Q3 - What needs to be done?

duke_toaster · 26 Mar 2008, 20:12 (Ref:2162344)

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/n...ualifying.html

Well, it seems like the best idea would be a superpole, but would the FIA have time to get that through?

BootsOntheSide · 26 Mar 2008, 20:50 (Ref:2162381)

Superpole (one lap each, in reverse order of Q2 positions) would be the best solution. The teams have to realise that a repeat of Malaysia would be farcical for the viewers and drivers. Drivers cruising back can be dangerous, especially in wet or night conditions.

johntt · 26 Mar 2008, 21:00 (Ref:2162394)

Keep Q1 and Q2 as they are, make Q3 into a one lap shootout for the top 10 in the style of qualifying like in 2005.

Also have no relation between fuel levels in qualifying and fuel levels in the race. Let them go as quick as they can.

Down F0rce · 26 Mar 2008, 21:29 (Ref:2162432)

Superpole, no race fuel malarkey.

gachjoel · 26 Mar 2008, 21:53 (Ref:2162469)

If you go to a single lap shoot out,surely you`re going back to the old system which made the viewing very boring.
Keep the system as it is,but the have to do the wind down lap within a certain % of their time.
But give a pre determined fuel level before the start and let them do Q3 with what ever fuel they want,then you get a true feel for who is faster.
imo of course

duke_toaster · 26 Mar 2008, 21:56 (Ref:2162473)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gachjoel

If you go to a single lap shoot out,surely you`re going back to the old system which made the viewing very boring.

I don't think anyone has suggested a change to one attempt quali for all, that would be dull as dishwater. Unless the DragonForces got nitrous

Super Hans · 26 Mar 2008, 22:04 (Ref:2162481)

I'd suggest keeping things the same, but with all laps to be within 110% of each competitor's quickest time. Ultimately, it was an anomaly which caused the situation in Malaysia, and a small tweak is all that's needed in my opinion.

Hugh Jarce · 26 Mar 2008, 22:12 (Ref:2162489)

I'm getting a bit tired of all the complexities.

How about just starting in the order they finished / retired in the last race?

Just a thought and it would be so simple.

At the mo, Ferrari and McL dominate so why not add reliability factors and poor driving and it could be nicely mixed up.

Only issue is the lost revenue / crowds for Saturday qualies - so perhaps the drivers could run round the track in fancy dress to compensate.

**ScotsBrutesFan** · 26 Mar 2008, 22:12 (Ref:2162490)

yup a hard boundary time for the final laps...107% or as Super Hans has suggested 110%.
Basically it doesn't need an overhaul, just something to keep the cars from such a drastic slow down....of and course Teams must keep their eye on the timing and perhaps more importantly the GPS screen to inform their in-lapping driver that someone is coming up behind them on a fast lap.

If they drop below the hard boundary then the team points to their telemetry and GPS overlay to say they slowed and made a deliberate effort to get out of the way of a faster car.
Pat on the back and we all go racing.

**Born Racer** · 26 Mar 2008, 23:11 (Ref:2162547)

I have one major issue with running one lap at a time and that is that some drivers could be majorly disadvantaged by track conditions. If it starts pouring with rain for example, the drivers who have to follow that never get a fair chance.

I do like the idea of getting to see each driver's lap.

Another issue I have with single-lap qualifying, a more minor one but that is still significant, is that too much emphasis on the whole Grand Prix weekend is then placed on that one lap. With qualifying being so important usually towards the end result, so much should not depend on that one lap.

Kirk · 27 Mar 2008, 00:05 (Ref:2162586)

The one-lap format in Q3 makes complete sense to me. I miss the drama and tension that the driver experiences to get it right. There are no safety issues associated with multiple cars on the grid and it does not have cars just driving around wasting fuel.

Kirk · 27 Mar 2008, 00:15 (Ref:2162591)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I have one major issue with running one lap at a time and that is that some drivers could be majorly disadvantaged by track conditions. If it starts pouring with rain for example, the drivers who have to follow that never get a fair chance.

In Q3 with only ten cars competing what are the chances of that being an issue?. In theory the entire session can be run in 30 minutes or less.

Another thought: The order in Q3 could be chosen by the individual drivers. Based on their times in Q1 and Q2, the fastest drivers get first choice as to what position they'd like to run in Q3 ... hence an incentive to go as fast as possible in all sessions (especially in unpredictable weather).

Marbot · 27 Mar 2008, 00:50 (Ref:2162623)

Despite getting pole in Malaysia,Massa thinks that Q3 is "boring".

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2008/...d-be-improved/

I think it will most likely be a 'time limit' that will be used to solve this particular problem.

Discussions are also taking place as to what to do with the safety car/pit lane regulation.Let's hope that both problems are solved before the next GP.

JeremySmith · 27 Mar 2008, 00:54 (Ref:2162625)

Has any body asked the drivers what they would like as far a qualifying format is concerned?

Marbot · 27 Mar 2008, 00:58 (Ref:2162627)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Has any body asked the drivers what they would like as far a qualifying format is concerned?

Alonso says he wants to do it in a Ferrari.

As regards his views on qualifying....I have no idea.

Dutton · 27 Mar 2008, 01:04 (Ref:2162629)

If the big complaint here is the super-slow in-lappers, then just make them declare race-starting fuel loads prior to Q3 (which means they run Q3 on fumes, then fill up for the race).

Alternately, we can go back to the pre-2003 format.

Marbot · 27 Mar 2008, 01:08 (Ref:2162634)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

If the big complaint here is the super-slow in-lappers, then just make them declare race-starting fuel loads prior to Q3 (which means they run Q3 on fumes, then fill up for the race).

When you say "fumes" do you mean just enough fuel to crawl back to the pits with on their in-lap?

Dutton · 27 Mar 2008, 01:12 (Ref:2162638)

I mean the same fuel situation as pre-2003.

I don't recall any brutal slowness on in-laps from that period.

Marbot · 27 Mar 2008, 01:16 (Ref:2162639)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

I mean the same fuel situation as pre-2003.

I don't recall any brutal slowness on in-laps from that period.

It wasn't necessary to "save" anything then.You could practically put a different car on the grid for the race.

Dutton · 27 Mar 2008, 01:20 (Ref:2162640)

Yes, but it was fuel that dictated the relative pace of that in-lap.

The current cars would not circulate at the extremely slow speeds they do in Q3 if it were not for fuel saving for the next day: remove the incentive to fuel-save, and the in-lap cruising would return to something normal.

chillibowl · 27 Mar 2008, 01:24 (Ref:2162642)

i agree that some drivers finishing their flying laps before the end of the session has exasperated this situation but as long as drivers need to take care of their cars they will go slow during their cool down laps. save the tires, save the fuel, save the engine, save the gearbox etc.
what surprises me is the lack of directions the Mclaren drivers got from their pits about what was happening on track behind them and no blue flags being waved.
really a race control issue for me rather than a need to change quali (which i rather enjoy).

Marbot · 27 Mar 2008, 01:27 (Ref:2162643)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

Yes, but it was fuel that dictated the relative pace of that in-lap.

The current cars would not circulate at the extremely slow speeds they do in Q3 if it were not for fuel saving for the next day: remove the incentive to fuel-save, and the in-lap cruising would return to something normal.

They aren't just saving fuel though are they.

Engines,gearboxes etc will all benefit from a very slow in-lap regardless of the amount of fuel they have onboard.So an incentive is needed for them to not go slowly for whatever reason.And you can really only do that by imposing some sort of time limit on all in-laps (and possibly out-laps as well).

Dutton · 27 Mar 2008, 01:33 (Ref:2162645)

I think those other concerns are why they would cruise to the pits, but the extreme-cruising, IMO, is fuel-related. I may be utterly wrong, but that is what I think.

If we were to go the way of time limits, then it would require careful planning since these things can easily end up controversial and complicated.

Marbot · 27 Mar 2008, 01:42 (Ref:2162648)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

I think those other concerns are why they would cruise to the pits, but the extreme-cruising, IMO, is fuel-related. I may be utterly wrong, but that is what I think.

If we were to go the way of time limits, then it would require careful planning since these things can easily end up controversial and complicated.

In any event the in and out laps need to be speeded up.

I'm not sure how they would calculate the time that needs to be taken to do an in or out lap since in either case they are not 'full' laps of the circuit and so take much longer than a 'flying' lap anyway.Then of course you have maybe intermittent track conditions (yellow flags,rain,track invaders etc) to take into account.

Pingguest · 27 Mar 2008, 08:30 (Ref:2162758)

We don't we stop introducing even more artificial rules?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RALLY TRIVIA - Q3 & 4	Graham	Rallying & Rallycross	3	25 Jan 2000 23:03