What the FIA think the fans will react like
http://solcanacrossfit.com/wp-conten...1/yes-man1.jpg
How the fans are really reacting
http://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma...aoq4o1_250.gif
Printable View
What the FIA think the fans will react like
http://solcanacrossfit.com/wp-conten...1/yes-man1.jpg
How the fans are really reacting
http://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma...aoq4o1_250.gif
Most fans must be shaking their heads. :confused:
F1s viewing must plummet with this and poorer TV coverage.
on a wet day it will be a complete lottery. I mean we know its normally every car over the line improves. Well if you are in the wrong place you could go out in rain and we end up with basically random grid.
The weather's not any bigger a problem than under most other qualifying systems that have been tried though; I'm more concerned with "eliminated" cars trundling back to the pits and getting in the way of "live" qualifiers, or what happens with yellow flags and red flags when they come out during a session. Or indeed, if more than one car has failed to set a time by the first elimination point, which one gets knocked out?
In principle, it's actually not that bad a system, but I don't know that the current system needed changing that radically. Perhaps use this new system for Q3 only?
So as I understand it, there are still 3 sessions as before, but instead of knocking out X number of drivers when the session is completed, they start knocking out the drivers with the slowest times from half way through the session, one at a time every 90 seconds until X have been eliminated. Is that it?
It sounds like it'll be pretty chaotic. What's the purpose of this change? Just to make the grids more random?
It matters not to me what the qualifying rules are. Apart from the Australian GP, Mad Uncle Rupert has hidden all of the wallyfying behind his precious paywall.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
They could throw darts into the front of a Rolls-Royce Trent 800 and have them shoot out the other side at a rotating dartboard and I'd still be none the wiser.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the Pirelli factor though. These tyres are only good for one lap so everyone is going to crawl around until they think they are under threat then bang in their quick lap. The fight for pole will probably be over with 5min to go because both would have shot their tyres and have nothing left. Unless they are allowed to change tyres but that isn't clear from the article I've read on Autosport.Quote:
Originally Posted by inimitablestoo
Having read through the new rules for qualifying I can't help but think that this is a very bad idea and is not going to have the desired affect. The current qualifying format works really well and there is no need to shake it up. If they want to do something different then go back to the 12 lap 1 hour qualifying we used to have. I still think that and the current quali format were the best.
The current qualifying procedure is just fine. I don't understand why they feel compelled to mess with it.:rolleyes:
Ii think they are dumb. Qualifying is never going to be exciting to the point where the viewership is on par with the race.
Another change to the regs.
Instead change the stupid engine rules and bring more manufacturers and better tracks!
Qualifying is the ONE part of the racing weekend that I'd say most fans enjoy as it is. But at least this isn't as silly as Bernie's recent reverse grid idea - it's still silly though!
That's next season :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Q1 will last for 16 minutes
The slowest driver is eliminated after seven minutes
Then one will go every 90 seconds until seven drivers are out
Q2 will last for 15 minutes
The slowest driver will be eliminated after six minutes
Then one will go every 90 seconds until the end of the session
That leaves eight drivers in final qualifying.
Q3 will last for 14 minutes
The slowest driver will be eliminated after five minutes
Then one will go every 90 seconds until there are two drivers left
There will then be a final 90-second shoot-out for pole position
I think they have lost touch with the fans on this one. Daft if you ask me.
This sounds like the dumbest "lets make it more interesting" gimmick yet. And let's face it, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.
On an improving track, the outcome is going to depend on exactly where you are on track when the hammer comes down, and because of the 90-second cadence, if you're in good position for one window there's a good chance you'll be in the wrong position for the next one or the one after.
Add in the slowing now-knocked-out cars and it's just going to turn into a completely random sh!t-show.
The only quali system I really liked was the 2x60 min qualifying.
I liked what we had for the last few years. People complained about one or two cars not doing a run in Q3 but I never saw anything wrong with that.
But I guess this isn't about improving what we see on Saturday. It's about throwing in a randomising element to mix up the race on Sunday.
The problem with the proposed new system is it takes away opportunity for tailend and midfield teams to try to do better as time goes by. They would be faced with a more intolerant sytem that favours the frontend teams more. The penalty on frontend teams when they get their weekend wrong, would not be any different from what happens in the current system. But to midfield teams in particular, this system could be more costly than it appears.
If it aint broke don't try to fix it! What next? :(
Yep, not to mention, I can foresee 22 cars on the track in the 6th minute of Q1 simultaneously trying to make a fast run so as not to be the (first of) the slowest. As a spectator you can forget about any on-track action for the first 5 minutes :mark: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
Or am I completely misunderstanding this daft rule?
No, I think that's about right. Of course, once the elimination starts, there will always be at least one touring now-eliminated car on track at any given time, and most likely two. So the cars still trying to avoid elimination will have to dodge at least one car, and who gets eliminated next is going to depend on how many slow cars they have to pass, and where they are when it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
My 20-year-old son's reaction was "Cool! It's going to be total chaos!". He has a different perspective on the situation, I guess...
Yes, my view on these new rules is that the teams view on it is Chaos is how to make F1 interesting. Unfortunately it's just another badly thought out change. The current format works very well. I guess we've just got to give it a chance but I can see it be irritating for seasoned F1 core followers in particular. The johnny come lately's will probably think its' great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
The truth is though that after a number of races the teams will adapt and get used to it, making it pretty dull and predictable overall. If they really want to make qualifying unpredictable for an entire season then they need to change the qualifying format every race or every couple of races and don't tell the team the format until an hour before qualifying begins. Ultimately, the current format works every well and there are much more important things to fix in the sport than something which isn't broken.
What about a kilo of fuel per championship point as a weight penalty for qualifying? It could mix it up enough and allow the bottom teams to qualify closer to the cars above them in the championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
I know how much people hate the thought of handicapping at any time but aren't the rule changes today intended to make the grid unpredictable?
I am amazed that they would implement something so complex and think its progress.
Yep, spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
Actually, I can see the top teams going out early in the session, albeit on a non-rubbered in track, to bang in a quick lap then retiring to the pits assuming their times won't be the slowest.
I think the opposite would happen. The top teams would go out and bang in a really fast lap and go back into the pits to watch the backend and midfield teams drop off like flies.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
It would be interesting on tracks where a top team have difficulty getting their act together. but it would be no different regardless of the type of qualifying. samemo samemo just a different impact in the midfields. We may see the odd occasion where typical backend teams get some good fortune to get up the order when some midfield team mess up. But once the red lights go out, the normal pecking order would ressume.
After thinking more about this, it occurred to me that this may give Ferrari some opportunities to capitalize on Merc's operational frailties. We have seen in the past how fragile the merc team gets as the season wears on. They notoriously make silly mistakes under pressure, hence this new quali rule may rattle them occasionally and maybe we may see more than two teams win races this year.
I will never approve of punishing success. That's the opposite of sport. The people that do best deserve their success. I don't like the idea of rewarding mediocrity. If we took ideas of handicaps for success from motorsport and applied similar ideas to ball sports, teams that score lots of points or win lots of games would have to play with lead shoes or wearing backpacks full of bricks to give the sucky teams a chance at being gifted an undeserved "win".Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Qualifying for the 2015 Abu Dhabi GP:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Lewis Hamilton 363kg
Nico Rosberg 297kg
Sebastian Vettel 266kg
Valtteri Bottas 136kg
Kimi Räikkönen 135kg
That sounds bonkers.
Wait, I have a better idea - what about giving them random fuel loads? That would definitely make it "unpredictable". Especially if you don't tell the driver how much they have, and they randomly stop on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Somebody call Bernie!!
You can see that those figures would definitely bring the leaders back to the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
What is really bonkers is people considering F1 a sacred sport where handicapping has no place.
Just as horse racing is called a sport there is no argument when a horse carries a kilo in their saddlebag, there should be no argument when another betting platform is seeking to bring results closer together.
You are not penalising success rather you are trying to save an entertainment spectacle from becoming unwatched by the masses.
The reason I chose fuel is because the cars are already set up to carry an amount of fuel. It could be lead bags under the drivers seat for all it matters. The race is unaffected rather it is just the qualifying.
I wouldn't expect any driver would see anywhere near a 70 point lead at the end of a season but if you just use the drivers you've listed, Hamilton carrying maximum tank capacity of 120kg then Rosberg goes out with a proportioned load of 100kg.
Lewis Hamilton 120kg
Nico Rosberg 100kg
Sebastian Vettel 90kg
Valtteri Bottas 45kg
Kimi Räikkönen 45kg
It is probably fair to say that the qualifying result would be influenced and achieve sufficient randomness.
There is going to be an enormous amount of rapid fire betting during the new qualifying. Why else would they do it in the way they have?
This knock-out shuffle qualifying will be delayed , it seems , as the software to run it is too complicated to get ready in time for the first GP .
Thank dog .
I don't really understand the point of it's introduction to begin with .
Were there a lot of people disgruntled about the qualifying as it was ?
Did I miss something ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceMan_PJN
Some would say that F1 has a long history of punishing success. Mclaren, Ferrari, Williams, Red Bull have all been dominant at some point in the past 30 years. How did their dominant periods end?
Is there really a difference between success being punished based on the results of a season rather than a single race?
F1 in no way can be considered a "pure" sport when we consider that teams are restricted by rules and regulations.
F1 doesn't punish success per se but it may over compensate it for a period and then it might kick it totally to the kerb once the mood changes.
So management made a commitment to do something, before asking the people who will actually have to do it whether it can even be done. Dumb, but sadly not unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
You didn't miss anything buddy, its another Bernie thats allQuote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I'm thinking that the point is not to do with qualifying, but to do with the race; what the rules will do is throw a bunch of unpredictability into the outcome of the qualifying, in that faster qualifiers will get caught out by the process at least occasionally and grid much lower than they would do in a straight qualification run, hence causing lots of additional overtaking during the race as that gets sorted out. Therefore: Excitement! Unpredictability! This is what I'm reading into reports about the thinking behind it, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I think the organizers have misunderstood the problem. The identified problem is predictability. The mistake is in thinking that this can be solved by throwing in a bunch of random curveballs that make the races more unpredictable, when what we really want is more competitiveness, and those two things are not the same.
I see everything through the prism of gambling platforms as it is the reality of modern sport - some would say unfortunate reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
If we consider the routine dominance of a single team in any one year throughout F1's history, making qualifying a random or uncertain event becomes possibly the best way for F1 to attract a large volume of gambling transactions.
Modern gambling is online and in-play. It is on such ridiculous events such as "Will the goalie jump left or right" as a kicker lines up a penalty. If F1 qualifying can attract sufficient transactions through its introduction of "next" events and other uncertainties, then qualifying opens up a potential new revenue stream.
I may be completely off the mark, and broadcast rights may continue to be the big earner for F1, but every dollar counts these days and the gambling dollar is a particularly tasty one.
Competitiveness in a constructors’ series is unfeasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
The aim of a constructors’ series is, and always has been, domination. This has been demonstrated, by one team or another, since the inception of formula 1.
Competiveness will be achieved only in a spec series where equipment is all pretty much equal.
Ok it looks like the drivers have spoken out against this sham.
http://a2.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img...ocation=origin
Look at Nico, he looks like he is about to go off like a neutron bomb :angel:
Amen brother, amen!Quote:
We felt that it could be very complicated for the fans to understand -- it's complicated for us already. We also felt that qualifying is really good at the moment and there is no reason to change that."
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/...ifying-changes
Its not complicated for fans. Makes us sound like idiots, but it's not needed. The system we have now is fine.
I cant see why all of a sudden they think its not entertaining enough?? Its like they need to change it just to tinker.
I was happy enough with the full qualifying hour and maybe give drivers more than 12 laps to decrease the early minutes being deserted.
I don't think it's about making qualifying more entertaining; it's about introducing a randomising factor to mix up the grid and make the race more entertaining. (For certain values of "entertaining.")Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
Although Whyzars' gambling theory has a ring of plausibility about it too.