|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Aug 2005, 13:12 (Ref:1381892) | #1 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Yet another qually format!
Here's another twist to the qually question at www.grandprix.com Sooner or later something will be decided,but don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
14 Aug 2005, 13:14 (Ref:1381893) | #2 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
T'was in Autosport this week.
Decent idea. |
|
|
14 Aug 2005, 13:18 (Ref:1381898) | #3 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 25
|
It's such a messy system...I don't much care for any of these ideas. Just go back to 2002 quali or something similar...
|
||
|
14 Aug 2005, 13:23 (Ref:1381902) | #4 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Aug 2005, 13:36 (Ref:1381908) | #5 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 897
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
14 Aug 2005, 16:22 (Ref:1381976) | #6 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Also at www.itv-f1.com
|
|
|
14 Aug 2005, 16:31 (Ref:1381980) | #7 | ||
Forum Host
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,529
|
Well i had suggested the above system earliar. It really isnt fair to penalise someone for the previous weekends misfortune.
While i agree that the 2002 system is the best if the FIA want to pursue with the one lap qually format the system mentioned is probably the most fair... |
||
__________________
A byte walks into a bar and orders a pint. Bartender asks him "What's wrong?" Byte says "Parity error." Bartender nods and says "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." |
14 Aug 2005, 18:54 (Ref:1382089) | #8 | |
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 29,853
|
It's still hardly ideal.
|
|
|
14 Aug 2005, 18:57 (Ref:1382093) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
The current problem with a free-for-all format are current tyre and engine rules. These will make drivers to stay in the pitlane.
|
||
|
14 Aug 2005, 19:04 (Ref:1382099) | #10 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,947
|
The important thing here is that it was suggested by the drivers. Does that carry some weight? It is interesting that they want low fuel.
The main problem seems to be how their suggestion fits into the required hour. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
14 Aug 2005, 19:13 (Ref:1382104) | #11 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
15 Aug 2005, 03:18 (Ref:1382348) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,332
|
I think the whole "second lap if the driver chooses to" is highly suspect... you want one lap quallies, then don't screw up your first lap! If you want multiple chances to have a flier... go back to 12 laps in an hour...
|
||
__________________
Juliette Bravo! Juliette Bravo!!!! |
15 Aug 2005, 03:34 (Ref:1382355) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,491
|
I think this is a great idea for the spectators. Sato would be a scream
|
||
|
15 Aug 2005, 04:05 (Ref:1382359) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,135
|
I cant get to that link - but i was thinking of maybe having it like we do this year - running in order of the previous race's results. Instead of the winner coming out last - he would go first. So the naturally fast car would be disadvantage - someone unlucky in the previous race would be advantaged. Unfair maybe - but it would create a bit more competition.
It would however, remove the situation where cars are returned to the circuit to gain a few positions for the next race's quali, and hopefully it would not create the problem of cars being pulled out of the races like the 2 race engine rule nearly did. did i just hijack this thread? |
||
|
15 Aug 2005, 04:30 (Ref:1382361) | #15 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 14
|
I want low fuel qualifs such that we can make better comparisons between teammates. I also like the idea that they be given a second chance such that we see real flat out laps. I just wonder how this can all take place in one hour?
|
||
|
15 Aug 2005, 08:10 (Ref:1382424) | #16 | |||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,947
|
Quote:
The advantageous late starting position should be earnt. Although I would prefer it was done in the manner suggested by the drivers than from teh previous weekends results. I'd like to keep each race independent. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
__________________
Brum brum |
15 Aug 2005, 08:18 (Ref:1382428) | #17 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 183
|
The best system would be to go back to the 4 runs in an hour and have it compulsory to complete a run every 15 mins. If a car cannot complete a run in a given 15 minute window, unlucky! That car only gets 3 runs. (E.g. a car has a problem and misses the first 15 min slot, then it can't get that lap back and can only complete the remaining 3 15 minute slots). Creates low fuel qualifying and there would always be action on track.
|
||
|
15 Aug 2005, 08:46 (Ref:1382442) | #18 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
I like the idea suggested by the drivers,but there's probably only time for the top ten to do another flying lap,which is no bad thing i suppose as only the top ten should get that chance,but then we'll get the lesser teams complaining about TV air time.And so it goes on and on.........
|
|
|
15 Aug 2005, 13:37 (Ref:1382760) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,324
|
I too like the drivers' idea (nothing to do with who is behind it or a big promoter of it amongst the drivers ). I also like the variant proposed above by D_Marshall.
|
||
|
15 Aug 2005, 15:16 (Ref:1382830) | #20 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 186
|
Yeah D Marshall's suggestion which is near enough to FIA option 2 without the barminess of it's a knockout
I think there would have to be something to prevent spurious "problems" for those teams that secretly want to preserve tyres. - a 5 sec penalty or 10 place drop if found to be not actually a fault? |
||
|
15 Aug 2005, 15:16 (Ref:1382831) | #21 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 262
|
If it gets too compliated I dont think the sofa supporters will watch it as much.
|
||
__________________
"I wonder what the fastest anybodys been in the Eurotunel train?" |
22 Aug 2005, 12:44 (Ref:1388301) | #22 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Don't expect low fuel qualifying for next season either http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=95972
|
|
|
22 Aug 2005, 16:46 (Ref:1388535) | #23 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
OK,i'll try again.Don't expect low fuel qualifying next season(see above post).
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Qually 2 | Hazard | Formula One | 9 | 22 May 2005 11:45 |
Qually 2 results | Marbot | Formula One | 20 | 3 Apr 2005 12:31 |
No change to qually | Marbot | Formula One | 5 | 24 Feb 2005 14:59 |
Qually to change again? | Marbot | Formula One | 48 | 14 Nov 2004 17:41 |
New qually for 2005? | Marbot | Formula One | 11 | 20 Oct 2004 22:03 |