Improve overtaking, reduce tyre marbles

[Conceptual]

Less marbles will NOT lead to more overtaking, just more overtaking attempts (which is what would truly increase the spectacle).

The 2005 tyres were amazing in my view simply because they lasted so long, and still held up.

If they were to revert to the 2005 spec Bstones, but with slicks instead of grooves, you could also get rid of the tyre warmers since everyone would start with cold ones, and you wouldn't have tyre changes in pit stops causing huge speed differences on track.

Once you do that, get rid of the race fuel in Q3, and hose the parc ferme rule, and you will see some serious overtaking attempts during the race.

But, as was stated a million times here, our voices aren't loud enough to shout over the sound of money hitting Bernie's piggy bank...

[Scotracer]

Less marbles will NOT lead to more overtaking, just more overtaking attempts (which is what would truly increase the spectacle).

The 2005 tyres were amazing in my view simply because they lasted so long, and still held up.

If they were to revert to the 2005 spec Bstones, but with slicks instead of grooves, you could also get rid of the tyre warmers since everyone would start with cold ones, and you wouldn't have tyre changes in pit stops causing huge speed differences on track.

Once you do that, get rid of the race fuel in Q3, and hose the parc ferme rule, and you will see some serious overtaking attempts during the race.

But, as was stated a million times here, our voices aren't loud enough to shout over the sound of money hitting Bernie's piggy bank...

I was under the impression that tyre warmers were banned for 2009?

The 2005 spec tyres in my opinion were the worst thing to happen to F1 in a long time. They completely changed the sport from a sprint to an endurance.

Also, what's your logic in regard to Q3 fuel? If people were on light fuel (a la 2002 quali) the fastest would be at the front and the slowest at the back. How would that help overtaking? The race-fuel allows people who would otherwise be 10th to be 4th on a light fuel load. It mixes up the race somewhat.

[gcdugas]

I was under the impression that tyre warmers were banned for 2009?

The 2005 spec tyres in my opinion were the worst thing to happen to F1 in a long time. They completely changed the sport from a sprint to an endurance.

Also, what's your logic in regard to Q3 fuel? If people were on light fuel (a la 2002 quali) the fastest would be at the front and the slowest at the back. How would that help overtaking? The race-fuel allows people who would otherwise be 10th to be 4th on a light fuel load. It mixes up the race somewhat.

The 2005 tires were just fine and it was not that dramatic of an endurance race. The lap times were fractionally more than otherwise and any difference was imperceptible. You are exaggerating.

If you really want to know what is BS, then look no further than the "two compound" rule. What is the thinking? That a car on softs would carve through the field passing Ferraris on hard tires? Puhleeze! It is pure artifice. Time to junk that ASAP.

Everyone ends up doing a final quali on a nearly empty tank... they just circulate around burning fuel until the final lap which is insane. Race fuel quali really means who will circulate the longest (or shortest) before that crucial final run on nearly empty tanks. The lightest/fastest cars still end up at the front unless you botch the one hot lap or get balked like Massa did at Monza in 2007

[Conceptual]

If everyone qualified on low fuel, then the fastest man in the fastest car will be on pole. And the deletion of the parc ferme rules combined with race fuel will make everyone on the grid a complete mystery.

Lining them up fastest to slowest with no chance to improve between qualifying and race start is what gives you predictable processions. If the pole sitter decides to do a 2 stopper and 5th place chooses a 3 stopper, then you would see more overtaking on track, because of the difference in fuel loads. The way it is, the qualifying order is pretty much unchanged until the first round of pit stops, with the only drama being who is going to pit first.

In my opinion, parc ferme destroys the teams ability to improve from Saturday to Sunday, making the spectacle a parade.

It is the opportunity to improve (or get worse in some cases) and the ability to pick fuel strategy AFTER qualifying that would lead to the most overtaking attempts on track. Keeping those 2 rules is what makes passing people in the pits the objective in todays F1.

But, if you can explain how that logic is flawed, I will deffinately reconsider.

Thanks!

[Metar]

Here's a pretty big one: In the age of cost-cutting, you can't possibly allow teams to modify their cars even more. We'll see essentially two different cars, with, perhaps, different aerodynamic packages, or with engines swapped between qualifying-specials and race-mills.

[Conceptual]

Here's a pretty big one: In the age of cost-cutting, you can't possibly allow teams to modify their cars even more. We'll see essentially two different cars, with, perhaps, different aerodynamic packages, or with engines swapped between qualifying-specials and race-mills.

So, its better to pay the race team to do nothing on Saturday night?

If ANYTHING, getting MORE output for your payroll IS cost cutting! And with the new 8 engine rule, who cares? A quali wing? Doubtful, but a quali SETTING on that wing? SURE!

The point is that the race is pretty set after quali. Allowing the teams to make changes overnight would lead to some surprises during the race, and THAT is excitement!

Although, the bookies wouldn't have an accurate spread, so Max may find a stallion head in bed with him instead of a call-girl, but for the sake of the spectacle, sacrifices MUST be made, right?

[Metar]

Payroll yes, materials not. It means investing in, essentially, the development, construction and shipping of two cars per driver. If not a whole car, then parts for what will be two different cars.

[Conceptual]

Payroll yes, materials not. It means investing in, essentially, the development, construction and shipping of two cars per driver. If not a whole car, then parts for what will be two different cars.

I am pretty sure that the teams carry multiple front wings to each race anyways... If this is the ONLY thing that you can come up with against deleting Q3 race fuel, and Parc Ferme, then I think you need to find something else.

Please, if you find a single point failure, let us know.

BTW, when and why was Parc Ferme introduced in the first place?

[Miguel]

In my opinion, parc ferme destroys the teams ability to improve from Saturday to Sunday, making the spectacle a parade.

That makes at least two of us with that point of view.

BTW, when and why was Parc Ferme introduced in the first place?

Parc Fermé was introduced in 2003, together with the single lap qualifying. I remember how much that rule changed F1 cars. We went from 1-2 stops to 2-3 stops (and 3 stops was the norm in 2004), so races became much more of sprint races with softer tires and lighter fuel loads.

Funnily enough, 2004 tires had a brilliant first lap, so that 1 lap less fuel wasn't too much of a handicap. However, in 2005 tires apparently got a bit cold in the pits, plus cars out of the pitlane didn't have the super first lap, so even 1 lap more of fuel turned out to be an important advantage.

In any case and somewhat back to topic, after seeing the speed differential between racing cars and cars right off the pitlane, the FIA decided to lift the ban on tire warmers. This is IMHO good, since otherwise you are penalising *a lot* people with maybe just one less lap of fuel. Entering the pits before your rivals meant apart from the fuel penalty some 3-4s.

BTW: There could one argument against, let's call it, sunday Warm up. First two-three cars would then be set-up for optimum laptimes, or close to them. Midpack cars would then be set up for "fighting" so the field may spread out slightly more. This is probably less accented with parc fermé because no one wants to risk having a car in the middle of the field with a low top speed, even if its ultimate pace is great.

EDIT: I see the two compounds per race as one of the most idiotic rules ever, imposed only for the satisfaction of Bridgestone