Grid and Race position biased KERS

[myurr]

Completely agree, and it's the potential for a difference between quali and race pace that makes me feel so strongly about keeping the refuelling ban. I really like the idea of allowing some, maybe limited, tinkering with the cars settings before lining up for the race. It wouldn't be completely blind though as the driver could do a couple of test laps by going through the pit lane rather than lining up on the grid. This practice is currently used to varying degrees.

[Richard]

Just accept that motor racing in general, and F1 in particular, is inherently processional and get on with it. I don't remember it ever being fundamentally different so no need to artificially create it.

Agreed

Excitement should be about increasing the risk of failure so drivers and cars are more often on (and over) the limit, as opposed to get out of jail cards or boost buttons

[CMSMJ1]

Just accept that motor racing in general, and F1 in particular, is inherently processional and get on with it. I don't remember it ever being fundamentally different so no need to artificially create it.

Agreed

Excitement should be about increasing the risk of failure so drivers and cars are more often on (and over) the limit, as opposed to get out of jail cards or boost buttons

+1 both posts.

F1 is not about overtaking really is it? It is about going as fast as you can for a set distance.

The rules are making the cars too easy* to drive and so fewer mistakes are made. The quallifying rules are good as they are. It is only right that the people that create the faster car, set it up correctly and have the better drivers are on pole and have the best chance to win.

F1 is being dumbed down and almost pandering to the crowds. It is a meritocracy. it rewards hard work. It says a lot that the first team outside the big 4 (Mclaren, Ferrari, Williams, Renault/Benetton) has finally won something. Was it 1983 when the last non "Big 4" team won the WDC/WCC? Piquet @ Brabham?

It has taken Stewart/Jaguar/Red Bull 13 years to get to a winning position. Should we be penalising them for their success?


* easy being a relative term of course. However, there should be so much more power than grip and there should also be more encouragement to attmept a pass. /Thinking aloud : Would Alonso have tried to dive bomb Petrov is the cars were more sturdy? it was worth a risky wheelbanging IMO..anyways, OT
/Thinking alound/

[ringo]

It's the least artificial of the solutions to make the racing exciting.

Eh? It's 100% artificial, as bad in that regard as all the other artificial ideas. It's the same as giving cars balast the higher up the grid they qualify.

The least artificial ways to make the racing exciting would be to make sure that the physical designs of the cars allows for close racing, and to try and make the characteristics of the cars mean that the best qualifying car doesn't necessarily have the best race pace (as they're trying to do by banning refuelling to change the balance of the cars, somewhat cancelled out last year by the adjustable front wing). Qualifying then becomes a compromise between track position and race pace with the opportunity to try differing strategies in order to maximise your chances.

No you are missing the point, the cars weigh the same. No car is penalized.
If you are first and you lose your place to the car with more KERS, you then get the advantage that he once had.

Example:
Vettel P1 60kW
Webber P2 62.5 kW

Webber overtakes Vettel

Webber P1 60kW
Vettel P2 62.5kW

Who has an advantage? No one has. The fastest driver will make the difference, since both virtually have the same car.

I believe the teams should have to freedom to make the cars as fast as possible.
With this rule there is no limitation on the physical aspects of the car. The power difference between adjacent positions is not so great that a switch in position is bound to happen.
What is does is keep the pack closely knit, since the back marker has twice as much KERS and is probably going around the track 1s a lap faster, and this slows as he gains places.

No amount of strategy can make a non dominant car win. The fastest car on the day always wins; bar any cock ups.
Why depend on a cock up, or freak weather to see another team on the podium?

[ringo]

If the cars are not fast enough then the teams need to work harder. Stop farting about with trying to change the bottom line - the people that work hardest and smartest will be fastest.

You are pulling the rug out from under them and making it into a benefit society.

I couldn't give a rat's bottom about the people behind the scenes that work the hardest. I want to be entertained. F1 is not a science fair, (well in a way it is) but it's first and foremost entertainment!
None of us care about the Adidas engineers that design Messi's boots and stockings, we just want to see competitive football.

[CMSMJ1]

lol @ ringo..

Yes..not the best analogy. Adidas are not part of the team are they?

If you want to be entertained then go watch some club racing. Lots of mistakes.Lots of innovation and overtaking too...full on entertainment.

Just not so fast..

[ringo]

And then come the race weekend teams have 4 hours of track time to get the best from their car, and then quali to sort them into order from quickest to slowest. How can we possible expect dramatic overtaking and that kind of thing when we've spent all Friday and Saturday making sure they are in order in the first place?

+1

All of these ideas for spicing up the racing ignores one thing : the cars have been tuned over a series of days to line up in pace order, then are given 2 hours to try and change the order ... how can we give the drivers a better chance of doing this?

The simplest way of shaking up the order is to remove the Parc Ferme rule from between Quali and the race : this way, mechanics could rectify setup errors made during the qualifying sessions and experiment with setups that may prove advantageous. Without a sunday warmup session, any changes that are made will essentially be blind, which would introduce a natural "lottery" factor based upon the best judgement of the pit crew.

I believe that this would be a much simpler and more cost effective way of spicing up the racing than introducing complex regulatory mechanisms to KERS : IMHO, all teams should be given equal opportunities to perform, irrespective of their position on track. The movable rear wing was artificial enough (as the leading car will never be given that advantage) but adjusting that advantage in increments all the way down the grid is antithetical to everything that F1 is supposed to be.

This goes without saying that reducing functioning parts of the KERS system to mere ballast (dependent upon your position) runs completely contrary to the pro-efficiency stance that seems to be so important to the FIA these days.

Why introduce an electronic handicap system when we could improve matters by simply freeing up the spannermen to do what they do best?

Unfortunately, removing Parc Ferme isn't likely to happen, considering that a curfew has now been imposed for 2011. I'd rather see a little more human drama unfolding over the race weekend, rather than relying SOLELY upon technology to make the difference.

Interesting idea, we have seen how Mercedes changed their car in Korea to make it competitive in the rain. However they alone did this, which was an unfair advantage.
When you let it know that everyone can do this; the fastest car will still be the fastest car when its setup is adjusted. It's hard to see a team coming to a completely better setup in a matter of a day, without track time to collect more data. They can, but so can the team on pole. They are just as capable of making their cars faster. This cancels out for everyone, except for the least prepared teams who make bigger gains.

[ringo]

lol @ ringo..

Yes..not the best analogy. Adidas are not part of the team are they?

If you want to be entertained then go watch some club racing. Lots of mistakes.Lots of innovation and overtaking too...full on entertainment.

Just not so fast..

Well the adidas boots are the "vehicle" for Messi's success, at least that's what Adidas marketing department wants the customers to think.
But the adidas can be looked as the engine manufacturer, it's not the full package but it has it's influence on different teams that commission it.For instance lotus using renault power and redbull gearbox next year.
But to get back to the point, I enjoy watching other racing more than F1 to tell the truth, that's if i see them on television. The funny thing is i am less attached emotionally to those teams engineers and drivers becuase i know little of them, but yet the entertainment is 10 times more than F1.

[ringo]

Can someone tell my in point form why this idea gifts any poorly performing car?
Remember the guy on pole still has the advantage, only that the likely hood of him wining the race is reduced.

But to kick things in detail, what advantage does the 2009 KERS give per lap?
There should be a way to figure out how much tenths/kW KERS gives.

Maybe the feasibility can be analyzed for a 24 car race.

grid could look like this:

I know it's in order of teams, but it's theoretically what's expected in terms of car performance.
Now ignoring the actual results, but hypothesizing this was the grid order with the Vettel on pole and the tenths slowest time in p10 obviously
Notice the more than 1 second difference in Q3 between pole 1:13.791 and 10th, 1:15.09 ?

Now 10th spot will only have 60kW + 10x2.5 = 85kW. Is that so unfair giving the one lap pace between the cars?

The beauty of it also is that Barichello can be overall equal or quicker than Vettel, depending on what advantage 25kW can give, but he wont be outright quicker than the guy who has only a 2.5kW deficit to him.

As Bahichello fights his way up the grid, his KERS advantage is diminished and he becomes the guy with the target on his back to everyone behind him.
What happens overall is that the quickest car will always be the car than can hold on to P1 the longest. Barichello in P1 still would be in a 1s slower williams with a KERS deficit to the faster redbull.

Notice how dynamic this is?

[hollus]

I don't know, Ringo. Those 2.5kW to the guy in front wouldn't make for a lot of passing. Sure it would help keep the pack closer together, but then, the little passing there would be, would always be "because of the KERS difference"; while now, the little passing we have, is because of how good the car is, or because of how good (or clever!) the driver is.
Back to your football analogy, it is like any team scoring a goal would get a player removed. Now they are 10 vs 11 and the team behind scores and ties eventually. Sure, the games would stay closer, but a) it would be because of the extra player and b) only the last 30 minutes of the game would matter.
As it stands now, most F1 races are decided in the first laps, but not all, and the rest still counts for a lot.
I actually really like the football analogy. Many great football games en 1-0 and can be hugely entertaining like that, like the world cup final this year. It is the fact that that one goal, even if scored in the first minute, can be decisive (but doesn't have to be!), that makes a football game exciting for 90 minutes. I like basketball, but I am quite happy joining a basketball game in the 4th quarter. With football, I need to watch every minute. With F1 too.

[ringo]

Notice what you said about the 2.5kW not making a big difference?
That's also another positive. As you said it keeps the pack close, but it prevents a following driver from just blowing by and gaining spots easily.
This is unlike the adjustable rear wing in that sense.
The overtaking would be down to the car and driver more than the KERS, though the slight KERS advantage could assist overtaking as small as it is.

Right now i am thinking of making an excell file of a 24 car race situation with this system

About the football. red card games are always the most exciting.
But about the goal scoring now, i would say for an extreme, it would be if a team scored 2 goals, it would lose a player, or the goal keeper is forced to change position with the goal scorer; Making their goal more vulnerable while at the same time weakening their striking capability. I picked 2 goal gap since 1 goal is not enough to decide which team is likely to win.

There are methods that are pretty much unfair the instant they are implemented, but considering the full game time, and each side gets to be on the receiving end, these methods are balanced across the board. So in a way it is not artificial, it just an additional ruling to the game.
It's extreme but no different than a return punt in NFL to the other team, or centering the ball after a goal for the non scoring team, 4 downs, or returning the ball in basket ball to the other team. You actually are giving them a gifted opportunity to score by doing so. This is why turn based games are most involving, there is an element of graciousness in giving the weaker team an opportunity. And it keeps the game competitive.

Imagine if in Basketball, a player scores, then he scrambles for the ball to pass it off to a teammate to score again, without turning over. This is basically what is happening in Formula 1. The strongest team has an iron grip in the race and at every race.
Yes it earned the right to dominate, but it doesn't do anything for entertainment side.

This KERS system doesn't punish dominance it keeps teams honest, and escalates competition. A 2 hour procession would change to a 2 hour hell in a cell match.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

Just accept that motor racing in general, and F1 in particular, is inherently processional and get on with it. I don't remember it ever being fundamentally different so no need to artificially create it.

Agreed

Excitement should be about increasing the risk of failure so drivers and cars are more often on (and over) the limit, as opposed to get out of jail cards or boost buttons

Agreed +2!

Ringo, your idea is far better than the wing idea done for next year I think, but it's another idea to dumb down the sport and make it into a show. It's like turning WRC into X-Games or the US Open into a Hollywood action movie with bullets flying while they play "tennis". There's enough show only stuff out there, please let's not make it all blatant bulls**t to entertain a public that doesn't like races or F1 or only sees coolness in sports that are done like a movie would be done.

A soccer match is cool and entertaining for some and pretty boring to those that don't like it. Then you could stop the game at each 10 minutes so that the players do tricks with the ball, sing a song in group and give prizes to the audience. Why would you ruin the sport making it artificially appealing to this public that doesn't like it? There's enough money in sponsorship for soccer and F1, no need at all to do this.

Want to be entertained? Watch something you like and don't make everything like an action movie. Oval racing is packed with Hollywood action for instance and with all the respect I not only don't like it as I think it's the ultimate example of extremely dumbing down something to make cheap entertaining that gets cheap audience. I mean, entertaining is not necessarily good to watch and certainly doesn't necessarily make a good sport.

[747heavy]

it´s an interesting concept Ringo, I´m still a bit undecided if I like it or not, but I can see some merrit in it.

I´m just not sure, if I have understood it correctly. Do you deicde the amount of KERS power after qualifying (reverse grid) or dynamic during the race?
Let´s say XXX is on pole and get´s 60kW to start with, then he spins in lap 5, the whole filed dives by before he can rejoin. Does he now has still his 60kW or does he now has the max 120kW or whatever?

Some other random thoughts.
I think the movable rear wing flap idea in 2011 is quite o.k. from a technical perspective. It makes sense, and it´s simpler and easier as an F-duct (cheaper).
What I don´t like id the artifical rules, when you can deploy it. Because IMHO, on same tracks, it put´s the guy who uns second into the last lap in an unfair advantage. It´s a bit like Champcar when racing in the ovals. Lead into the last lap, and be sure you will loose the race, because everybody will just drafting and then fly by over the finish line. Not sure I like this all that much.
I would keep the system, and give every driver 10x6sec (or whatever is a sensible number, could be track dependend). Then people can use it, when they think it is best. Maybe someone makes some good use of it, comes to the front, but then is a sitting duck, while someone else still has "5 shot´s" p his sleeve.
Use it too early, and then you are at the front, and a safety car comes out, you are buggered. It would allow for some different stratgies, but still beeing fair in a way, as everybody get´s the same oppurtunity.

I would like to see the same with KERS, give them a "energy budget" per race, similar to a defined fuel load.
THen let everybody decide how and when to use it. Maybe in short burst to help overtaking, maybe all at ones to put in 1 or 2 fast laps.
Give people the chance to collect "energy" over two or three laps, and then having more for longer. Where others may want to spend less more often.
This whould open the door to some interesting and different strategies IMHO?
Now, the way it is, everybody who has it, will use it more ore less in the same way, at the same location on the track.

[Giblet]

F1 is being dumbed down and almost pandering to the crowds. It is a meritocracy. it rewards hard work. It says a lot that the first team outside the big 4 (Mclaren, Ferrari, Williams, Renault/Benetton) has finally won something. Was it 1983 when the last non "Big 4" team won the WDC/WCC? Piquet @ Brabham?

Brawn, last year

[ringo]

it´s an interesting concept Ringo, I´m still a bit undecided if I like it or not, but I can see some merrit in it.

I´m just not sure, if I have understood it correctly. Do you deicde the amount of KERS power after qualifying (reverse grid) or dynamic during the race?
Let´s say XXX is on pole and get´s 60kW to start with, then he spins in lap 5, the whole filed dives by before he can rejoin. Does he now has still his 60kW or does he now has the max 120kW or whatever?

Yes the grid is not physically reversed. The cars keep their qualified position.
The KERS power is decided after qualifying just for the grid start. As positions change during the race so will the KERS power.
The grid allocation is simply based on position, not any crooked means of devaluing pole position.
In fact from a safety point of view, it may be better to wait after lap one to allocate the power. A grid start could end up with 10 cars going for the same corner. We can save that kind of thing when the race is under way at lap 2.

The Power is not permanently limited, all cars keep the capability to fully charge the batteries, only the power output is limited based on the car's instantaneous position. This can be done electronically. There is no physical handicap such as extra ballast or less battery cells.
As the car's position changes on track, so does the amount of power it can discharge. It is dynamic. No condemnation to any one top team.
The minimum power is 60kW, P1 will have this amount.

So in the event a driver leads the race, has the minimum 60kW of KERS power then spins out to lose five places, his car now has 67.5 kW or whatever graduation of power that is sensible x 5. He wont have the full 120kW, the man at the back of the grid will have 120kW.
This system is impartial to the quality of the cars, it's based solely on position during the race. If a dominant ferrari messes up qualifying to start at the back or gets a penalty during the race and loses a bunch of places, he gets what's allotted to his new position.

Don't pay too much attention to the actual power figures i mention though. It's the distribution of power in regards to position that is important.
P1 could have 120kW at his disposal while P24 has 240kW. It just has to be a range where a system of P24's allotted power (the maximum allowed) can be carried by all cars. The working groups could analyze and decide what are sensible power divisions, minimum and maximum.

The KERS batteries on all the cars are the same capacity, just that all but P24 may be able to use the full rate of discharge for the race. Seeing as though the back marker has the maximum power.

The race will be like crabs in a barrel. No more cruising and relaxing, it just wont be possible with a back marker having 160 more horsepower than you. You climb to the top, it's not over till the checkered flag drops.

And for those who think this is just a method to cheapen the sport. It can't be any more blatant than an adjustable wing and deployment zones. This is an opportunity for actual racing to carry on up to the last meter of a race in F1.

Call it hollywood action flick since the drivers are getting payed like movie stars anyway; but I want to see racing in F1.