The solution! - a theory...

[NiceGuyEddie]

In another thread fellowmember garcon posted this:

Yeah, we shouldn't really have expected much in hte way of excitement at Barcelona. Just goes to emphasise Martin Brundle's (and others') point that the biggest change we need in F1 is to the top surface aero packages to allow cars to get closer to each other.

Perhaps Brundle has a point, but aren't we skipping a step? In order to allow cars to run close together, they at least should be able to keep up with eachother.

In my theory the pickingorder between the cars is pretty much pre-destined due to tyres and track-layout. Overall the order in this season looks set to be: Ferrari - BAR - Renault/Williams - McLaren - Toyota - Sauber - Jaguar - Jordan - Minardi.

That in itself shouldn't have to be a problem. It wouldn't be a problem if this order wasn't held up in qualifying and therefor on the starting grid. We can only have overtaking attempts when a slower car is running ahead of a faster car to begin with. In any other event, overtaking or even the possibility over overtaking is non-existent. This leads to the type of procession we've seen again today.

The solution would as obvious as it is easy.

In the current qualifyingformat and Parc Ferme-ruling the FIA have done everything in its power to make sure that the order in qualifying is pretty much the order in the race, or at least the first stint. Of course, this is totally wrong because cars that were faster in qualifying will probably be faster in the race too. Those cars lining up ahead to begin with makes overtaking virtually impossible.

So, instead of purposely making rules that make sure that the cars when lined up for the start of the race, are as close as possible to the cars in qualifying (or exactly the same as the FIA seems to want it) the qualifyingsession and the race should -in its regulation- be separated as far as possible.

A format should be created in which cars can be fundamentally better in qualifying than in the race and vice versa. Than and only then we could have the situation in which cars that lack relatively on racepace will be lining up ahead of cars that do rely on racepace, and only than a grid has the potential to serve up an interesting race with cars closing in and attempting to overtake.

So what we need is the return of qualifyingengines, qualifyingtyres, the whole shebang. Parc Ferme-ruling should be thrown out the window all together.

Today, the qualifyingsession is not determined on qualifyingpace, it is determined on racepace, thus leading to the situation in which the grid is illustrating racepace, rather than qualifyingpace. Like I said, cars with better racepace lining up ahead for the start of the race is killer for the chance of ontrack duelling, overtaking and overtakingattempts.

The FIA should acknowledgde that qualifyingpace is not the same as racepace and the FIA should do everything in its power to make sure the rules are designed to make the difference between qualifyingpace and racepace as big as possible. We need action and competition on two fronts. Both in qualifying and both in the race. Cars in qualifying should have relative freedom in regulation, where as cars in race-configuration should be tighter regulated.

Of course this is no sure guarantee of spiced up racing, but I think we'd have a way better shot at it. Even if it does mean that the FIA has to change it's view on qualifying on 180 degrees.

And then we can think of changing aerodynamic characteristics in order to allow the cars to run close to eachother, like Brundle (and many more) have stated for years and years already.

Could it be that simple?

[Gt_R]

One guy (patrick head? or Max/bernie..i forgot) said that in simple theory, there shouldn't even be any overtaking because the quickest car qualifies in front, and the slowest at the back...and comes the race, the quickest car will go faster than the slow and just open a gap. *scary*

The thing is that the format of quals isn't going to be easy to change... The current format may allow a fast car on a heavy fuel load to be outqualified by a slower car with little fuel going for a glory lap...and there we have it..a fast car behind a slow car..

Unfortunately, this meant that no longer we can judge who's the outright quickest unlike in the past where fuel load for quals is the same

[JGM]

If both qualifying and the race are run according to a strict meritocracy (whatever the format) the same people will start at the front of the grid and the same people will go on winning races. I see no problem with this.I like meritocracies. This isn't the People's Socialist Republic of Formula One where everything has to be shared out equally irrespective of competence.

[DriverT]

Yes. Whichever way you run it, the good drivers will still run at the front and so they should. You're right, competence does matter.

[Liz]

That is very true -- if it is a competition, the best man should always win.

But as has been pointed out relentlessly, Formula One is also a business. A competition in which the result is always the same and can be predicted accurately the day before will not attract a constant audience, particularly if that audience is required to get up at 4:00 a.m. to take it in. A competition with no audience becomes a competition with no money, which becomes a competition with no television contract -- which becomes a business that is not making any money.

I believe that Max/Bernie's concern is not really "How can we improve the competition" but rather "How can we assure our sponsors of an audience?" Which you will have to admit is a completely different question. The current situation provides a good audience for qualifying and a declining audience for the main event, which ought to be reversed. Or maybe not. It's an interesting question.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie




In order to allow cars to run close together, they at least should be able to keep up with eachother.

Overall the order in this season looks set to be: Ferrari - BAR - Renault/Williams - McLaren - Toyota - Sauber - Jaguar - Jordan - Minardi.

I have highlighted BAR and McLaren. By your reckoning (one, i agree with incidently) BAR were second fastest team this weekend, McLaren fifth fastest. When Button was running behind DC, second car against fifth, he couldn't get past on the track.

There is something seriously wrong when the second fastest car can't get past the fifth fastest.

[Hugh Jarce]

Just shows the track is 'sterile'.

Many have commented how hard it is to pass and yet Barcelona is trumpeted by many as being one of the most secure to keep a GP in Europe.

Yup - keep one at the top of the frame which is like watching kids at a fairground in cars on rails.

Funny old world!

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Mr V
I have highlighted BAR and McLaren. By your reckoning (one, i agree with incidently) BAR were second fastest team this weekend, McLaren fifth fastest. When Button was running behind DC, second car against fifth, he couldn't get past on the track.

There is something seriously wrong when the second fastest car can't get past the fifth fastest.

Yes indeed. I was quite puzzled on how BAR seemed to lack racepace in relation to Bahrein and Imola. Not only wasn't Button able to make an impression, Takuma wasn't able to keep up with the Renaults. On Dutch TV Dave Richards said they will analyze this sudden downfall on racepace, and for now I suspect this is incidental. I believe BAR is still fundamentally quicker than Renault and Williams (albeit it not by much), but today they underwhelmed.

Liz> you point out correct that the question of the need for competition is -in itself- a different question of the need for an audiencepleasing race. All in all though I think we can conclude both of them used to go hand in hand more or less, but not these days. I consider myself a Ferrari-fanatic but I am also a racefanatic. The problem I see myself concerned with is that Ferrari-success nowadays seems to be pointing in the direction of a boring race and if I'd had the choice, I would choose for an interesting race without Ferrari-success. An interesting race with Ferrari-success would be better, but that combination just doesn't seem to be a serious alternative these days.

More on the subject: How wrong could the FIA be? Whats the point in creating a grid on the criteria of racepace rather than the criteria of qualifyingpace? The race is already run on saturday afternoon. Especially when the FIA is forcing the teams to make extremely reliable cars. If you can't overtake because the faster car is already ahead anyway, if no car breaks down and if it doesn't rain or anything than in the current format the grid on saturday is pretty much what you are going to get on sunday.

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Mr V
I have highlighted BAR and McLaren. By your reckoning (one, i agree with incidently) BAR were second fastest team this weekend, McLaren fifth fastest. When Button was running behind DC, second car against fifth, he couldn't get past on the track.

There is something seriously wrong when the second fastest car can't get past the fifth fastest.

Good point Mr V.

Have these cars just out-grown these tracks? It seems nearly impossible for them to put on a decent show at the traditional circuits anymore...

[Mark Webber]

I think the one engine rule while cutting cost is hurting F1 to a point . The designers have done such a job that the day of suprize results are nearly a thing of the past in a way its a same

[f1atic]

Interesting discussion -
NiceGuyEddie - the reference to order you make is "pecking" not "picking" and the origin is from barnyard foul. They sort out who is the boss by "pecking" at each other until one is a "chicken" naturally.

[L-B]

GP Racer
- except Silverstone - but of course Bernie hates that cos they can overtake in front of the unwashed out on the track and not the pampered in the pits.

[grumpy1]

I have said before,and been critisised,for the following.
Most drivers in F1 now are pilots and not drivers.There are very few drivers who can actually pass now and the problem doesn't only exsist in F1.The feeder classes are becoming more advanced and are requiring the driver to do less.The only way to fix this and make it competitive is do the following.
1.Control fuel injection.
2.Control engine block displacement.(Control the displacement but allow the teams the freedom to develop any way they want.
3.Reduce areo aids.(Ban all areo attachments other than nose and tail.
4.Allow slicks again but not control tyres.
5.Increase the points margin between postions(ie 1st 20 points 2nd 16 points etc 3rd 12points and there after 2 points for all finishers on the leed lap)
6.And most important.All computer controlled aids are banned.This is easily done with a control system on the injection.(each team will have to supply electrical scematics to scrutiners each GP.Any variation and the car is either banned at the start and the team penillised by not allowing the car to run or if after the event the team is disquailified not just the offending car.By disqualifying the team should be incentive enough not to break the rules.)

The Grumpy1
P.S.I'm sure there's more to add to it.

[Gt_R]

Grumpy1: sorry to question, but 1-2 doesn't improve racing on track, 3 (look at Ferrari's airbox wings...it's integrated and not attachment, should it be allowed?), 4.Slicks doesn't make much improvement IMO because tyres today are already far grippier than the slicks of the 90s.5 the current point system can be improved, but i doubt that's the way to go (esp 2 pts per finisher on lead lap)..6.maybe it'd add a bit more spice but not significantly enough.

Anyway, did somebody say cars outgrowing the tracks? I think so too..in the sense that the straights nowadays are too short or too narrow for modern F1 cars to encourage much racing. and from what we see from Bahrain..a staight must start off with a tight corner...

[freud]

Originally posted by Liz

I believe that Max/Bernie's concern is not really "How can we improve the competition" but rather "How can we assure our sponsors of an audience?" Which you will have to admit is a completely different question.

Completely agree with you, Liz. And here lies the enigma... the word 'Sponsor'. I wonder what Max and Bernie think about f-1 fans?

Patrick Head said that Ferrari, being the state of the art machine that it is now, has a duty to f1 fans to provide them some entertainment... But as we all know, the Ferrari management is only interested is 'winning'.. not at 'appeasing' the average fan... I wonder what that German F. thinks about his fans... what was going through his mind when he was passing Rubens at Austria 2002?? I wonder what he cares more about.. the number of his fans or the number of his wins??

Nice guy eddie ... in the 2004 f1, position on the grid does NOT matter! what matters is whether you have a fast car or not. Qualifying sessions have never been as useless as they are since past few years.

[Gt_R]

Funny how "a solution" to improve racing from a technical/the-way-quals-is-held viewpoint manages to evolve into MS and that Austrian incident again.

Quote:"Patrick Head said that Ferrari, being the state of the art machine that it is now, has a duty to f1 fans to provide them some entertainment"

I think it's the duty of Head to get his car up front to challenge MS and "provide (fans) some entertainment". I wonder what Williams think about their fans..what was going through their mind when they decide to built a car not as fast as Ferrari... :duh:

Ferrari's duty in F1 is not to make a movie or a show. Their job, from Luca to Michael to the mechanic, is to provide the team with the best car/equipment to compete and win. And don't kid yourself if you think Ferrari is the only team thinking of winning... every team/driver dreams of being in Ferrari's/MS's shoes...to "bleat" about it when they can't is nothing but sour grapes.. Did Juan ever look happy standing anywhere but the top step of the podium? Only a win can satisfy him. And when Button stands on 2nd for the next 3 years...with wins eluding him..you think he'd still be happy? And why does Ron look so unhappy nowadays? His cars are not winning! He himself said that he wake up to blues and body aches when Mclaren isn't performing well...guess he must be suffering from nightmares now too..

Austrian 2002 (as tired a topic as it is), MS doesn't think of raking up more wins when it happened. What the Ferrari TEAM thought was to maximise their results in that race, with a view of maximising their chances for WDC. Nobody made the decision just to help MS get win no.X...

Please don't start on such topics, because Mclaren and Williams have their fair share of ugly history too. Anyway, Austrian 2002 is an incident 2 years ago..there hasn't been a repeat this year, and even last..so get over it and get back on the topic

[freud]

Its very funny Gt_R.. this guy from india (he cleans sewerage lines in our building and collects wastes) was doing some repair work in my bathroom as i was watching the spanish GP... and surprisingly he says

'I also watch f1.. where is Montoya?'

I said 'Sorry, your driver is out of the race'.

And you know what that guy says to me...

'Ahh.. we all know that f1 is a fixed sport. They just want Schumacher to win all the time because he pays bribes'!!!!!

And I was just flabbergasted!! I mean here is an average guy, probably a student here in US working part-time, saying this. Can you imagine that a guy from a thirld world country thinks that in this era and day and age. a driver can pay bribes????

I just think he is stupid or senseless but the point is that he is still one f1 fan!! No matter how unique an f1 fan he might be but this incident just proves that people dont exactly respect the current F1 as a sport as e.g. they respect Golf. And please, this is not a 'fact; just my humble opinion.

[Red]

Always baffles me what's that fuzz about "show". This is not a show that should provide entertainment. This is motorsport. Like in every other sport you need to beat the opponents. How anyone who can call himself fan and say that he loves F1 can think other ways is kinda beyond me.

Anyway, back to topic. (and not too far from the above paragraph). That imbecile qual format is a direct result of "we want show entertainment and overtakings" general demand. They DID bet on the fact that some drivers might make a mistake in that single lap and won't be able to correct it. Then they'd be forced to start from the back and "provide entertainment". Guess what, that doesn't happen. Ok, every now and then some youngster puts the car on the grass, but that doesn't happen every GP and that's not the rule.

The drawback is that the teams really can't correct and alter their strategies after a not so good qual session. Something they could do a couple of years back. The result? Fast cars still start first in 99% occasions, and the other teams can't do anything about it. They also adjusted the strategies as well and instead on 1/2 stops per lap we have 3 maybe 4. But oh well, Maximilian Rufus Mosley (sir) showed that he cares of the future of F1.

[NiceGuyEddie]

It just goes to show that the FIA is always one or two steps behind the teams.

In setting the onelap-qualifying the FIA anticipated on drivers making a mistake in their hotlap. Sure, it did happen, but it happens occasionly and it hardly ever is of any serious consequence. If anything, driver are more conservative in their hotlaps.

In setting the oneengine-rule the FIA was anticipating on engines failing, therefor contributing to surprise results (and of course the cutting of costs), but this one is also backfiring. Now engines are not failing (although Kimi would disagree) and the chance of surpriseresults seem to be slimmer than ever.

Al these factors are highlighted by the fact that Ferrari has no contenders. 2003 looked set to be a turnover year. In comparison to 2002, Schumacher wasn´t really walking away with it and it certainly looked like Williams and McLaren (or the be more exact: Michelin) were set to take over reign in 2004, or at least to give Schumacher an even harder time in 2004. None of that. On the contrary. Both Williams and McLaren have not been able to sustain their threats to Ferrari. Neither of them kept momentum and their 2004-contenders are, in relation to the Ferrari, of lesser quality than during the 2003 season. BAR is surprisingly charging, but BAR has to come from a long way back and today they aren´t just as well no match for the Ferrari. Perhaps in qualifying, but certainly not on racepace.

So, there are circumstances that take away from the excitement that are beyond FIA-control, but the circumstances that are within FIA-control, are controlled badly and without much vision.

Perhaps it would be best of an independend comity (independend from both FIA and the teams) of technical and legal experts would investigate these problems and come up with a proposal both in terms of technical measurements and terms of regulation, to get the racing back into Formula 1.

In that sense I believe we have to abandon the idea that Formula 1 needs to be a playground for the technicians. Technical development is virtually always directed to taking control away from the driver and replace it with some sort of system. At the end, drivers are no longer racing a car, they are operating it.

Formula 1 shouldn´t be regarded as a showcase for the technical standards of the big manufacturers in this world, it should be regarded as the highest level in mondial motorsport, and therefor it is simply not necessary to take the technical standards to a level in which they definately destroy the racing by taking it away from the driver. People associate with drivers, not with software systems.

[Gt_R]

I'm surprised that how people talk about F1 being too business minded and that Sports take a back seat, yet want "entertainment" to take priority over "sports".

I mean, if a soccer match becomes boring with Arsenal trashing the oppsition, does the FA throw in another 3 balls onto the pitch and "increase entertainment"?

Anyway, i agree that F1 has MANY fans, and different fans like different aspects of F1. Some love the technical brilliance...while others love a particular driver/team. Some may just be casual followers while others are hardcore enough to flip through history and know every part of F1..

Each type of fans demand a different thing...what FIA has is a tougher than said job of compromising and put up a "good show" without devaluating the quality of competition and spirit.

[Red]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
It just goes to show that the FIA is always one or two steps behind the teams.

And it will always be like this. FIA's role is by no means to "increase entertainment" but to provide a set of rules, and let the best win. What really bugs me is that the teams themselves, knowingly or being fooled by FIA, they do complice to this farce.

I have no problem with changing rules, be it Sporting or technical or both, I do have a problem with them changing withought actually thinking, and I also have a problem with the cause of those changes. "Increase entertainment". pfft.

[NiceGuyEddie]

I agree that entertainment shouldn't be a goal in itself. If that is the case there's no stopping in stageging races just to make it look like there is something going on. Ferrari could be slowing to accomodate BAR and Williams to suggest that the battle for victory is close, and BAR and Williams could slow down to accomodate Renault etc. etc. Certainly that shouldn't be reality. But fact of the matter is that Formula 1's sales-pitch is entertainment. Once F1 stops to deliver entertainment, or that F1 is regulated in a way that entertainment is taken out of the equation, than that would be the end of F1 all together.

So as far as entertainment shouldn't be the prime goal in the regulations, it most certainly should be a realistic consequence of those same regulations. Therefor the regulations must be made in order to give room to ontrack duelling and the current qualifyingformat and one-engine rule seem to prevent just that.

[Liz]

But you do have to admit that these people are not racing for their own entertainment and to show off how great their toys are to each other -- the sponsors want to sell products and the competitors and engine manufacturers want to sell cars. If nobody is watching, or if the audience they hope to attract is not watching, the other things really don't make a bit of difference, do they?

I agree that the "entertainment" should not be manufactured if it doesn't exist; perhaps the answer is to do nothing and see how far things will fall before they hit the limit of the collective patience of the people who pay the bills. This is a natural process in all sports. We are about to have a year-long lockout of the National Hockey League because people are demanding (and have been getting) $3 million a year, when their talents are worth $10.00 an hour at their dad's filling station in Flin Flon; finally the ticket prices can't be jacked up any higher and the product is so diluted that the fans are not watching or buying -- and now will come the crash, the shakeout, and the rebuilding on a more realistic level.

You can sell lemonade for $1 million per glass, but you ought not to expect to sell very much. Maybe the current version of Formula One has about reached the amount the traffic will bear -- teams, fans, sponsors and all -- or maybe not. But nobody ought to be surprised when that day comes,

[freud]

Exactly, Liz. My concern is that the 'fans' are watching. See the crowd at barcelona... I mean botom line is that its the 'number of heads' that count not what's inside

As long as the head count is ok, Bernie/Max are all set. One example is that waste-disposal guy from India. He told me that he's been watching f1 for 10 years and he just loves those shiny cars. Before he used to watch bullock carts go round and for him the current f1 is heaven. I mean there are every type of f1 fan on this planet and this guy is just one example...

[Andrew2001]

The answer is stop allowing Ferrari so much say over the FIA's decisions. That's it!
You can't ban team orders so to speak, or ban many such things that are hard to police, but you can tell Jean Todt to go **** a duck.