualifying like France 2002, when Schumacher went off track twice but was still able to qualify well.
There is a similar problem with option 2, what happens if it rains in the first 15 minutes and one of the champion favourites spins or is knocked off by a less experienced driver. They end up with a really bad time
or no time and are knocked out in the first 15 minutes. Of course you also have the same problem as option 1, a driver must do at least 2 good laps no chance of trying a full out run just to see if it would work. We will still be denied the full out on the edge runs with both option 1 and 2.
Deane Walpole
I think the guy makes a valid point. if we could wind back the clock and get into situation where Qualy had never been televised all the way through then a 10 minute highlights package shown during the build up on race day would probably be enough, regardless of format.
However, the reality is that the media is all-seeing and it is imperative that F1 makes the most of that. I'm going to watch the touring cars today and it is highly likely that the artificial grid element will spice up the show. Surely F1 can find some way of achieving the same result without losing it's much vaunted 'purity' and ensure there are cars on track through the whole session.
My own idea is simple: Limit the session to 30 minutes and nine laps per driver, with qualifying fuel levels. Plus, of course, change the aero rules so that the drivers can overtake even if qualy should end up ordering them two-by-two.
Ina Oprisi - Romania
I've been an F1 fan only since 2000, so I might not know as much as other people about the sport, but I love Formula 1 for the simple fact that I can see the cars running on a track! In other words I will watch any qualifying format and any race, simply because I love it too much. Of course some things are annoying and sometimes it gets very boring, which is why I decided to tell you my opinion. I voted for option 2 on the f1 website, because I thought it was the one who could provide much more interesting moments. I also tend to agree with the misterious letter that the old 12 lap format wouldn't have been apropriate with the engine rule. If they would get rid of that, that format would be more than welcome. And as a Kimi fan, I think you understand just how much I dislike that rule.
Anyway, I noticed some people saying that these two options don't provide all the drivers with the same conditions. In my opinion that could never happen, no matter what they try, because the only way they could have the same exact conditions would be if they run on the same part of the track in the same time and that's impossible. I think we should just think about the main problems and solve them one at a time. To me that's the fact that qualifying is boring for an F1 fan and I think option 2 would solve it. I think we should also realise that things will never be perfect. Even during the 12 lap format there were fans complaining that their favorite driver was held up by a Minardi, for example. Now they complain the track was dirty when he came out and so on.
In conclusion I'd like to say again that I'm an F1 fan for the thrill of seeing the cars race and so I'll keep watching it for as long as I can, no matter the politics, rules or qualifying formats. It'll be frustrating sometimes, but I still want to go back to watch it every two weekends and I think this will be the case for quite a long time now.
Thank you for the chance of expressing my opinion.
G Gallo - Toronto Canada
The current qualifying system is the result of arrogant fools making changes for the sake of change, the first half hour of qualifying is a bore all the slowest car go out first. how many times can you listen to the TV commentatators say "Minardi has provisional pole". the whole system leaves to many questions, who is on what fuel load, who is on how many stops. it also penalizes the early runners. The drivers make one little mistake and their race is all but over, there was a time not long ago when a driver was on pole because he was the fastest for that weekend period, and the fans knew it. along with the Tire and engine rule this the worst season in thirty years. The fastest driver should be pole and the fastest driver should win the race. Not the driver who had the least mechanical or tire problems.
F1 is supposed to be the best, it has become a laughing stock because of in fighting. The fan has been forgotten.
New qualifying: One hour unlimited number of laps, Each driver must complete a minimum of 20 laps. after all this is a show. if the car brakes down, fix it and get back out. No fuel loads, No tire restrictions, Just racing.
Give the pole sitter and the team 1 0r 2 points all that work should be rewarded. This way there is no quetion who is the fastest.
Zsolt Major - Canada
I'm sorry, Pitpass, but I think the F1 insider is right in this case. The second option does make it possible to have an exciting qualifying session.
I actually really like it. One previous poster said, that the insider is missing the point. Well, what is the point? It is to have the starting order decided for the Sunday race AND to offer fans at the sites and in front of their TVs an entertaining and hopefully nail-biting qualifying session.
The format where the first 10 cars drop out and the best 10 battle for 30 minutes is great. At least a Minardi or Jordan won't hold up a Renault or a McLaren. We will see more laps than ever before. Even more that the old 12 lap qualifying. This new proposed format clearly has the chance of being fully entertaining.
People, give it a chance!
Dimitris Kainadas - Greece
My personal opinion, as a long time F1 fan and follower, is that throughout the history of F1 the ideal qualifying format has been the 12-lap system. Qualifying should have a different ennoia from the race, and a different scope. A race rewards consistency, strategic thinking and, of course, speed (or rather, the ability to maintain speed for a long period of time).
Qualifying should reward raw speed, concentration and determination. It should be about the quest to discover the fastest man and the quickest car, on a given day, and under identical circumstances for all (as much as possible). I think it's clear in everybody's minds that the way to go is to select the fastest lap from a series of laps, within a given time frame. The 2nd option (offered by Bernie) goes some way towards that direction, but doesn't actually get there - you could end up with drivers with fastest laps in the 1st or 2nd session not being on pole, simply because they were slower in the last session (which counts towards pole). Wouldn't it be simpler to just be able to select the fastest lap, regardless of session? I understand that the existence of sessions is necessary, both for the small teams and their sponsors, and the TV audience as well - we don't want to see empty tracks for 35 minutes again. My suggestion therefore is to adopt the 2nd proposal, adding the option to be able to select the fastest lap, regardless of session.
D Patton
I don't understand why having multi lap low fuel qually would result in the races being even more processional. I remember people claiming the 94 Williams was a fast car on low fuel, but not as good as the Benetton in race trim. There you go, that makes the races more exciting, one team has a car that goes very well over one lap on low fuel, while another team has a car that maybe is the opposite. Another thing to consider is races got progressively more processional as refueling, grooved tyres and yearly rule changes appeared. It's very short sighted to say that as 2002 was so utterly dominated, that would happen again if we went back to that system.
And the teams need to make up their minds what qually is all about. Is it to decide the grid and nothing more, or is it a huge source of income for them and the sport in general due to TV rights, ticket sales and so on? It used to be a chance to see how cars and drivers coped with being on the absolute limit of a cars performance, a different and exciting side to the sport. Now it seems to be an artificial way of shaking up grids, giving small teams equal TV coverage, and giving the fans something to pass out on the sofa to on a Saturday afternoon. I'd rather have edge of seat stuff on a Saturday, and a real grid on a Sunday, than what we have now. If the current engine rules are preventing being able to manage that next year, then here's an insane suggestion - How about getting rid of the rule? Surely the constant technical reg changes are costing the teams far more than another handful of engines a year ever would...
Pedro Aguiar - Portugal
First I'd like to congratulate Pitpass for giving the fans an oportunity to express themselves.
About the subject of qualifying I have to say that the actual system is not that bad. What frustrates me more is the fact that drivers carry the race fuel load and that makes it quite difficult to know what really happened there.
But, thankfully it still has its moments of excitement and I still don't miss a qualyifying session. Pity that engine regulations have been destroying it a bit.
However this qualifying system is not comparable with the old one in which drivers had 12 laps.Now that was really thrilling and as far as the first minutes are concerned I perfectly remember the Minardis leaving the pits immediatly after the beggining of the session and the BARs and Jordans used to appear after.The first 15 minutes had action,not as much as the last 15 minutes though,but it gave time to the commentators to explain what was going on while we were watching the Minardis.
The person who send the email has pointed some interesting things but which, from my point of opinion are incorrect. That one concerning the first minutes' lack of activity on-track, one concerning engine lmileage limit and the other concerning the fact that the old system made the race less exciting.
About engines, I belive that even if with the current rules teams wouldn't be stupid not to complete the 12 laps then it's time now to ban that stupid rule that has robbed us of two great battles between Kimi and Fernando Alonso.
And this actual qualy makes the race even more dull if we remember that Trulli's pace in qualifying has let Alonso run away from everybody. That shows that the best teams still have the upper hand even in this handicaped system even though the slower teams carrying less fuel on board actually destroy the some driver's race.
Why don't we return to the old system? Ok,if they're not happy with the first 15 minutes situation simply obligate teams to do at least 2 laps in every 15 minutes that goes by.
About qualy proposals the 1st is ridiculous firstly because when we're talking about lack of on-track action they come up with the brilliant idea of a 10 minute break!!! And with aggregate times which has already proved to be nonsense. The second one is not bad actually but why eliminating the slower cars when they need lots of coverage??
Bring back the old system and we'd be returning to the good old days.
Charlie
While I'm not a fan of the present system, it is the most equal and fair method of qualifcation for races. Under the old system of 12 laps for the one hour session, I remember waiting a long time for any car to go out and start its run. Then, everyone would go out in the last 10 minutes of the session to get their times done. It was chaotic and dangerous. Then, there was always some driver or drivers complain loudly about being blocked by another and that got tired very quickly. One lap, one qualifying time. That's how NASCAR, ChampCar and ALMS does it and I don't hear any of their fans complaining about the lack of excitement.
Jakov Sosic - Split, Croatia
Fist of all, thank you for posting out opinions!
My opinion is, that in qualifying, we need one thing, and that is direct drivers battle. And again, bacause of that - aggregate system is a very bad idea... Driver HAS TO HAD an option to RESPOND to laptime of his rival. And when he does, rival is on the charge. And that's what we need, a true battles, that's sport is all about...
I voted for second proposal, altough it's not fully perfect. Why? If you risk and go out in last 3 minutes, then there's possibility you'll end up in traffic. Better track conditions versus traffic. If you end up behind a Minardi, that's team's or drivers lousy tactics's fault not Minardi's. They shouldn't be penalized for being slowest out there.
Race sometimes finishes in less than 1h30min, so why should Q session last for a whole hour? They brag about empty track for first 30 minutes? Well then, cut the session to 30 minutes with 6 minimum and 9 max full laps or 2 minimum and max 4 flying laps in that half of hour. Car which doesn't make the minimum number of laps starts from behind. Allow refuelling and new tyres for race (which should be the same compound and construction as ones used in qually), and that's it. Only thing that is wrong is one engine per two weeks. It should be one engine per Q and Race, who cares what the teams are up to on Friday Free Sessions? Ban all the aerodinamic components on the car except two main wings and just watch how the costs drop!
Carol Guy
Thanks, pitpass, for giving an opportunity to comment on the qualifying proposals.
Basically, whilst I like the idea of more laps from the cars during qualifying, I feel that there are disadvantages with either of the new systems and some difficulties which are common to both.
The first option I dislike due to the idea of aggregating the times. I much prefer that the best time from either session should be taken which could help – for example – if weather conditions change during the session. Also, it is easier both for the dedicated fan or the casual onlooker (and thereby potential future fan) to follow if you are not having to do maths as you go along.
The second option is marginally better but things can, and often do, go wrong. In a situation where there is still time to put in a good lap and recover there is more competition. I am also concerned that the first 15 minute session will be disastrous as all the cars have to go out during that short space of time – some will be doing their warm up laps or wind down laps whilst the rest are trying to do fliers. OK if over a longer period but 15 minutes?
But in both instances, unless something is done about the tyre and engine rules these are going to create problems, if not during the qualifying, during the race. On the second option, the cars which reach the final 30 minutes will go into the race with a disadvantage in terms of tyre wear and extra wear and tear on the engines.
I want to see more exciting qualifying and I hope the eventual decision will allow that, I just doubt if either of these two suggestions will be as good as people are expecting. I certainly hope to be proved wrong.
George T Coller - USA
The "insider('s)" contention that "...since 2002, the attempt was to diminsh the importance of qualifying in the interests of what really matters, the RACE..." only serves to point to the abject failure to reach that objective. Face it, for a multitude of reasons, Ferrari was dominant. The fact that their dominance caused some numbers to fall (TV viewrship, sponsorship dollars/yen/marks/francs/pounds) should have told everyone involved in F1 something. What could possibly possess them to believe that they are immune from well-known market forces. All businesses go through peaks and valleys. Only the businesses that know what they are doing weather those ups and downs.
The "problem" with qualifying, according to the "insider," is "not the format, but the fact that it is televised and hence needs to be entertaining rather than just a mechanism for ordering cars means we are in the realm of artifice already."
Let's look at that statement from a few different angles. Qualifying is "...in the realm of artifice." I have been accused before of taking public statements made by various members of the Grand Prix community too literally. Clarity of expression in F1, Ron Dennis aside, is thin on the ground. If they say it, they have to live with my understanding.) Which team principal goes to his driver, just before that driver goes out for his "Banzai" lap, and tells him "...look (Fill in driver's name here), when you go out on the track and try to throw my insanely expensive car around the track at some unimaginable speed to try to end up in a grid position that may, or may not, make it slightly more likely that we will end up in a better position to gain points (Resulting in more money) or get more exposure for our long-suffering (And increasingly more difficult to find) sponsors, make sure that you don't forget that qualifying is basically artifice. So, try to make it interesting to that segment of the TV audience that only watches F! because they think it will make them look cool..." And who exactly are those people anyway? Do any of the people in F1actually know their target market? (OK. maybe Eddie Jordan, but he's gone...erm, well maybe Chunky, but his cars always won. Stoddie would never say it, not bloody likely. Can you imagine Sir Frank or Patrick voicing that, or Chopper, or Ron? Oh wait, I'm sorry, I'm one of those "viewers who watch everything." Oh yes, I am also one of the reasons you fly around in your bloody helicopters. Unless of course you are from Williams, you sold yours.)
For that statement alone, if I was the employer of the "insider," I might suggest that he find a new career. (BANG went any chance of this being picked as the best response, and to find out who the "insider' is.)
I would have to think that any number of drivers might take umbrage at the statement that their qualifying efforts were "...in the realm of artifice...." Those, very well paid, pilotes actually put their lives on the line for a grid position. And in the recent case of Mark Wbber, his very ass on the line.
Regarding the drivers, a quote from Denis Jenkinson comes to mind. I cannot recall who said it, but some journalist was late to qualifying at some circuit, years ago. When he saw "Jenks" he said "Who is fast?" "Jenks " response was "...they ALL are." Artifice indeed, those who can, do, those who cannot, criticize. (I'm sorry, once again, I am one of those peope who "watch everything." Are you tired of hearing that phrase? I hope so, because it exhausted me at first utterance.)
Oh, and by the way, qualifying IS "...just a method for ordering the cars...." Really...that is why you have qualifying. You have to do something to set the grid, preferably based on merit. On the other hand, why bother? Draw lots, or base grid position on the championship points. Then you wouldn't have to televise qualifying. Oh wait...that would cut down on television time wouldn't it? That would mean less exposure for your sponsors, wouldn't it? Do any of the people involved in F1 ever actually listen to what they say?
We have seen too many rule changes to "shake things up" because the "Red Menace" was unstoppable. That meant that the peripheral fans began to tune out. And that is just what they were, peripheral fans. There have been enough core fans of F1 to turn it into a global, billion dollar sport. Global corporations would not pour money into F1 if they did not think that they were getting something out of that investment. The fact that things might have "tightened up" a bit recently is no reason to rape the sport/business that F1 has become.
Qualifying is just a more visible example of the wrongheaded thinking in F1. Introducing mandatory V-8 engines when F1 was restricted to well settled (Two race!) V-10 technology for cost saving reasons is intellectually dishonest. (See my "Pinnacle of Motorsport" rant on Pitpass) It is indefensable on any cost-saving grounds. Changes for safety concerns is intellectually insulting. Boy, that was a money saver, just ask the companies that make the engines.
No tire changes...I have no problem with that. Clark won how many GPs on one set of Dunlops? If Kimi and Ron wanted to gamble on a flat spotted tire, that is their business. Two race engines? OK, but ten grid spots seems a bit excessive. If you blow an engine every race on the slowdown lap after finishing 2nd, then maybe a penalty. But a non-finish is little reward for an illegal engine. But to admit that most of the recent rule changes have been to "spice up the show" in response to Ferrari's hegemony is just silly. As I have already mentioned, the "core" audience for F1 has been enough to drive it ot a global, billion dollar endeavour. To fiddle with it because its worth (To a very few individuals) falls a few current percentage points is shortsighted, and arrogant, and stupid.
I will solve qualifying for you. Draw lots for your qualifying position. There is your "randomness." And then qualify for one lap with whatever fuel you choose to have on board. Then set your race fuel.
You go when you go, and you choose your race strategy based on what your driver can do in the car that you give him. Talk about your "Banzai" laps. Which driver are you familiar with that wants to hear that Montoya is better on cold tires than he is? Which driver are you familiar with that wants to hear that he is slow on a light tank?
It is not a show, by God. It is a deadly serious motor race. It is supposed to be the "Pinnacle of MotorSport." That may be a meaningless phrase, at this point itn time, but it is till a Grand Prix.
The people that run this sport/business don't impress me as all that smart. But that is the fans prerogative, is it not? Ultimately, it is simply about a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon. You "insiders" might want to remember that. Everyone, not just the "fans who watch everything, have other options on "any given Sunday"afternoon.
I will continue to "watch everything" until I decide not to. But you might want to pass this along to the other "insiders." When the 7 Michelin teams drove into the pits, I turned off the TV...and I didn't watch the French grand Prix. I had better things to do.
Pete Ingram - Switzerland
This is very simple.
1. Scrap the engine rule. If you blow and engine; change it. It's your money.
2. Same with tyres.
3. Go back to official practice. Put one session on Saturday and one on Sunday morning. Make them 90 mins each.
There is NOTHING MORE BORING than an Formula 1 car that is NOT RACING!
Simon Moore - Australia
Firstly we are not going to please everyone all the time. Whatever the final qualifying format is for 2006, there will be many who don't like it, think there is a better alternative
etc..
I understand the need for action on track, and I understand the need for the fastest team (team, driver and car) to be on pole.
So how about this.. combine both the suggested formats into one.
Have the two 25 minute sessions. In the first session, all cars must run. The top ten go forward to the second 25 minute session. In the second session, each of the ten drivers have 6 laps each, best time in this session wins pole. No fuel restrictions. Simple.
Fernando César - Brazil
Thanks Pitpass for letting us express our views.
Both options given have their flaws, as pointed before, but there were something magical about the good-old 12-lap system. Ok, first 15-25 minutes were almost boring, with few cars on track ... but we had thrilling fights until the very end. Who won't remember Senna's ability to do "that" last-second lap and score another pole-position? Wasn't it exciting to watch?!
That system gave us our best qualifying laps ever, and best qualifying sessions also. This 1-lap qual we have today, with race fuel, will someday award the ability of a driver to be over the edge? 1988 Monaco Qualifying had Senna on pole 1.4 second (that's it, ONE POINT FOUR SECOND) ahead of 2nd fastest, his teammate Alain Prost... Do anyone imagine that nowadays? Or 1997 European GP, with Villeneuve, Frentzen and Schumacher posting the very same lap-time (pole)?
But again, this option is not available. We can choose between an 'almost like' 12 lap-qual and something like knock-out races from The Need For Speed game series. Given these 2 only, I'd stick with knock-outs, because at least is something that can prove exciting if well introduced. 12 laps would work at its best If we had also no engine penalty, no restriction on spare cars, qual tires and, why not, qual engines.
June Abbott - Sydney Australia
Pitpass joins the front of the queue again - providing opportunities for fans to express their opinions. Thank you.
I've been following F1 for about a decade. Alarm bells sounded for me when I read the insider's view that the "teams and Bernie are now trying to really tackle the problem by making it into a show". F1 is not a show, it is a competition. It is sport. (I am not even remotely interested in 'chaos elements', there is enough of that under normal racing conditions!) Qualifying should determine the fastest car/driver combination (well, it used to!) however this season's 'spicing up the show' and raft of stupid bloody rules have resulted in slower cars out qualifying faster cars. With overtaking just about impossible, race results are as artificial as the qualifying. It is frustrating, not entertaining.
Ironically, given overtaking is virtually impossible with current car/tyre/aero regulations qualifying needs to order the cars slowest to fastest to ensure faster cars aren't held up by mobile chicanes.
'With cars as they are at the moment' we can't have interesting qualifying and race? Then put the cars back the way they were ... if qualifying can be changed then so can the other rules!
The 12-lap qualifying system was canned due to TV, not lack of interest from fans. Let's be honest about this. With 'nothing' happening on track, there was little interest for TV broadcasters - fans don't seem to have had a problem with it. Most fans want the 12-lap qualifying system and yet here is your 'insider' arguing against it?! Talk about not listening! Mr Insider, read results of the survey again. Listen to what the fans are saying. Don't interpret the results to suit your way of thinking. Just read. Fans would like to see 12 lap qualifying re-introduced. How hard was that?
The 'powers that be' aren't interested because qualifying is about TV air time, sponsorship, advertising and marketability - not sport (determining who is fastest), and certainly not the interest of the fan base!!
The aggregate system proved to be an utter fiasco this season, so much so it was dropped. Why in heaven's name are we revisiting that debacle?
The current regulations limiting tyres and engines will penalise drivers in the 'shoot-out' option. (why, oh why are we so intent on penalising the best in our sport?) Drop those two rules (and the absolutely awful V-8 engine proposals for next year, and all the other ones while we are at it!) and the second option is a little more viable.
The vaunted "pinnacle of motor racing" is losing its appeal as the FIA/teams endorse more (ridiculous) changes to our sport. Keep the V10 engines. Drop the engine/tyre rules. Allow drivers unlimited laps, tyres and fuel loads in a one-hour session (why is a break required?). Fastest car/driver combination wins.
Why does it have to be complicated?
Sam Linhart - Melbourne, Australia
There are a couple of good points made in this article, firstly in regards to the old qualifying format under the current engine regs (wasn't Mosley threatening to build up to 6-race engines?). I think it would seem necessary to oblige teams under the rules to send their drivers out a minimum of times. One thing you didn't metion though, is that surely any discussion of next years qualifying rules must incorporate discussion of the tyre formula. With a control tyre, you could relax a bit any restrictions on tyre changes during or after qually.
I've been coming to Pitpass for quite a while now (well, a few years anyway) and I have picked up that there hasn't been much satisfaction with any of the 1-lap systems. In terms of editorial content, is this Pitpass' view? Or have you been deluged with emails of this bent? I bring this up because I actually quite liked the qualifying format at the beginning of the year. It dispelled complaints that there was no 'flat-out' laps and also forced drivers to prove they could consistently do the times. Now, the main reason I felt this way probably has a lot to do with the fact that, here in Australia, qualifying has never been broadcast on free-to-air television as anything other than a three minute highlights package show right before the race.
You make a good point though that the survey format tightly controls the possible findings. I really can't see the FIA, teams or Bernie looking for anything other than good PR when they make these sorts of gestures.
Elango M - Chennai, India
Yes, I thought pitpass was being a bit unfair to the f1.com poll. (I said that to a fellow F1 fan on Saturday.)
I thought option 1 was good because (a) it was similar to the old format with the one problem removed - lack of action through out the hour - and (b) in India we'll have the opportunity of watching Narain - if he still manages a seat next year - through out the session. My friend thought option 2 was fantastic because it's action all the way through with a scrambling crescendo towards the end - I'm double okay with that too.
Both of us felt these were way better than any of the proposals we had seen so far.
Actually, I read about it first on pitpass and went to f1.com with a bias. At the poll page I was wondering what made you so pessimistic about the choices - was I missing something? An open-ended survey will be a madness to manage and too many choices tend to disperse opinion. Having worked out a few options in discussion with the teams and experts, it's then okay to get democratic.
So, pitpass, get on our side and take your pick. At least in this let the whole of F1 community be on the same side.
Tracy Price - New Zealand
I feel it only fair to point out that I don't watch qualifying - I would but it isn't broadcast here. Having stated that, I should also point out that I am in agreement with your "mystery" mailer on pretty much all points.
The only change I would like to the proposed option 2 is qualifying to be completed with race fuel. I'm not sure it would add/detract much from the spectacle of qualifying either way but it does have potential for some interesting strategy adjustments if a mistake sees a faster competitor exit early. I also like the level of uncertainty over which car has the faster pace and who really had a blinder of a qualifying lap(s).
I would also like to add my whole hearted agreement to the Pitpass "Man down the Pub" article about tyres that you ran after the European GP. Bring back tyre changes but not at the same time as refuelling. Get rid of the confusion over what is/isn't a safe tyre and give the drivers a possible reward for going hard out and risking flat spots etc.
I have already had a lot of enjoyment from the racing this season. (What I think of the grandstanding and political &@#%#@& had best remain unsaid). If the next aero changes make it easier to overtake, then it can only get better.
As for the rest of this season? Bring it on!
Tom Gowlett
With Option #2, we get the best aspects of the old 12 lap, plus we get to see ALL of the cars in the first 30 minutes, not just Minnows and Jordans.
And in that final session there will be fewer driver excuses about getting their best hotlap being 'blocked'
And, no 'limits' on how many laps during the final session.
And, changeable weather conditions will not favour the lucky ones, because only times from the 15min slot count.
It could be really easily shown on TV what's going on by showing the current time list and highlighting the current 5 slowest drivers.
It could possibly be improved by making it 2 x 30 min sessions rather than 4 x 15 min sessions.
Joakim Tarnstrom - Sweden
I am very much of the old school when it comes to Formula One. I believe too much tinkering with the rules risks denying the sport its identity. Having said that I find the second qualifying alternative to be appealing.
In a sense it is the same qualifying format, albeit in reverse, being used in Indy 500 but the whole of May is compressed into one session. What this format does is that it will give the tv-producers a chance to shift the
focus from one end of the grid to the other as the session progresses and it will also mean that, when the weather is not interfering, the deciding moments of the session will almost always be at the end thus creating a great finale of the qualifying. This system will square not only the best drivers against each other - there will be constant fighting between drivers from lesser teams not to get eliminated in the process.
Spyros Potamianos - Greece
Everything worth saying has already be said so I'd like to take this opportunity to waste your time by suggesting some crazy ideas that popped up my mind (or whatever is left of it...) Who knows, there is a chance that Max or Bernie will use them (they have proposed even more crazy ideas in the past after all)
a) People vote (via Web or SMS) from all over the world for the starting grid. One obvious advantage is that the grid could be *really* mixed up. The second is that Bernie can charge for the SMS, and give 0.001% of the money to the teams.
b) The order will be decided by a dancing and singing contest between the drivers. As an extra bonus, we might have the team managers participating too. The judging panel will consist of Bernie, Max and other senior FIA members. The advantage is broader TV coverage. Actually there might be TV stations that broadcast only the qualifying and not the race. Eventually the whole thing will turn into a new reality show and the TV audiencce will increase by 500000%
c) The grid will be decided with the following algorithm: Take the age of the driver, divide it by the number of years driving for his current team. Add the number of points he has in the championship, subtract the age of his wife or fiancee (for bachelors use the age of his teammate) and multiply by the square root of the team manager's weight. The driver must complete 3 laps. We will discard the fastest and slowest. The remaining time will be added to the square of the number calculated previously. The resulting number will decide the grid order: the highest the better, unless there is a full moon on Friday or Saturday night, in which case the order will be reversed. Advantage: simpler and more intuitive for the fans that some other suggestions
d) Each driver is *required* to do 3 fast laps. The *slowest* time will decide the grid order. Advantage: less crazy than the previous suggestions...
Tim Fathers
To me, the "old style" qualifying means the days with no limits or restrictions where the cars could try as many times as they liked in the hour to set a time. These were the days of Senna's famous last gasp efforts and by far the most exciting, unfortunately too few people seem to remember it. This was far better than the 12 lap qualifying or anything since.
I believe that testing should be severely limited but most of the limits on laps and consumables at a race should be lifted so that the teams are basically forced to test at the track on a race weekend, guaranteeing that the spectators get to see cars on track. This would include making the qualifying a free hour with no lap restrictions.
Of course the stupid 2 races per engine rule would have to go for this to work.
Greg Cunneen - Tokyo, Japan
If those are the only options available, I'd vote for the first of the 2. The second option treats teams differently, and that is the main reason I opposed single-lap qualifying. I believe every car in every team should have the same on-track opportunities during qualifying, whether it be weather conditions, track conditions, or TV conditions.
For qualifying to be truly "entertaining", the 2-race engine rule and no refueling rule would have to be done away with, otherwise no-one will risk their engine. And I am very much in favour of doing away with those rules. It also means doing away with parc-ferme, another thing I also favour. And then we could have our Sunday warm-up session back, and I am very much in favour of that.
BUT, I would like to think that the powers that be would stop trying to fix the current problems of the on-track race action by futzing around with qualifying, trying to introduce some unpredictability in the grids. Unpredictable grids do spice things up, I agree, but it doesn't address the technical aspects which are the real problem.
Paul Sheather - Australia
First of all, I should say that as an Australian, I do not see qualifying unless you're talking the AGP in Melbourne. Ch 10 don't show it for the other races. Do I still care? Yes, I do. It seems to me that both options on Bernie's list involve too many flaws to click on and I'm not clicking on Option 3 either...
Ok, let's start with Option 1. Aggregated times. That's part of the problem with the current system. Not simple enough. The fastest lap should be on Pole. Full stop.
Option 2. As 'your friend' points out, this option gives you lots of action but my problem with it is dropping cars. Championships shouldn't be affected by things like this. Contrived rules like this could cost a genuine contender a championship, just like the 2 race engine may cost Kimi a chance this year (and not save anything in real terms into the bargain...)
Love the fact that there's no fuel restrictions in either proposal, though.
Overall, F1 seems to be going down the road of a control formula, much the same way as ChampCar or V8 Supercar in Australia. I stopped watching V8's here when they went that way. F1 needs to reduce costs, no doubt but it should still be an open formula, without these contrived rules, designed to manipulate a result.
I do understand 'your friend's' point on the 12 lap concept re: no running due to the engine rule. Perhaps we could have a session where the teams have to run a certain number of laps. That would guarantee the action throughout the 60 min session. Scrap the rule where they have to qualify on the tyres they race with to solve the obvious whinge on that front.
Down the road (ie 2007), we could get rid of the 2 weekend engine rule as well, simplifying the concept even further, meaning that the teams wouldn't be afraid to run in qualy.
Paul Cajka - USA
Qualifying isn't the spectacle it used to be. I'd cut short a long run to catch the meaningful portion of the 60 minute/12 lap quallies. Now I skip the whole thing unless I can see it on a replay in the evening. The current method is better than the tedious composite time route, but there are better ways to do it.
First of all, throw away most of the tire & engine rules. If you can't do that you might as well put all of the F1 drivers in Formula Renault/BMW/Star Mazda cars to save on engines. One engine per race weekend with a loss of the two best qually lap times for blowing it should be encouragement/discouragement enough. Give everyone one set of tires for qualifying separate from racing, which is another anti-economy run move. But both of these rule reversals should result in a better Saturday show. And also, any rough driving penalties should be enforced by loss of a fast lap time.
Second two sessions of slow cars first and fast cars second based on points or practice times. Either one would make the points or practice laps meaningful along with encouraging the main drivers to get their cars out there. The slow session would also still give the field fillers some air time.
Finally, let teams that want to run the third car & driver if they can qualify within 107% of the pole winner. That will spice up the show and encourage teams to put in locals to race when BE wants some local interest.
Robert Allen - London
The qualifying format needs to change and have come up with the following which I think would make it a lot more fun for the spectator, and TV viewer alike.
A 90 minute session split into 4 sessions of 15 minutes, split by 10 minute breaks.
Each driver must do at least 1 flying lap in each 15 minute session. Failure to do so will mean that they sit out the next 15 minute block and drop 2 places on the grid for every 15 minute block they miss.
Each team can use 2 sets of tyres for the 90 minute session and the final 15 minute block must be done with race fuel loads (so if they don't do the last 15 minute block, they drop 2 places on the grid and start with the fuel load they finished their last session with).
The 10 minute breaks would allow for interviews and advertising, key to Bernie's plans!
I certainly want to see F1 cars on the track and not sitting in the garage so a way of penalising them for not getting out on the circuit would help us fans see more of the action and experience these awesome machines.
Nigel Robertson
I agree with your mystery insider! We're in danger of having the race on Saturday.
Before throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just to review why qualifying was changed from the 12-lap 1-hour session -
We would often miss the best laps because several lead drivers were out at once, and it could be incredibly frustrating with the once-a-year local director covering the wrong car. Often an in-lap, remember?! There were long periods with no activity, A wet session meant no activity at all,
The weaker teams got no TV coverage, and It was too effective at lining the cars up for the race in speed order, so that the race itself was boring with little close competition. We remember the highlights of 80's and 90's races, but many races then were not actually that exciting.
The original idea of qualifying was safety, I think, to limit speed differentials and overtaking, in times when contact was often fatal. Now what we need is pure entertainment on Saturday, but WITHOUT spoiling Sunday.
In Bernie's era F1 has been totally 'devil take the hindmost', so that success breeds more success, and this extends all the way through the structure including several different ways of distributing the money, and
qualifying. This tends to make one team dominant in each year, as all the success factors coincide for that team and failures are compounded for the others. Over time it also tends to make the weakest teams fail completely and drop out, leaving a small grid.
What we need is a system which is neutral, so that the races do not depend on preceding results. If anything, it should be slightly *harder* to win twice in a row.
There are probably many ways of achieving this, but here's one idea: One session of qualifying, with cars running one at a time but in the order of finishing the previous race, i.e. the winner goes first. Low fuel and no parc ferme so we can see how adjacent drivers compare and we get the on-the-limit spectacle, with a warm-up on Sunday morning for race setup.
It's the race engine, but they only lose 5 places if they have to change it. To improve the spectacle, much more detailed and continuous information to be provided about speed, including *continuous* real-time advantage/deficit, entry and exit speeds, and braking points. This would give pundit commentators a lot more to get their teeth into and provide viewers with deeper insights into what they're watching. This greater understanding would increase enjoyment of the race, too.
A new points system would be required, to deter cars from giving up early to get a later qualifying slot next race. The FIA motorcycle system would be a good start - 25 for a win, then 20, 16,13,11, 10,9,8 down to 1 for 15th.
(Incidentally the points system does not make any difference to how *early* the championship is decided, mathematically with a small points differential a winning margin takes longer to grow and longer to peg back, or with a large differential it grows quicker but can be pegged back quicker, so it works out the same).
Lastly to point out that it would be a mistake to make overtaking too easy - once all the faster cars have overtaken all the slower cars, the race is over. And finally finally, the first step must be to make it an 80%
majority decision by teams not 100% - it was pointed out (by Flav?) that for any conceivable plan there will always be one or two teams who would be disadvantaged in the short term, and have to veto it.
I bet the insider is Pat Symmonds :) He's a clear-thinking hero.
Paul Taylor
Whats wrong with an hours free for all and no penalties for engine failures. Surely thats motor racing, but of course it may givre the men in blazers less to do and mean less revenue in fines for the FIA!
Chris Bassett
Initially, I wasn't very impressed by either format offered by Bernie's site, but after thinking about them for a while, the second one is starting to grow on me. The inital session would be a bit boring, with the back-runners fighting it out, while the rest of the field just put in a time faster than them (dial back 4 seconds per lap on the maclarens, and they're going to save their engines, but still get through).
A bit of spice when there's an incident, a failure from one of the front-runners or a change in conditions, but not much else happening.
The final session would make up for that, though, with the front runners having a battle with no back markers to get in the way, no race-fuel limits and a full on opportunity for tactics and dirty tricks... which is exactly what qualifying should be.
Hmmm... it's growing on me more amd more. I wonder which of the teams came up with that idea?
Tony Geran - Sydney Australia
Turbos, non turbos, V12 engines allowed, V10 engines only, ban on refuelling, refuelling re-introduced, Unlimited technology, limited technology, 3.5 litre engines, 3 litre engines, 3 Grooved tyres (fronts), 4 grooved tyres, fully auto boxes, semi auto boxes, 9-6-4-3-2-1, 10-6-4-3-2-1, 10- 8-6-5-4-3-2-1, launch and traction control, no launch control, qualifying over two days, qualifying over one day, two session one lap qualifying, two session one lap qualifying over two days (agg), one session one lap qualifying, unlimited engines, unlimited tyres, limited tyres, one race engines, two race engines, next year V8's (yuck) and perhaps a control tyre also and we are getting stored energy systems (which was proposed by Adrian Newey some 7 years ago!!!! Stone the crows, how many more changes must be made in this sport?
These are the major rule changes in F1 in the last 17 years that I can think of. Can anyone name another front running sport where there has been as much rule pandemonium as F1?
For us "colonials" who don't get the qualifying feed why don't they just do away with qualifying? You may as well have the grid determined for the championship by the finishing order in the previous year's championship and each race thereafter determined by the finishing order of the previous race. Newcomers would have to start the first race at the back in the finishing order of their team's position in the previous year's constructors' championship..
I guarantee that you would see some overtaking then especially if you re-introduced the old points status of 10-6-4-3-2-1 where winning is rewarded. Why are points given to 40% of the grid? Points were only allocated to just over 23% of the grid in the 70's and 80's. That's when the top 6 of 26 were rewarded points.
Ok if you want to bring the punters in to the track perhaps you would allow all cars 2 engines per weekend and allow the first two days as test days and ban off race weekend testing bar say 6 weeks at the start of the season. You could then have the poor teams flog off test drives to local peddlers who could test their mettle against the aces, reduce overall spending as no more dedicated test teams are required. I bet another engine per race weekend would be cheaper than a whole test team, trucks and associated accommodation. You would increase media attention where the local ace would get a chance to show his worth. You can see the headlines now. "Harry Hornblower beats Schumacher".
Ok the purists might shudder but lets face it F1 is in danger of pricing itself out of the market. In future less airtime will be available and more local interest will be generated. Imagine how this would go in the USA, for instance where Jeff Gordon might find himself in a competitive car?
Art Iverson - Michigan, USA
The most important thing about Qualifying is for the fans (at the track) to see all of the cars on the limit, trying to get the fastest lap time. Also, the drivers have to be permitted to make a mistake here and there.
The current 1 lap method, forces drivers to err on the side of caution, for the fear of having an off, and relegated to the back of the grid.
With regards to the 2 new proposals, I like proposal #2 much better. Primarily, I am not a fan of aggregate times. No futher explanation necessary. The #2 option sounds intruiging. I like the idea of eliminating cars 5 at a time.
Once you got down to the final 10 it could be quite exciting. In reality, the #2 proposal would be similar to the old "12 lap format", but with only 10 cars remaining rather than an overly cluttered 20.
In fact I like the #2 proposal so much that I'm rather upset I didn't think of it myself!
There is one problem in all of this, and that of course is the banal, 2 race per engine rule.
That rule has already compromised some drivers efforts in 2005 and will continue to throw a spanner into the works.
(That's a wrench for us Americans)
I wonder, now that Ron, Max, and others are seemingly on a path of universal brotherhood, maybe they can eliminate this awful rule?
Stéphane Gingras - Canada
I think that the 12 lap qualifying format was good because now I know it can be worse. At the time, I was cheering that they would replace it only to realize that 1 lap with the fuel load for the race doesn't work.
Why? Because why would someone risk it all and end up in the back of the grid when you have only one try. I still miss the old days when Mika would steal the pole from Michael in the last minute with a four-wheel drift at La Rascasse. I firmly believe that the second option(5 drivers out every 15 min) will recreate that drama, eliminate most of the back markers and allow us to see more than only the top 3 or 4 drivers.
Benoit Turcotte - Montreal
I, for one, like the actual format. The main reason is that I can see all driver individually and compare all runs. That wasn't the case with the old format. All you saw was the finishing moments of all drivers (specially the last 5 minutes).
The only thing that I don't like of the present format is the fuel load set for the race. I have never seen anywhere suggested that the one-lap qualifyng could be executed with minimum fuel and let the teams re-fuel for the race.
Why do they always come back to race fuel loads ?
Matthew Snyder - Los Angeles, CA
I think -once again- the almighty Powers That Be in Formula 1 are missing the boat. They are apparently arguing that qualifying is merely a way of ordering the cars on the grid, and that it is televised and as such is already more than a bit artificial.
To that, I must ask the following rhetorical question: Just why is it televised in the first place?
To me, the simple answer is that qualifying is the purest form of competition among drivers in all of motorsport. As Ayrton Senna famously said "There is luck in racing. Qualifying tells you about the drivers." The past and current iterations of single-lap snoozefest qualifying has been so dull and pointless that I've often wished they just gridded the cars by having the drivers pick numbers from a hat. The FOM contact that emailed Pitpass.com regarding the new proposed formats certainly seems to know that, once upon a time, that's how it was done.
Qualifying was a ritual for me. Maybe that's because, being from the States, I didn't always have TV coverage of qually so it was always something special to me. But what I cannot understand is the utter myopia the Powers That Be display towards the impact their own product has. Forgive me, perhaps I'm suffering from a selective memory, but I do not recall much -if any- clamor from the fans pre-2003 for a more spiced up qualifying. The rules were changed for one reason: To make it harder for one team to dominate from the front. It was done as an artificial means of spicing up the racing. Heaven forbid they actually make the cars more racey via technical regulations that make sense. And god help us if the teams and FIA could ever work together on putting together a rules package that does not punish any car not in the lead.
No amount of tinkering with the qualifying can improve the racing if the cars themselves are inherently un-race-able.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, go back to qualifying the way it was in 2002. When a driver gets a pole position, I want to know he did it because he and his car were the fastest combination on the day... not because the McLarens are running a two-stopper and everyone else is on three.
Nigel Baker
As your source quite clearly says, with the current engine rules each car wouldn't be likely to do more than two laps in an old style one hour session.
Then again, in these new formats, we'd see much the same.
With option one, the top teams would go out there and set a lap early on in both sessions (to allow them time if things went wrong), and that would be that. I expect some of the other teams might risk a few more laps if they thought they could improve, but only if things looked close.
With option two it would be far worse. The times don't count in the first two sessions so the top teams would only go fast enough to beat the bottom five cars in each session. Obviously there could be some sandbagging from the bottom placed teams on Friday to try and trick the others into running too slow, but they would have a good idea what a safe time would be, and it is probably going to be way off their ultimate pace - twice.
Do we really want to see a "qualifying" session where the drivers are going as slow as they can get away with?
The other problem with this is that the cars can do unlimited laps. What is wrong with going out and doing a blinder up front, and then meandering round for half an hour? Didn't Senna do just that at Monaco (quite) a few years ago, which I think led to the 12 lap rule coming in.
I don't think that low speed running would hurt the engines and tyres too much, would it?
Frankly, I don't think these suggestions have been thought through at all.
So, as my man down the pub suggestion, why not have averaged times! You could have two, three or four sessions in the hour with no break between each, and average the best lap they get in each session. This would mean that the drivers would have to go flat out in each session, but also would be able to recover from a mistake.
If a driver were to crash or beach the car in a session, they would be restricted to where on the grid they could qualify. I.e. In a four quarter qualifying, if they stuck it off the road in the first quarter, the best they could do would be 16th, in the second quarter - 11th etc.
This is to stop the drivers just going out and doing one flying lap at the start and then getting stuck somewhere conveniently.
So, what do you think? Would it work? More to the point, is it confusing enough?
Jack Dando - Seattle Washington USA
As they are proposed I would favor the first plan. If there were an amendment to the second requiring all cars to be on the track in the first fifteen minutes I would go with the second.
But if chaos is the ultimate goal why not draw names from a hat like they did in the 1930's. It might require the faster teams to actually have to do more than lead the race from the pole position.
Peter Bolton - Melbourne Victoria Australia
I used to buy a ticket for the Melbourne GP on Saturday. Not Sunday……the race was a bore at the track…better on TV. On Saturday you got to see the cars doing banzai laps at 11 tenths on minimum fuel. The last 15 minutes mano a mano was worth every penny as for once the cars did what they were designed to do, go as fast as possible, driven by the fastest and wiliest of drivers. The option of 15 minute sessions will bring this highly competitive environment back, whilst the one tire rule has effectively nullified the need for initial fuel load machinations. ANYTHING is better than that which we have now, except they have got the racing right for this season at least.
Bill Willems - Bloomington, Indiana
The first format gives the fans more time to see more cars on the track. Increase the segments from 25 to 30 or 35 minutes. Attended the USGP and stayed for all 73 laps....will return in 2006 in spite of what happened. Looking forward to the V8s.
Terry Smith
At first I thought the question to big, too open, but then found myself talking to colleagues in the motor racing industry and we started developing ideas.
I am an x-race driver, team owner and sponsor. I still support a race team within FIA GT and LMES series and many of these ideas come from years of frustration and much success within other categories of motor racing.
In fact we found that these proposed qualifying sessions in formula 1 were not complex enough, the simplicity approach simply wouldn’t work.
Why? Simple (there is that word again) the idea of trying to fix one problem in isolation never works (as is typical of the FIA unfortunately) and we only have to look at the typical proposal that came into being with single lap qualifying – Dull, boring and not synonymous of what is really taking place at the race track.
As for sitting at the side of the race track, waiting another one and half minuets for a car to show with no reference to the speed of other cars on the track on same patch ! The fix this year ?... two sessions of about the same and aggregate the scores ! Twice the drudge, twice the… bare with me I haven’t quite gone mad yet. Never the less no wonder people are not turning up to the leading days of a Grand Prix or switching over channels from Qualifying, to watch a soap they would not normally give two thoughts about !
The conclusions of our findings was to take a much more holistic approach, something for fans, the sport, the entertainment, sponsors, teams and the list goes on…
The result… The F factor…Each session of qualifying starting on day one. Instead of “Practice” each session becomes a cumulative qualifying race in its own right.
Each session broken down into four parts with 5 cars running at any one time, limiting each team to only 20mins per session for their cars and drivers, one set of tires per session and sessions grouped according to their finishing position from the previous round. By creating microcosmic qualifying races we create an entertaining sport, with more exposure for the sponsors, drivers, manufactures and give back the control of F1 to the teams.
New strategies and new reward mechanisms, each driver and team being awarded one championship point for the fastest car in each session and promoted to the following session as they move towards the front of the grid. No more run away championship leaders, every team and driver from the top teams to the smaller teams stand to benefit from the new points system and the faster teams who run into mechanical problems from the previous round stand to benefit from gaining additional points to narrow the gap! An altogether tougher but exciting championship for everone to benefit from, including the independent websites ! Think of the extra stories of success and failures.
An extra point to be awarded also for Pole position and fastest race lap ! Just think of the possibilities. Complexity? No not really, when I demonstrated my finding to non-motorsport people and many looked at it like a football league table, all be it in a microcosm weekend. There many additional benefits to this holistic approach along with cost cutting and banning of driver aids along with future recommendations for F1 design whilst keeping F1 at the pinnacle with its uniqueness and concept.
We data processed all results of last year and this to date along with spreadsheets, to show how the sport could really look. In the mean time I have attached a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate how the new “qualifying” system could work. Appropriately with this weekend racing about to take place in Germany the presentation take a snapshot of results from 2004 results at Silverstone to actual timings of German 2004 race.
(I looked at the PowerPoint, and am utterly confused - Editor)
Bob Dubery - Johannesburg, South Africa
I agree with your mystery correspondent, the second format - with the drop outs after 15 and 30 minutes is going to provide the best "show".
And the problem is the need to put on a show so that TV viewers will tune in and spectators will buy a ticket for at least 2 days of the event.
It's tempting to argue that the actual race must take precedence and that if qualifying's not that exciting then there's no real problem, but F1 needs the show - especially in the wake of Indianapolis. Those who pay for F1 - the sponsors, the spectators, the satellite TV viewers - must feel that they are getting good value from F1.
Glen S. Bravo - Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
I say let’s go old school, bring back the hat. Instead of setting the cars in order, everyone picks there name from a hat (or similar lottery system). That’ll make for some interesting races, as Minardi would have an equal chance to be in P1 as anyone else.
And this would eliminate the traditional qualifying format, which would reduce costs. And currently the atmosphere is all about reducing costs.
Darren Morris
I believe that the last ten cars to qualify in the last thirty minute session will genuinely be the ten quickest cars, so I favour the last ption. Having the ten most quickest cars on the track at once will mean that the quickest teams will be able to qualify well without the track congestion of the previous rules.
Qualifying as it currently stands is a dreadfully boring lottery.
Andy Anderson -Sydney
With today's F1 regulations allowing passing to be even more difficult than before, qualifying is vitally important for the drivers and a good solution needs to be found to ensure an exciting race ( remember them ? ).
All of you reading this will probably have looked at the A1 GP qualifying format article on this site. These A1 people seem to have some great ideas and I wonder if Max and Bernie have considered them.
If passing was possible the good drivers would not have too much of a problem passing other cars in a 1 hour qualifying period - Ayrton Senna and other great drivers didn't !
All I'm really saying is that if the rules for very low down force and big slick tyres talked about for 2008 happened tomorrow, qualifying would be much less important and the races much more interesting - a bit like CART is now, and A1 GP looks like being in a couple of months.
It's all down to the inability to pass - remember slipstreaming ?