Qualifying-Race as a new possibility

[notsofast]

I want to see cars on track pushing and racing

Me too.

To achieve that, drivers need an incentive to push.

One possible way is to award points based on how far back you are from the guy in front of you. If you finish in P2 immediately behind the winner, you get P2 points. If you're quite a ways back, and the P3 guy is on your tail, perhaps you deserve no more than P3 points.

[Laserguru]

So, I watched the first indycar race in St. Petersburg. And it was great!

The cars are sliding around. The cars have marginal damage even if there is a very big hit. There are no trizillion carbon shreds on the track risking tire life. Did the cars look slower than F1? - Yes. Was I bothered? - No!

What did Indycar do? Reduce downforce. And I like the result......Qualifying race is not going to change things....

Indycar uses a universal aero kit, and features only 2 engine suppliers? Although this is a way to egalize the teams, maybe add universal chassis, suspension and tires, this is different from f1 (edit: I am aware of the f1 tire regulations). Teams are already upset by Haas.

Are we willing to sacrifice f1 and migrate to a whole new format? It is not that bad is it?

Also that is more about changing the car and not about changing the qualifying and race regulations...

[Restomaniac]

Tyres, tyres, tyres damn it.

I'll say it again. Teams should get to pick any tyres compounds they want. But the only get 2 compounds.
Tyres compounds need to go from incredibly fast but built like Swiss cheese so that teams need 3 pitstops per race to tyres that can pretty much go all race but are slower.
Teams get to choose any side by side compounds they want (Using today's compounds as an example. HS/US, US/SS, SS/S, etc). So if they want to go with the fastest tyres and get to the front of the grid then fine but you 3 stop. Want to go for the longer game and only stop once? Fine but you start further back.

The key point is that the teams get complete control on their strategy and tyre choices instead of Pirelli getting to dictate. THAT is how you mix up the grid and the on track running.

[Mandrake]

Are we willing to sacrifice f1 and migrate to a whole new format? It is not that bad is it?

Also that is more about changing the car and not about changing the qualifying and race regulations...

I know. The thing is: the qualy race is being discussed as a means to improve the show. And the problem with the current cars is that they are not able to put up a good race unless you get hard wood by the techfest that F1 is now.

Despite all the power the cars are on rails while at the same time extremely fragile when it comes to the tiniest touches.

What we need is simpler and cheaper engines that do not need to last ages and can thus only be used in engine saving modes(not PUs with highly complex hybrid systems that have no road relevance). Furthermore a reduction of aerodynamical grip to have cars be able to battle it out on track. If you look at videos from the early 2000s you can see how much more twitchy the cars are. It looks miles quicker than cars look today.

[Manoah2u]

Qually format shouldn't change, they tried this in what, 2015? and it was a disaster. Remember the shootout? what a horrible decision that was.
I also don't see how a qually race improves the show. It only costs a lot of extra money, it won't attract any more viewers/spectators, it ruins the concept of qually as it then no longer serves for the sunday race, and it takes away precious time for other racing classes that also make up the show, not to mention the cost and problems following if there is a crash.

if there should be anything done to make the season battle more interesting without needing to overhaul stuff in a big way would be to hand out qualification points which would make an interesting addition for the championship battle, aswell as drivers in the midfield, as well as the teams itself as they can gather valuable WCC points in qually.

i agree to the general thought that the cars itself are part of the problem. i think the 'new' design as of 2017 is a step in the right direction, but i also believe they should narrow down the front wing by a huge margin. also the use of the floor is the new 'holy grail' and costs a lot of research and investment, and brings cluttered designs - that are also very fragile.

i think Bahrain was a pretty exciting race though, so let's see whether we 'really need' anything 'more spectacular'. Australia was painfully boring, but Bahrain really compensated that.

Finally - if i had to make a suggestion - now that the Halo is mounted, the FIA should drop the forced nosecone design rules which were made to prevent cars sliding into driver's heads, and have teams the freedom again to go high or low nose and improve variety of car design.

F1 cars look more and more like eachother because the rules restrict the freedom of concepts. That then gives us cars that are very similar and thus overtaking becomes harder or even a problem - as they all have the same characteristics. A totally different design will bring totally different elements in how the car handles / drives, and as such, there's much more potential for battles and overtaking as one car would have better straightline speed, others better cornering, others brake better, others are better on its tires, others consume more fuel, etc. etc.

now, we all have castrated (fuel flow limited) v6 turbo hybrids , with predetermined car designs, with totally artificially controlled tires, and fake drs to scrw things up more.

ditch DRS, bring in tire wars, different engines , open up design possibilities, and let them go at it.

[ian_s]

there is only 1 change i'd like to see in qualy, and thats the 107% rule needs to be enforced in the Q session you qualify for.
if you get through to Q3, you need to put in a 107% laptime vs pole.

maybe 1 more improvement,
q1 = 107% q1 1st position
q2 = 105% q2 1st position
q3 = 103% q3 pole time

[FW17]

I would love to see a qualifying race 1hr with 3 cautious, 1 after every 15 min, and 1 mandatory green flag pit-stop

Probably they can start in the reverse order of the previous race.

[komninosm]

Raception...

[kalinka]

What we need is simpler and cheaper engines that do not need to last ages and can thus only be used in engine saving modes(not PUs with highly complex hybrid systems that have no road relevance). Furthermore a reduction of aerodynamical grip to have cars be able to battle it out on track. If you look at videos from the early 2000s you can see how much more twitchy the cars are. It looks miles quicker than cars look today.

Exactly. And add to that the much better camera angles (and sound) Indycar is using. I don't get how Liberty couldn't see the difference and apply fixes. If Indycar somehow transfers to a world series, F1 would be in big trouble. And one more thing..drivers ( after DNF) , team principals and owners get interviewed about on-track happenings and strategy live during the race...that's something unreal ( in good sense ) to see after watching F1. We need fresh thinking. They are always trying to fix things along the least resistance from teams, and ignoring real issues.

[Manoah2u]

What we need is simpler and cheaper engines that do not need to last ages and can thus only be used in engine saving modes(not PUs with highly complex hybrid systems that have no road relevance). Furthermore a reduction of aerodynamical grip to have cars be able to battle it out on track. If you look at videos from the early 2000s you can see how much more twitchy the cars are. It looks miles quicker than cars look today.

Exactly. And add to that the much better camera angles (and sound) Indycar is using. I don't get how Liberty couldn't see the difference and apply fixes. If Indycar somehow transfers to a world series, F1 would be in big trouble. And one more thing..drivers ( after DNF) , team principals and owners get interviewed about on-track happenings and strategy live during the race...that's something unreal ( in good sense ) to see after watching F1. We need fresh thinking. They are always trying to fix things along the least resistance from teams, and ignoring real issues.

a thing we might need to concider, not that i have any certainty that it is anything like that though,
is that there might be contracts signed and firmed that have a certain duration and/or clauses that could actually hamper sudden moves like that. Furthermore, i am not sure how racing camera's are operated or 'broadcast' from the car to FOM, but they might have a (in)direct connection to the (Mclaren designed) standard ECU, and then the question raises is it compatible, what needs to be adjusted/programmed, and who is going to pay for that and what's it going to cost?

surely there will be improvement in the upcoming time, i'm not at all doubting Liberty wants that, but i'm equally sure that with everything in this world, especially on grand scales like F1, there are contracts, politics, and clauses involved. directly with FOM, but also with various rights holders. For all we know liberty might already have GoPro working on some high-tech onboard camera system for F1 in all secret that will be presented sooner or later and offer a new platform that both F1 and GoPro commercially benefit from.

'F1 Official partner of GoPro'.
'The New GoPro F1. The Pinnacle of Motorsport, partnered by the Pinnacle of Camera technology'.

Just to throw something in the air, obviously.

Hell we might even be seeing the costly race feed helicopter get replaced by drones. We might even get drones following close battles from a bit higher up, offering new camera perspectives.
A potentially huge business platform for DJi for example.

There's still mountains to achieve in F1. But if there's 1 concept that should not change, it's Qualifying.

[lucafo]

I was watching Nascar yesterday and saw that they have parcial races inside the total race. I tought that It could be interesting in F1 also.
Maybe keep the qualifying as it is, but create some bonus points in the middle of the race; like one third of the total points of the weekend for the positions in the first half of the race.
That could create amazing tactical races and crazy strategies...

[FLuidd]

I would keep the FP1 FP2 FP3 format but use the average best laps of each 3 sessions to make up the order for the Saturday race.

And on Saturday I would have a race quali of 10 laps.

The order of the quali race will be the starting grid for Sunday race.

+++

If you failed to post a time in each FP session you would be demoted 10 positions for the saturday quali race.

If you DNF in the quali race you will start from the back of the grid. Who DNF first starts last.

In the quali race you wont need a full tank, just the bare minimum of fuel and use whatever type of tyre you want.

In the Sunday race you would use whatever tyre you want.

[Zynerji]

Q is currently perfect. Please change ZERO things about it!

[f1316]

I’v said it before and I’ll say it again: sometimes the races have to have to be ‘boring’.

Sometimes a football match will be boring. Most of the time, you line up the team with all the biggest, most highly paid, players against a team without the resources to buy those stars and, ya know what, the team with all the money will win comfortably 9/10 times. That’s sport - it’s a competition where the team or player that is the best deserves to win.

So On a number initiatives being discussed at the moment, I disagree. We shouldn’t be engineering ‘randomness’; we shouldn’t be reducing the technical complexity of the cars to the benefit of teams who cannot invest enough to develop truly cutting-edge racing technology.

On the flip side, we should be encouraging entrants who are capable of being properly competitive - at which point we need to stop messing about with the formula. We’ve seen this year how stability in the rules has brought all three high-spending teams into a relative convergence of performance - rather than stifling the incredible work they do, you need to make it worth people’s while to match those guys. I believe Renault will be there in time, McLaren-Honda had the resources but suffered for what is now becoming clear is a number of reasons, and if the prize and ROI is there, perhaps you persuade a BMW, a Porsche, a Toyota to get back in and have every opportunity to be competitive.

In terms of the format, all that’s really required is sufficient strategy options to mean that closely matched cars can try different things throughout the race - e.g. Bottas being able to go longer and then switch to US in Baku (if the safety car hadn’t happened). I personally also think that refuelling is positive in terms of opening up more strategic options (as do most fans judging by the fan surveys) - but one thing is for sure:

You can’t have cars that are very closely matched in terms of performance and expect them to overtake each other - you’re always going to need a performance differentiator (even if it’s an artificial one like DRS) regardless of whatever aero analysis is done.

[dans79]

I’v said it before and I’ll say it again: sometimes the races have to have to be ‘boring’.

I think the big thing is people need to define boring. I've never seen a race that as a whole was boring, just boring because the driver or team I support was not accomplishing much.