donskar wrote:Does anyone want to dispute Montezemolo's contention that passing is so difficult at many courses that the pole winner usually wins?
I do! I actually think it's the other way round. Qualifying is nothing more than ordering the cars in order of quickness. In principle, if the faster car starts before the slower one, the slower has no chance to win. Now remember the parc fermé rule: qualifying set up is the same as race set up. Add to this that most if not all drivers are able to drive consistently to 98 or 99% of the car's potential. This results in a landscape that unless the car in front has mechanical issues or a crappy race set up or, god bless, put a Senna qualifying lap, you won't overtake. This is even before considering that in F1 the car following is disadvantaged.
IMHO, the reason why racing has been so lacking as of late is, in order, raised front wing (2005) > reduced diffuser and underside (2005) > parc fermé (2003) > aero sticky bits. I remember however 2003 as a very good year, but that may be because having just one lap qualifying allowed more variance that the system we have now, with cars tiered like the qualifying (no Ferrari will miss Q1, after all).
I'd also like to benefit from the MotoGP weekend taking part in Misano. In motorbikes, the following bike actually has a benefit but still we see fewer and fewer passes. Do they also have to change the aero rules?
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr