Changes To Qualifying

[ENGINE TUNER]

How do you envisage the combining? My only doubt about this is the complexity, cos as we see even with some of our learned friends on here it doesn't take much complexity to cause a problem

yes the first race??? last year's wdc, hard to beat, especially after the first year when the system can kind of roll over
Monaco has to have sprinklers

Sprint race result plus qually result = race start score, grid positioned from lowest to highest race start score, ties go to the driver with the lower sprint race score.

First race still not sure.

[izzy]

Sprint race result plus qually result = race start score, grid positioned from lowest to highest race start score, ties go to the driver with the lower sprint race score.

First race still not sure.

Mmmm, okay, i see it but I think it's too complicated, bearing in mind 7 tyre grades were too complicated apparently or even 5. I think it's fine to have just the reverse 100km race, if the cars are designed with the right amount of difficulty. Ideally the top guys would win the Sunday race maybe half the time or something like that

[dans79]

If they want a gimmick to draw in fans on Saturday, then they should do it just like F2, at it would eliminate reasons for people to go full Gonzo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Formu ... int_system

[ENGINE TUNER]

Sprint race result plus qually result = race start score, grid positioned from lowest to highest race start score, ties go to the driver with the lower sprint race score.

First race still not sure.

Mmmm, okay, i see it but I think it's too complicated, bearing in mind 7 tyre grades were too complicated apparently or even 5. I think it's fine to have just the reverse 100km race, if the cars are designed with the right amount of difficulty. Ideally the top guys would win the Sunday race maybe half the time or something like that

I don't want to lose low fuel qually, it is fantastic and it gives us an opportunity to Guage ultimate speed between teammates. Im so glad F1 no longer has race fuel qually.

Even if it is slightly complicated, it can easily be explained on tv.

[izzy]

I don't want to lose low fuel qually, it is fantastic and it gives us an opportunity to Guage ultimate speed between teammates. Im so glad F1 no longer has race fuel qually.

Even if it is slightly complicated, it can easily be explained on tv.

yes I see what you mean, tho the TV coverage generally misses most of it and we just see the end of a lot of different laps! then by the time they're on YT we know the outcome. Still, good point and I wouldn't complain, compared to just qualy like now

[johnny vee]

well Race1 is going to be 100km so if Lewis/Max/Charles can't make up any places in that time then a new PU isn't going to save them and nobody will care!

Except they can simply add another engine to the pool without any penalties, giving them an extra engine allowing them to run higher engine modes.

The idea is they'll make it up to 8th or whatever in Race1, they won't want to start all over again from the back.

There are enough tracks on the calendar where overtaking is difficult.

And outside of that. So then they will start eight for example, it'll be virtually no effort to get to the front, rendering the whole idea completely pointless.

They won't start Sunday at the back unless they've crashed out of Race1, and even then it's an easy rule to fix. FIA can be stupid sometimes but not that stupid For Monaco and perhaps one or two others they'll do something different, plus the 2021 cars should follow and pass more easily. And from 8th the it's fastest midfield ahead, so the top drivers will probably get through but not all together. Some will do it better than others. The guy and team who win on Sunday will have done the best job of overtaking, racecraft, strategy, all the things we like to admire.

The starting point for it is that up to now qualifying means cars start the race basically in speed order, and that means Lewis or whoever gets to T1 in the lead in nice cool still air and cruises off into the distance. This is an idea to make it more interesting. It's a more severe test of skill isn't it? That's why the F1 teams have gone for it. Not random or artificial it's just more of a challenge.

It's new of course, but so was halo, that everyone freaked over to begin with

I agree with you Izzy

[izzy]

I agree with you Izzy

Yay

[dans79]

https://www.pitpass.com/65892/Dont-make ... Verstappen

Verstappen

"Us drivers had a meeting with the Formula 1 owners," he tells his own website. "We spoke a lot about what we want as drivers.

"Nothing has been decided but we don't want something like American wrestling where everything is artificial and fake," he says. "We made clear that is not what we want.

"I think qualifying is good the way it is. I wouldn't know how to change it."

[henry]

All sports are by definition artificial. The nature of the competition and the rules than constrain it are entirely arbitrary.

Motor racing was derived from horse racing, and in horse racing it is considered natural that handicapping should occur to lead to close competition.

If the rules were changed to make the contest a race rather than a time trial it would be a big change but equally arbitrary. It would be a big challenge for everyone.

Right now we have a situation in which the car/driver combination that is fastest in the long time trial is not the same as that which is fastest in the short form. And we get good racing which “everyone” is enjoying. To me a change in the rules that emphasised that would seem a good thing.

[dans79]

All sports are by definition artificial. The nature of the competition and the rules than constrain it are entirely arbitrary.

Motor racing was derived from horse racing, and in horse racing it is considered natural that handicapping should occur to lead to close competition.

If the rules were changed to make the contest a race rather than a time trial it would be a big change but equally arbitrary. It would be a big challenge for everyone.

Right now we have a situation in which the car/driver combination that is fastest in the long time trial is not the same as that which is fastest in the short form. And we get good racing which “everyone” is enjoying. To me a change in the rules that emphasised that would seem a good thing.

at the Pinnacle of horse racing, they don't arbitrarily handicap the fastest horse and Rider.

[ENGINE TUNER]

at the Pinnacle of horse racing, they don't arbitrarily handicap the fastest horse and Rider.

Nor do they give the fastest horse and rider a huge head start and clear air.

[dans79]

at the Pinnacle of horse racing, they don't arbitrarily handicap the fastest horse and Rider.

Nor do they give the fastest horse and rider a huge head start and clear air.

Show me a track where the start finish strait is 20 cars wide!

[henry]

All sports are by definition artificial. The nature of the competition and the rules than constrain it are entirely arbitrary.

Motor racing was derived from horse racing, and in horse racing it is considered natural that handicapping should occur to lead to close competition.

If the rules were changed to make the contest a race rather than a time trial it would be a big change but equally arbitrary. It would be a big challenge for everyone.

Right now we have a situation in which the car/driver combination that is fastest in the long time trial is not the same as that which is fastest in the short form. And we get good racing which “everyone” is enjoying. To me a change in the rules that emphasised that would seem a good thing.

at the Pinnacle of horse racing, they don't arbitrarily handicap the fastest horse and Rider.

Yes they do, or at least in England and France they do.

Here’s the runners and riders for this year’s Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe. The weights are the ballasted weights for the riders.



From https://tripivent.com/events/prix-de-la ... nners-odds

[dans79]

Yes they do, or at least in England and France they do.

While I'm not overly well versed in European horse racing, I believe that is basically ballast to ensure that no owner gains an unfair advantage by having the lightest jockey. In other words its not much different than setting a minimum component weight in F1. They aren't arbitrary/intentionally penalizing the fastest horse.

[henry]

Yes they do, or at least in England and France they do.

While I'm not overly well versed in European horse racing, I believe that is basically ballast to ensure that no owner gains an unfair advantage by having the lightest jockey. In other words its not much different than setting a minimum component weight in F1. They aren't arbitrary/intentionally penalizing the fastest horse.

Nope. It’s all up Jockey weight calculated from previous race results and expressly designed to penalise the fastest horse.