Changes To Qualifying

[henry]

Every race is a Grand Prix. A Grand price.

To win it, you must be the best [team combo]. Whoever sits on top of the podest on Sunday when the race is finished has earned it one way or another. Not speaking about the driver, but as him representing the team, the car, the entire organisation behind him. One might like this or not, but it's as it has always been in F1.

Every event is unique, because it's different, or at least, it used to be before most tracks became "tilke-designed". Some are street circuits where the emphasis is on being fastest on Saturday and not making any mistakes (Monaco), other circuits require hugh amounts of downforce for high speed cornering, others, like Monza, emphasize pure grunt and straight line performance with as little drag as possible. Every track is unique and poses a unique challenge - hence, why winning some tracks are perhaps more prestigious than others.

What is being discussed here, is changing this in favor for something entire different where the focus isn't in winning the grand prix on merit, but more in focus of a long running championship by artificially prolonging it's conclusion.

It won't work as people here are predicting, because there will always be some kind of required delta to fullfill a successfull overtake. If the pack moves closer together as a result of budget cap and more shared components, the performance differential between cars should in theory decrease. Yet the tracks will stay the same. Even if you reduce the penalty you get by following another car closely, most overtakes will still be confined to few parts on a track. You will still have a required delta for a successfull overtake. My guess is, if the cars are closer in performance, it will be more difficult to overtake.

If someone does "dominate" the championship for the first half of the year, he will slowly drop back in positions and as a result of that, be less likely to extend his lead. As a result, we will 'artificially' have multiple drivers be puddling around the same number of points, cancling each other out. Better position in this race will set you back one more the next one and so fort. The problem arises when factoring in that every track is different. To be in a certain position at race X could be a decisive advantage. Either way, it'll all end up in some lottery until the last race, when the best canditate for the championship will probably be the one starting somewhere in the middle.

This is not the essence of racing or motorsport. It also takes a way the shine of winning an event by being the best. And in the end, in favor for what? That people will be more excited about who might win the championship? If you create this kind of championship, you will devalue what it means to win it in the first place.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd much rather see utter dominance and tip my hat to that driver and that team for being the best. To change it for this artificial spectacle is essentially dumbing down the sport and devaluing it on a grand scale. You'll risk losing the hardcore in favor of people who might tune in for a while until they see that there's no substance to it.

People become fans because they want to see the merit behind it and see the best win.

Excellent exposition of your, and I guess many people’s, considered opinion.

I would only quibble with the use of artificial. It wouldn’t be artificial it would be different. But it’s clear that people like to be able to evaluate a performance straightforwardly.

This approach is mirrored in society. Children who are good at exams are lauded over those that are good at course work, at least in the U.K. Employees who are good at crisis management are considered better value than those who manage things to avoid crises, at least in my experience. Athletes who are good at a single event are applauded over those that are good at the multi-discipline events.

You make a good case for the continuation of this trope in F1.

Your expectation that a major rule change will close the field up seems contrary to previous experience. I think we’re likely to see a very distinct winner in 2021 but of course that is pure speculation.

[richardn]

What would be interesting would be to score the qualifying by number of places gained/lost (with highest place finish tie breaking).

So the last place in the championship can only ever get 0 or a -ve number, but can get further up the field by being overtaken less than those behind.

My alternative qualification format would be to do qualifying as now but add 0.1 seconds of 'handicap' laptime per championship point obtained in the previous race, with the proviso that a driver can use enough of the penalty to see him through in each qualifying segment. So say LH wins the previous race, he gets 2.5 secs penalty. in Q1, he can take 1.4 secs of that in Q1 if that he has that margin over P16, then he can drop say 0.8 secs in Q1 if he has that margin over P11, then he enters Q3 with a 0.3 sec handicap...

[Phil]

Here’s another thought.

Why not keep f1 as it is and everyone else in favor of change can watch the W series or whatever offers them what they want to see?

Because if you change the formula, there is always the risk things dont add up how they were planed, especially when you go for the big changes. Just look at the QF change which ended up being a total farce (the drop out thingy). Sounded good on paper, yet totally missed the point.

If you go for such a huge change, like reverse grids or grids dependent on championship position, there’s a very high probability you will end up with an arbitrary champion in the end. Will that be as satisfying as simply seeing the best win?

Also, you are also increasing the chance that winning isnt always the best target, as it will net you disadvantage at the next race. @henry: How is that not artificial compared to a formula where the fastest simply win on merit?

[henry]

@phil It’s a different measurement of merit . I’ll agree that it’s more difficult to envisage. But they’d be the best at the things being tested. It’s a combination of speed, to bridge the gap to the car ahead, and racecraft to pass, or defend. The midfield do quite a bit of this but up at the medal end it’s less evident, although currently we have a little bit of an improved situation.

You’re right that the outcome would be very unpredictable. Particularly, as I said above, you have a large team of very skilled people with enormous computing resources looking for the overall win by optimising performance and not necessarily prioritising individual wins. But then we see that now, super slow laps at Singapore being an example.

There is absolutely no chance of this being implemented, certainly not in its pure form. And if something with a sprinkling of the concept is implemented we might reasonably call that artificial or contrived.

[strad]

I have read many times that Grand Prix = Grand Prize.
Maybe we can argue about that next since all we seem to do here any more is argue without any consensus or conclusion.
I think for my last word on it is that reverse grid is reverse of the whole idea.
Instead of changing qualifying to make faux racing I'd rather see changes to the cars and rules to make for more real racing.

[hollus]

Well, consensus and conclusion are not necessarily the targets in a forum. It is nice when it happens, but largely optional.
And if it happened all the time someone would probably try to change the forum’s rules, say, inverted sentences, to add spice to the too predictable discussions.

[turbof1]

I have read many times that Grand Prix = Grand Prize.

I think you will get that exactly when throwing it into google translate

[izzy]

Here’s another thought.

Why not keep f1 as it is and everyone else in favor of change can watch the W series or whatever offers them what they want to see?

Because if you change the formula, there is always the risk things dont add up how they were planed, especially when you go for the big changes. Just look at the QF change which ended up being a total farce (the drop out thingy). Sounded good on paper, yet totally missed the point.

If you go for such a huge change, like reverse grids or grids dependent on championship position, there’s a very high probability you will end up with an arbitrary champion in the end. Will that be as satisfying as simply seeing the best win?

Also, you are also increasing the chance that winning isnt always the best target, as it will net you disadvantage at the next race. @henry: How is that not artificial compared to a formula where the fastest simply win on merit?

F1 has always been about change: front engine, mid engine, wide, narrow, high nose, low nose, new tracks, different qualifyings, tyres, hybrid, halo, points ... it's only rarely the same for more than a few years running

and every time there's a lot of predicting the end of F1 as we know it, but then in the end it's alright. And yes there was the mistake with single qualifying, double points and so on but change has also given us the current system that nearly everyone enjoys, and this time they have actually said they're going to experiment before they bring it all the way in

of course they'll have to make it possible to overtake at all the tracks. That's one of the benefits imo

btw 'Artificial' would be pretending the championship is a test of something it's not, which isn't the case it's a more severe test of racing

[dans79]

Otmar Szafnauer giving his opinions on the topic.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/09/tea ... ase-costs/

“We have to answer a lot of questions as to what happens in parc ferme and what happens if you crash in a qualifying race,” said Szafnauer. “We then have to carry more spares, who’s going to pay for it?”

“One of the things is to make sure that the races is as long as you would use up miles in qualifying,” Szafnauer added. “But even then, not everyone gets through to Q3, [so] it’s different.

“The risk of crashing in qualifying is a lot less than in a race. You’ve got a start – and the proposal was to start in reverse championship order.”

“I think if you do if you go in reverse championship order the guy in front of you is only marginally slower than you. So you put the fastest guy at the back but the guys around him aren’t the slow guys anymore, like sometimes happens.

“[Today] if you get a penalty or if you screw up in qualifying you start at the end and then it’s fun to watch him go through the field. This isn’t going to be like that. So the fastest guy’s at the end, or the guy leading the championship, the guy probably in a car just like him is right in front of him and so on up the field.

“So I don’t know how that’s going to pan out after, whatever, 25 laps. It’ll be different.”

[strad]

Turbo;
Interesting but I didn't get it from Google but from a few books on F1 and or Grand Prix racing pre and post war.
However your answer did lead me to use Google to translate a term I have run across many times and never bothered to look up and just mentally transposed it to Grand Prix.
Grandes Épreuves which Google says means Big Trials.

[czubak]

How would that be "punishing the fastest car?"

It's only trying to reduce the delta of the last grand Prix. On average, at the end of the season, each would have had equal chances.

Let us consider that, Leclerc, Verstappen and Hamilton finishes top 3 in Monza. It means, Hamilton will be leader (amongst them) in the next qualifier. And if that race, finishes in the order Hamilton, Verstappen and Leclerc, again Leclerc will be leading among the three in the next qualifier.

Now, on average, both Leclerc and Hamilton had been both discouraged as well as favoured by the modification. I don't believe, Hamilton would be crying over this modification now. In fact, it would further strengthen his claim as the best of the last decade if he wins the season. Even his detractors will stop comparing him to other overrated idiots like vettel. If Leclerc wins this, it would clearly represent him as the best.

[dans79]

How would that be "punishing the fastest car?"

It's only trying to reduce the delta of the last grand Prix. On average, at the end of the season, each would have had equal chances.

The tracks currently on the calendar are drastically different with regards to how easy it is to overtake on them. For example It's substantially easier to pass at a slower car at Monza than it is at Monaco, so the chances are not equal across the season. When you start adding in the tertiary issues, the chances an individual driver gets, it could end up being very un-equal.

I don't believe, Hamilton would be crying over this modification now. In fact, it would further strengthen his claim as the best of the last decade if he wins the season.

The top teams have roughly a thousand employees each, and f1 is about more than the drivers ego.

[czubak]

Your argument about unequal tracks is accurate especially in tracks such as singapore where overtaking a Mercedes, Ferrari or even Redbull is almost impossible but still a progress towards reducing the delta in the grid should be trialed and improved rather than be discouraged

They can try methods like, getting rid off pitstop, modifying both the downforce as well as aerodynamics so that, more overtakings is possible at sharp turns, synthesizing and utilizing hardened tyres such that free air for leading cars is no longer an effective factor.

Where did I mention anything about driver's ego? Why don't you go and fight Binotto to assign equal salary as his to the pitwall squad employee, rather than using it as an argument against someone who simply wants to see a race where cars actually race instead of queuing for the most part of the race? I wanted to see who performs at best if Hamilton, Leclerc and even Verstappen are given equal platform. Isn't it the fundamental principle of any game to neutralise the difference obtained by any particular team or participant and to allow them to exhibit their talent in equal start? Why are you arguing to me about the number of employees in the field? The institutional managements of the individual teams is not my topic of discussion.

[strad]

tertiary????

[dans79]

They can try methods like, getting rid off pitstop, modifying both the downforce as well as aerodynamics so that, more overtakings is possible at sharp turns, synthesizing and utilizing hardened tyres such that free air for leading cars is no longer an effective factor.

No matter how much they minimize the DF loss to the car behind, as Phil mentioned their is still a natural delta that has to be overcome. The natural delta is roughly 2 car lengths minimum, time wise it depends on the speed the cars are traveling.

The cars already spend an infinitesimal amount of time in the breaking zones (thanks to the carbon-carbon brakes), so pulling off a pass under breaking is essentially impossible today.

In modern F1, almost every pass you see is down to DRS, a tire performance or life delta, or the leading driver not defending to much because he has to conserve tires for the fight with their real competition.

If you get rid of pit-stops, and resort to hard tires that don't degrade, then you have severely reduced the number of tools the following driver has to fight with.

Why are you arguing to me about the number of employees in the field?

Because F1 is about more than the drivers and the cars. Its a team based development race, as much as it is anything else. In some ways you could look at it as ritualized warfare.