GPWizard F1 Forum

F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: markfarrell9572 on September 25, 2011, 06:32:35 PM

Title: Sitting out a session
Post by: markfarrell9572 on September 25, 2011, 06:32:35 PM
Formula 1 is an expensive sport to follow, to go to a race is hugely expensive, many fans throughout the world have to pay to watch on TV, as will be the case in Britain and Ireland next year too.  Considering that we the fans shell out hard earned money to follow our support is it too much to ask that if the car has no problems every team runs every car in every available session.  I know its not the first time its happened, but yesterday I was completely unimpressed by Force India not running during Q3.  The fans who paid to be at the track, the people who pay TV subscriptions pay to see 10 cars battling for position in Q3, not eight cars.  Maybe as a deterrent to this, and a way of giving fans value for money, any driver that doesn't run in each session he doesn't have a problem should lose one set of Primes and one set of Options.  That might put a halt to the practice.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Dare on September 25, 2011, 06:36:51 PM
I didn't like it either Mark.I worked yesterday and when I looked
at the live timing results I thought there had been some accidents
or breakdowns.Mercedes only ran 1 lap in Q3
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Scott on September 25, 2011, 07:27:15 PM
Rip Off - no easier way to say it.  It's not just the team's fault, it's also the FIA and their tire allotment rules. 

Save money?  Why not just cancel Q all together if the only goal is to save money.  Want to put on a show that people and sponsors will pay for, then put on a show. 
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: John S on September 25, 2011, 07:31:59 PM

You can't blame FIF1, it's the stupid rules. When you are in the mid field you have to do whatever it takes to maximise your chance in the constructors title. Of course it's too much to expect a mid field team to compromise their race prospects unless the rules demand it. Quite why the FIA never saw the problem from a scenario like this is what should be looked at, all the blame for too few cars running in Q3 rests with Todt's dummies. 

Clearly the two Force India cars would only have been competing with each other, their fastest times were still about a second behind Merc who were the slowest of the top eight, so no chance to improve their grid slots.

Instead of bleating on about the no show  the BBC commentators would have done better to fully explain why the FIF1 cars, and as it turns out one of the Merc cars, were not running, at the same time telling the rulemakers to get their finger out.

I reckon for Q3 each team should get an extra set of the option tyres, but one set would be taken back at the end of Q3. If a car does not set a Q3 time inside the 107% rule on options, in a dry session, they have to give back two sets of options. I think this will make all the teams have one decent run in Q3, with nearly all going for two - or maybe three at some tracks.  :good:  - Alternatively they could just give anyone who fails to set a Q3 time (inside 107%) a 2 place grid drop.  ;)



 
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on September 25, 2011, 07:35:15 PM
If the FIA insists on having regulations that make teams have to decide between making qualifying exciting and the race exciting, they shouldn't be surprised when teams make compromises. The penalty Mark proposed, while interesting, would merely put teams like Force India back to square one - where there's still no incentive to go out there because they'd have the same number of useful tyres whether in or out and no particular reason to believe they could improve their situation by being out. At that point, the engine and gearbox mileage mean that staying in the pits, penalty or no penalty, would still be the better decision for them giving themselves the best chance in the race (and thus making the race optimally exciting).

A better idea would be to have a system whereby 2 soft is given out in Q1 and 1 more in each of Q2 and Q3 if and only if a time was set on softs in each preceding session. If you set a time in Q3 on softs you would get a set of softs that could be started upon in the race. That way, the more you run (and thus the more exciting the qualifying), the more sets of unused tyres you should have (and thus the more exciting the race). No point in doing anything with the primes because nobody uses more than a set of those in the race anyway unless something really bizarre happens such as a puncture or a bad miscalculation from Pirelli.

Mercedes were initially meaning to run both their drivers for 1 flying lap. Rosberg was first out of the pit and did his, but Schumacher saw he could not catch his team-mate (he might have made an error somewhere). The fact he'd set out onto the track in Q3 put him in front of the Force Indias, so he had nothing to gain from completing his flying lap. He did, however, make an attempt, and it is right that such attempts be encouraged. Intellectually I understand perfectly why Force India acted as it did, but emotionally I still feel there should be a better solution than to force teams to compromise entertainment in one part of the weekend or another.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 26, 2011, 12:38:08 AM
We had this discussion after the last race.

I stand by my suggestion of using your time from your last session as your qualifying time.  That is, a car in Q3 with no time starts at the end of the grid.  A car with a poor time in Q2 might start BEHIND a car knocked out in Q1.  It means that every session COUNTS.  The three rounds were intended to reduce traffic so the top cars could have a 'shoot out', and I think this change still attains that goal, while providing full value to fans.

Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Willy on September 26, 2011, 04:25:28 AM
I stand by my suggestion of using your time from your last session as your qualifying time.  That is, a car in Q3 with no time starts at the end of the grid.  A car with a poor time in Q2 might start BEHIND a car knocked out in Q1.  It means that every session COUNTS.  The three rounds were intended to reduce traffic so the top cars could have a 'shoot out', and I think this change still attains that goal, while providing full value to fans. (ftp://I stand by my suggestion of using your time from your last session as your qualifying time.  That is, a car in Q3 with no time starts at the end of the grid.  A car with a poor time in Q2 might start BEHIND a car knocked out in Q1.  It means that every session COUNTS.  The three rounds were intended to reduce traffic so the top cars could have a 'shoot out', and I think this change still attains that goal, while providing full value to fans.)

Yup I agree.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on September 26, 2011, 06:34:47 AM
FIF1 had nothing to gain from running in Q3. I fail to see how them going out and setting the slowest times would add to the "show". On the other hand saving a set of softs gave them a chance to do something exciting in the race. Given a choice between a predictable effort in qualifying or a wild card in the race, I'll opt for the race. Manipulating the rules to force them likely would not have altered the grid, but does eliminate a strategy choice from the mix.  :DntKnw:
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: John S on September 26, 2011, 10:24:16 AM
Manipulating the rules to force them likely would not have altered the grid, but does eliminate a strategy choice from the mix.  :DntKnw:

Unless, as I suggested earlier in the thread, they supply an extra set of options to all cars in Q3 which puts them back in the same position.

 

Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: David on September 26, 2011, 08:17:25 PM
You should have to set a time in Q3, full stop!

I like the idea of winning another set of options when you make Q3.  :good:
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 26, 2011, 09:32:15 PM
You should have to set a time in Q3, full stop!

I like the idea of winning another set of options when you make Q3.  :good:

I don't know about the extra set of tires.  Keeping the costs of the sport down is a good goal, until the back end teams are stronger.

As a fan, I do like that there is a small penalty for being at the front, and a small advantage to being at the back.  Otherwise, the fastest car wins the race, which is how it should be, but makes for a dull 2 hours of TV when it's a foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on September 27, 2011, 07:23:05 PM
We had this discussion after the last race.

I stand by my suggestion of using your time from your last session as your qualifying time.  That is, a car in Q3 with no time starts at the end of the grid.  A car with a poor time in Q2 might start BEHIND a car knocked out in Q1.  It means that every session COUNTS.  The three rounds were intended to reduce traffic so the top cars could have a 'shoot out', and I think this change still attains that goal, while providing full value to fans.

This would mean that if the conditions deteriorated for any reason in a session after Q1, nobody would have an incentive to do any running whatsoever.

It also forces everyone to do a "banker" lap because if anyone crashes during a "one and only" lap, anybody with a time need not bother setting a time - it's worth losing 5-7 places these days to save 1 set of tyre and at least 10 places to save 2. The sessions still don't count for anyone who can't get near the cut-off for each Q session, and thence to anyone who isn't a pole candidate in Q3. Which means it's in nearly everyone's interest to not run in any Q session at all...

It's a method that looks like it should increase the action on-track but would produce the opposite effect.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on September 27, 2011, 07:24:44 PM
Manipulating the rules to force them likely would not have altered the grid, but does eliminate a strategy choice from the mix.  :DntKnw:

Unless, as I suggested earlier in the thread, they supply an extra set of options to all cars in Q3 which puts them back in the same position.

Every car in Q3 that sets a time on soft tyres. Presumably anyone who doesn't set a time in Q3, or only sets it on a hard or wet tyre, doesn't need to be given a set of tyres to redress the balance.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on September 27, 2011, 07:42:59 PM
You should have to set a time in Q3, full stop!

I like the idea of winning another set of options when you make Q3.  :good:

I don't know about the extra set of tires.  Keeping the costs of the sport down is a good goal, until the back end teams are stronger.

That can be done. Simply take away one of the soft sets from earlier in the weekend (I'd nominate the Friday afternoon one) and use it as a Q3 reward instead.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 27, 2011, 08:15:31 PM
We had this discussion after the last race.

I stand by my suggestion of using your time from your last session as your qualifying time.  That is, a car in Q3 with no time starts at the end of the grid.  A car with a poor time in Q2 might start BEHIND a car knocked out in Q1.  It means that every session COUNTS.  The three rounds were intended to reduce traffic so the top cars could have a 'shoot out', and I think this change still attains that goal, while providing full value to fans.

This would mean that if the conditions deteriorated for any reason in a session after Q1, nobody would have an incentive to do any running whatsoever.

It also forces everyone to do a "banker" lap because if anyone crashes during a "one and only" lap, anybody with a time need not bother setting a time - it's worth losing 5-7 places these days to save 1 set of tyre and at least 10 places to save 2. The sessions still don't count for anyone who can't get near the cut-off for each Q session, and thence to anyone who isn't a pole candidate in Q3. Which means it's in nearly everyone's interest to not run in any Q session at all...

It's a method that looks like it should increase the action on-track but would produce the opposite effect.

There are always special rules for rain in F1.  Off the top of my head, how about if Q3 is declared a 'wet session', as long as a car sets a time in Q3, then use the best of their Q1 and Q2 times.

However, other racing series get by quite fine without any sort of 'fairness' doctrine.  If it rains in Q3, I'm okay with the top teams getting stuck at the back of the grid.  They'll still need to put in times to make sure they're not starting dead last.  Because of the nature of wet/intermediate tires, they don't need to be 'saved' in the same way option tires do.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on September 27, 2011, 10:45:08 PM
If it's due to rain in the race, the wet/intermediates are even more precious than the soft tyres; there's just as few of each compound as there are of soft tyres and there's no safe alternative if they're not usable.

Most other forms of racing don't need a "fairness" doctrine because they don't have such convoluted systems of qualifying in the first place. Which in turn happens because they don't put "entertainment" so far above "sport".
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 28, 2011, 03:15:03 PM
If it's due to rain in the race, the wet/intermediates are even more precious than the soft tyres; there's just as few of each compound as there are of soft tyres and there's no safe alternative if they're not usable.

Most other forms of racing don't need a "fairness" doctrine because they don't have such convoluted systems of qualifying in the first place. Which in turn happens because they don't put "entertainment" so far above "sport".

The supersofts have one good lap, so using them in any Q session makes them less special.

I've never heard the same said of the intermediates/wets.  I know they get used up over time, so lap count is relevant, but there's nothing special about the 'first lap'.

I suppose the main issue is to balance the triumverate of 'sport', 'entertainment' and 'cost'.  There's so many hands in the pot, it's hard to say which way Formula One is leaning at any given time. 
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Canada Darrell™ on September 28, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Man, this is wayyyy to complicated...Q1, Q2, Q3.....

Time for a page from Nascar. Lottery balls to determine the Q order at each race or reverse order from previous race (lottery balls for race 1 only in that case) where the first place finisher gets the final qualifying run. One set of tires THAT YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO START ON!, fuel load topped right to the brim and all the aero in race trim.

1 warmup lap and 2 hot laps to set your time. Send out the next car as soon as the previous runner has finished the 2nd hot lap (2nd lap would be optional).

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy

Either that or send 'em all out for 60 minutes like the good old days.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on September 29, 2011, 06:01:37 AM
I think the current system works pretty well. By not running in Q3 and understanding how the primes would work in the race, Di Resta was able to get his best result of the season. It is doubtful he could have achieved that result if he had used a set of options to move 1 or 2 spots up the order. A strategic decision that got the desired result, and added an interesting aspect to the race. I would say that was a good thing.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: John S on September 29, 2011, 10:28:57 AM
I think the current system works pretty well. By not running in Q3 and understanding how the primes would work in the race, Di Resta was able to get his best result of the season. It is doubtful he could have achieved that result if he had used a set of options to move 1 or 2 spots up the order. A strategic decision that got the desired result, and added an interesting aspect to the race. I would say that was a good thing.

Like you Lonny I have no problem with the current set up and it does indeed give a different angle to the race. Sadly however the modern media world has led viewers to expect action for the sake of it, overlooking the extra interest to be gained in the actual race from teams like FIF1 playing the tactical card.
As I said earlier the commentators should do very much more to explain why teams like FIF1 choose not to run in Q3, especially Brundle and Coulthard who are supposed to be au fait with all things F1 .  >:(







Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 29, 2011, 03:15:11 PM
Man, this is wayyyy to complicated...Q1, Q2, Q3.....

Time for a page from Nascar. Lottery balls to determine the Q order at each race or reverse order from previous race (lottery balls for race 1 only in that case) where the first place finisher gets the final qualifying run. One set of tires THAT YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO START ON!, fuel load topped right to the brim and all the aero in race trim.

1 warmup lap and 2 hot laps to set your time. Send out the next car as soon as the previous runner has finished the 2nd hot lap (2nd lap would be optional).

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy

Either that or send 'em all out for 60 minutes like the good old days.

I am not a fan of single car qualifying as a spectator.

I appreciate the 'fairness' of it (of course, the last guy gets a rubbered in track... and there's always the possibility of rain.)

F1 tried it, and I don't think that it went over well.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 29, 2011, 03:22:54 PM
I think the current system works pretty well. By not running in Q3 and understanding how the primes would work in the race, Di Resta was able to get his best result of the season. It is doubtful he could have achieved that result if he had used a set of options to move 1 or 2 spots up the order. A strategic decision that got the desired result, and added an interesting aspect to the race. I would say that was a good thing.

Like you Lonny I have no problem with the current set up and it does indeed give a different angle to the race. Sadly however the modern media world has led viewers to expect action for the sake of it, overlooking the extra interest to be gained in the actual race from teams like FIF1 playing the tactical card.
As I said earlier the commentators should do very much more to explain why teams like FIF1 choose not to run in Q3, especially Brundle and Coulthard who are supposed to be au fait with all things F1 .  >:(


I suppose it's part of the greater threat to F1 Bernie pricing it out of reach.  For promoters to make their money back, they need to sell tickets.  If you can pack the stands for TWO days, that's a lot more money than one day.  If Q isn't worth watching, no one is gonig to pay to see it.  I appreciate why cars would sit out Q from a strategic level, but I have to say that any rules that favour a race car NOT racing seems backwards.

It's like a dive in soccer, or a quarterback throwing the ball away, or the intentional walk in baseball.  It's all there, and it makes sense from a competitive point of view, and it's no fun at all.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on September 30, 2011, 06:04:25 AM
There are never as many people watching qualifying as the race. It is therefore more important that the race be exciting than for qualifying to be exciting. Di Resta might have been able to move up to 8th on the grid, but he would not have had the tools to get the result he had in the race. In qualifying at Indy, you occasionally find a driver who has qualified and has the opportunity to re-qualify. They can choose to stand on their time, but that risks getting bumped. When Di Resta sat out Q3, he gambled that an extra set of options was worth more than 2 grid spots. He could have bombed and not improved. He had no chance at pole, Singapore has peculiarities that played into the decision as well. I like that there are options open to all teams to gain or lose on a gamble.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Jericoke on September 30, 2011, 03:24:59 PM
There are never as many people watching qualifying as the race. It is therefore more important that the race be exciting than for qualifying to be exciting. Di Resta might have been able to move up to 8th on the grid, but he would not have had the tools to get the result he had in the race. In qualifying at Indy, you occasionally find a driver who has qualified and has the opportunity to re-qualify. They can choose to stand on their time, but that risks getting bumped. When Di Resta sat out Q3, he gambled that an extra set of options was worth more than 2 grid spots. He could have bombed and not improved. He had no chance at pole, Singapore has peculiarities that played into the decision as well. I like that there are options open to all teams to gain or lose on a gamble.

Indy is a whole other ball of wax.  I'm sure that Bernie would love to turn each race into a month long extravaganza.  Of course, even Indy isn't a month long extravaganza any more.   >:(

I suppose where you fall on the issue is what you expect from qualifying. 

a)  Spectacle for (paying) fans
b)  Strategic placement of cars on the grid

It still bothers me that there is a reward for not qualifying, but I suppose at this point, Q is mostly for the fanatics who genuinely appreciate the strategy in which case it may not be 'broken' at all.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on October 01, 2011, 12:32:20 AM
The trouble is that I expect spectacle for paying fans... ...and saving the tyres provides more spectacle for more of them in the more expensive part of the weekend because the racing is better. What's wrong is that the regulations force an either/or choice of this type in the first place, not that teams are deciding one way or the other.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: markfarrell9572 on October 07, 2011, 05:46:40 PM
In this week's Autosport Gary Anderson says that as well as the 107% rule in Q1 there should be a 105% and 103% in Q2 and Q3.  With grid penalties for those failing to make it.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: John S on October 07, 2011, 09:34:49 PM
In this week's Autosport Gary Anderson says that as well as the 107% rule in Q1 there should be a 105% and 103% in Q2 and Q3.  With grid penalties for those failing to make it.

That's just plain daft in my opinion.  :crazy:
Let's see you make it into Q2 but your can't get below 105% of the lead time because you go off whilst trying so you have to go to the back of the grid.  :confused: .....Or you get into Q3 and you pick up a puncture and have to stop out on track without setting a time so you then have to go to the back of the Q2 qualifiers.  ::) 
Whoever dreamed up this load of old nonsense must be a retired E.U. bureaucrat, it's got more machinations than the the treaty of Maastricht.  :D

 
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on October 07, 2011, 11:46:17 PM
In this week's Autosport Gary Anderson says that as well as the 107% rule in Q1 there should be a 105% and 103% in Q2 and Q3.  With grid penalties for those failing to make it.

Nice theory... ...but at the moment that would mean any new team making Q2 would be obliged to stay in the garage because they'd never make the Q2 time whatever they did and any team slower than Mercedes would be obliged to do the same in Q3 for the same reason. So that means at least 2 non-runners every single Q3 and, if more than one person slips up in Q1, one in Q2 as well.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on October 08, 2011, 04:19:05 AM
In "Ye Olden Days" every practice was qualifying. Every lap was timed, any good one could be your grid time. If you put a real flyer in early you could rest on your laurels. Simple, easy, you could put in a Banker. Then they started messing around with it to "improve the show". What we have now is a decent compromise. The fast guys duel it out for pole ( there is a rumor they are changing the name to Vettel Position) the others balance a couple of grid positions against an extra set of options. Interesting choices, opportunities for different strategies, works for me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: markfarrell9572 on October 08, 2011, 06:53:57 PM
From Autosport.com, Paul Hembrey agrees:

Pirelli motorsport boss Paul Hembery believes the fans are being robbed of a show in qualifying with the current Formula 1 regulations.

With the softer tyres dropping off dramatically around Suzuka, several teams decided to limit their running in qualifying on Saturday in order to save sets that could be vital for the race.

Only six drivers posted a time in the final qualifying segment, while many others did just one run during the session.

Hembery believes something needs to be done to stop teams from not running during qualifying.

"I think it's up to us to work with the teams to come up with a solution," said Hembery. "We are robbing the fans of a show. They paid good money to come here today.

"I'm not criticising the teams because I know why they've done it, because they are using the rules to obtain the best result, so it's not a case of that. But I think we have to look at the wider picture and all of us work together to find a solution.

"It's something we discussed with a few of the teams over the last few days and I hope that we can set up something in Korea and start working on some solutions. We are open to any suggestions from the teams. I think we all recognise that something needs to be done."

He also reckons there are plenty of possible solutions to the problem, and it's up to the them to find one that suits all the teams.

"I think we need to get more tyres, find another solution, get qualifying tyres, force teams to use the Q2 tyres in Q3.... There's a multitude of ideas that we can discuss.

"They all have positives and negatives, of course. There's never the perfect solution, but I think sitting on a table and being sensible there has to be a way of finding something that suits everyone."

Hembery reckons, however, that any change to the rules is unlikely to happen before next season.

"I think it needs to be done for next year, being realistic. It's a complex area, because it falls in two categories: sporting and technical. It's not particularly clear."

Mercedes team boss Ross Brawn also reckons the situation needs to be looked at for the good of the sport.

"I suspect we have probably got to have a look at it. Having the back four cars in qualifying not running properly to conserve tyres for the race is not really where we want to be in Formula 1.

"Over the winter we will have a look at how we improve the situation to remove the incentive for cars to save tyres in the final part of qualifying.

"I don't think any of us really want it, so that's how it has evolved. We will work hard to find a solution with the FIA and Pirelli over the winter to avoid it happening because I don't generally think it's a good thing. We should all be out there trying to set a time."

When asked how to solve the issue, Brawn said: "I don't know. We don't want to start introducing more sets of tyres and having a situation where you have to start the race on the tyres you qualify on is not a bad situation, but perhaps that's something we need to look at.

"The simple way to resolve it is more sets of tyres, but there might be a more efficient way of solving the problem."
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Scott on October 08, 2011, 07:15:38 PM
In "Ye Olden Days" every practice was qualifying. Every lap was timed, any good one could be your grid time. If you put a real flyer in early you could rest on your laurels. Simple, easy, you could put in a Banker. Then they started messing around with it to "improve the show". What we have now is a decent compromise. The fast guys duel it out for pole ( there is a rumor they are changing the name to Vettel Position) the others balance a couple of grid positions against an extra set of options. Interesting choices, opportunities for different strategies, works for me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm starting to have more and more fond memories of the old Q.  One hour, go out if you like, or not.  Smart strategists will time it so there aren't any or many slower cars in the way, not so smart won't.  I'm getting tired of this 3 part qualifying - I find myself getting bored until the last two minutes.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on October 08, 2011, 08:03:55 PM
+1 Or maybe like Indycar, 1 session for everyone, then the top 6 go for pole.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on October 09, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
I've got another idea. How about making everyone qualify on hard tyres, and granting one set of soft tyres for each Q where a set of hards was used and a time either attained or reasonably attempted? (Where the car was knocked out before Q3, it could be assumed they'd have run a set of hard tyres for each Q they missed). Everyone would be allowed to start on soft tyres if they wished, assuming they'd earned any, and all soft tyres would be box-fresh. There'd still be some strategy in the hard tyre states, but the best strategy would become doing a run in every possible session. It also wouldn't need any more tyres to be brought to races.
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: John S on October 09, 2011, 06:55:25 PM
I've got another idea. How about making everyone qualify on hard tyres, and granting one set of soft tyres for each Q

Surely that would make it even tougher for the 3 tail end teams to ever get on terms with the others Ali,  :confused:  may just as well divide the grid into two spec classes and have done with it.   ::)

   

Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: cosworth151 on October 10, 2011, 01:36:29 PM
Pirelli motorsport boss Paul Hembery sees the problem, too:

"We are robbing the fans of a show. They paid good money to come here today."

http://www.racer.com/hembery-tire-saving-robbing-the-fans/article/213924/?DCMP=EMC-RACER_DAILY (http://www.racer.com/hembery-tire-saving-robbing-the-fans/article/213924/?DCMP=EMC-RACER_DAILY)
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: Alianora La Canta on October 11, 2011, 11:11:19 PM
Surely that would make it even tougher for the 3 tail end teams to ever get on terms with the others Ali,  :confused:  may just as well divide the grid into two spec classes and have done with it.   ::)

Why would it make it more difficult for the new teams to get on terms? They're all on the same tyres in Q1 except for the top 6-8 drivers anyhow. A new team knocked out in Q1 despite trying to qualify would get 3 sets of soft tyres just like the pole-sitter, except of course the pole-sitter also used 2 other sets of hard tyres to get that pole...
Title: Re: Sitting out a session
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on October 12, 2011, 12:35:22 AM
The idea behind the tire rules was to make teams find the correct strategy to maximize speed versus tire wear/pitstops. All these ideas are designed to remove one of their options. How is that a good thing? I don't really care that much about qualifying, I would rather see a race with teams on as many different strategies as possible. And I'm tired of them constantly tinkering with the rules to "improve the show".
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
Menu Editor Pro 1.0 | Copyright 2013, Matthew Kerle