A different form of BoP

[timbo]

First, I'd like to state that I am against BoP in general. While it does provide a diverse grid allowing different cars being competitive in series like Blancpain, it goes against the spirit of F1 IMO.
However, we all see that prolonged periods of domination of one team and driver makes the audience decline, which, in turn, provokes the governing body to overreact and do a costly and ultimately ineffective rules shakeup.
So maybe there is a way to implement a form of BoP which would help to level a playing field a little bit, while not directly messing with a performance of the cars.
I am thinking about the 2006 season, where there were "young driver practices" to which only teams starting from 5th in the current CC standings were allowed (I may be wrong in the details). How about a limit on the practice running for the teams based on the results of the previous race and CC standing? For example, the leader only gets 5 laps in practice 1 and 10 in practice 2; second place is allowed 10 laps in practice 1 and 15 in practice 2. The current engine mileage rules would have to be adjusted probably, by maybe allowing separate practice-only drivetrain components.
As such the field should be closer, as the leaders will have a greater chance of missing the optimum setup. At the same time, best cars would still be the best cars.
This may create a problem on the new circuits, but exceptions can be made in such case.
So, what do you think?

PS BoP is bad.

[Just_a_fan]

I would rather see the lower teams given more money and allowed more CFD/wind tunnel time along with testing sessions.

The current system gives the winners all of the money and then limits everyone's ability to improve.

I wonder if, say, Williams would be helped by an extra $20m to run their computers and tunnel longer and get in some track testing.

I don't know whether that would help. I guess we'll find out in a way once the budget cap has run for a while.

[timbo]

I would rather see the lower teams given more money and allowed more CFD/wind tunnel time along with testing sessions.

The current system gives the winners all of the money and then limits everyone's ability to improve.

I wonder if, say, Williams would be helped by an extra $20m to run their computers and tunnel longer and get in some track testing.

I don't know whether that would help. I guess we'll find out in a way once the budget cap has run for a while.

Yeah, this also makes sense. I agree that the current system promotes single team domination.
However, I feel that allowing lower teams more CFD/tunnel time/testing is bound with some differences. Track testing is expensive and CFD/tunnel time is effective only in the longer run, i.e. if somebody turns up with a car which wins first three or four GPs then the teams trying to catch up will be in a position to do so after a full round of updates.

[marmer]

What about limiting the current championship leader if they are leading by a large margin. So that they basically can't change anything on the car until the gap is reduced. This wouldn't stop the top teams from spending all the money they want in upgrading parts but would limit the ability to upgrade race on race.
Perhaps 48 points should be the gap Which is a one,two and rival's getting no points. As soon as the gap is reduced to less the top team can introduce upgrades. Stopping them from running away at the start and potentially allowing others to catch up

[Big Tea]

There was some +points to the seasons where not all races were counted. It actually became lets drop the lowest and dismissed bad or unlucky drives, but it did limit total points.
If it became something like - best 16 from 20 plus points from the last race it could mean some real deciders in the last race, but this is again another can of worms due to things we do not consider until it happens.

[digitalrurouni]

I hate any form of BoP. But let's stop with the damn regulation changes for once. Every 2 -3 year reg changes hurt the smaller teams. How about they keep the regs the same and allow more freedom in the regs to go whatever direction folks want to go? PUs are FINALLY getting somewhere and now there's this whole new aero regulation changes. Stop changing the PU regs (though I don't understand why ES development is so restricted, surely they could harvest and deploy more than the 4 MJ or whatever the rule states but that's a different topic I suppose).

2021 will be even more dramatic from what I can tell. And also stopping the drivers from getting paid ridiculous amounts (Vettel, Lewis) might help though that will be an unpopular thing. Just throwing it out there.

Limit simulations. Testing is already limited. So that will add more spice to the weekends for the race.

Limit the equipment and limit the number of personnel that can be brought to the paddock for the purpose of the race itself (not talking about hospitality etc). Limiting all that would I think leave the onus of actually driving the car more on the driver. I don't know how much information can be displayed on the screen but have the tire temp and PSI, PU temps, fuel, charge etc all the relevant info on the screen so the engineers don't have much say and leave the management of the car more to the driver. Point is the less stuff there is for race day the cheaper it will be and will bring up the smaller teams to operate at a better level.

[ENGINE TUNER]

How about this... Stop giving the faster cars a head start. That alone would make the races and championships more interesting.

[Just_a_fan]

You'd have to just assign grid slots randomly otherwise. Any other form of qualifying would be gamed one way or another as there would be an optimal grid slot. The teams would mess around in order to get the optimal slot which would be silly. Slowing down in the last corner to ensure, say, P11 for example.

[Just_a_fan]

leave the management of the car more to the driver. Point is the less stuff there is for race day the cheaper it will be and will bring up the smaller teams to operate at a better level.

Cars would either need to be much simpler or have more automated stuff in them. They're too complex for the driver to know all of the modes, when they can be used, how much life is available in each controlled component etc.

[ENGINE TUNER]

You'd have to just assign grid slots randomly otherwise. Any other form of qualifying would be gamed one way or another as there would be an optimal grid slot. The teams would mess around in order to get the optimal slot which would be silly. Slowing down in the last corner to ensure, say, P11 for example.

Nope, grids based on reverse wdc position, or a reverse wdc grid sprint race combined with qualifying to determine the grid. Absolutely no way to game that and no advantage to sandbagging either.

[Just_a_fan]

Nope, grids based on reverse wdc position, or a reverse wdc grid sprint race combined with qualifying to determine the grid. Absolutely no way to game that and no advantage to sandbagging either.

All a bit gimmicky, though, isn't it?

Still ways to game it using a tame number two driver to "oops, sorry mate" a competitor.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Nope, grids based on reverse wdc position, or a reverse wdc grid sprint race combined with qualifying to determine the grid. Absolutely no way to game that and no advantage to sandbagging either.

All a bit gimmicky, though, isn't it?

Still ways to game it using a tame number two driver to "oops, sorry mate" a competitor.

It's not "gimmicky", just different to what was arbitrarily chosen years ago. Basing the starting positions on outright 1 lap speed could be considered "gimmicky" but also foolish if one is interested in entertaining races. In what other sport are the better competitors given a head start?

Qualifying mostly measures 1 lap speed, a reverse wdc grid sprint race would be a good measure of racecraft, use both to create a much more balanced grid, rather than give the driver with a faster car a head start and them gap the field early a cruise to a victory without having to show any amount of racecraft over r the entire race weekend.

Oops sorry mate happens already, like Kimi hitting Lewis in Silverstone 2018.

[izzy]

Qualifying mostly measures 1 lap speed, a reverse wdc grid sprint race would be a good measure of racecraft, use both to create a much more balanced grid, rather than give the driver with a faster car a head start and them gap the field early a cruise to a victory without having to show any amount of racecraft over r the entire race weekend.

I agree. Any Balance of Performance is inherently fake and misses the whole point of having a race.

But if the cars can overtake in 2021... well by far the best race in W Series was the reverse championship order grid, and that's not artificial, the best car/driver would win over the season. Tho of course the basic order of merit would eventually be the same as starting in qualifying order.

So it wouldn't fix the two-tier issue, but they're changing the distribution of prize money anyway, what's the latest on that? It's a bit ridiculous it's taken so long when even Bernie admitted he'd screwed up the whole thing.

[timbo]

In what other sport are the better competitors given a head start?

In most?
In something like tennis best players are seeded and don't have to spend their energy in qualifying rounds. In the two-stage tournament system when advancing from group rounds to play-off best team usually meets the worst team (as judged by the points received in the group rounds). There are many examples really.
Also, in the current situation, even grids based on the reversed WDC positions would not change much, Merc is still head and shoulders above the rest. Sure we would see much more on-track action, but for what sake? F1 is not a demolition derby.
I would say that the races this year and last year are not bad, some boring, some exciting. It's the same people always leading which hurts audiences IMO. And it's not the fault of Merc and Hamilton that they are better at it than others, so I don't like BoP which directly messes with performance.

[Just_a_fan]

In what other sport are the better competitors given a head start?

In any sport with seeding. In track and swimming events where the fastest qualifiers get the centre lanes. In many long distance events where the "elite" athletes get to go before the slower ones. Actually, in many sports, being the "best" gets you benefits.

Rallying has a version of your idea - the leader goes first and can end up being the sweeper on gravel stages. In those events, the drivers often slow down to ensure they're not the leader before those stages.