FOTA-sponsored qualifying shakeup

[thehemogoblin]

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090730123649.shtml

Lord, does that proposal sound retarded. I happen to like the three-tiered system that F1 has right now...

Thoughts/opinions/recipes?

[Wizzie]

I prefer the 3 teir system myself but after watching today's telecast of the V8 Supercars I say we should return to the 60 minute free for all

[Jack O Malley]

The FOTA proposal seems really dumb. I miss the 60 minutes session, with no Q1-Q2-Q3 and no fuel loads... The fastest should be on pole, not the lighter.

[Debaser]

I prefer the old qualifying system, though I'd suggest reducing it from 60 minutes to 45 minutes so we get less of what used to happen with everyone waiting in the pits for someone else to run. With no refuelling next year atleast we'll get the fastest car on pole, but this FOTA system sucks and is confusing with many things not explained.

[WeirdKerr]

Yeah bring back the free for all but instead of giving them 12 laps give them 20 laps to play with.... and a 45 minute session....

[Stewart]

I think people need to remember just how dull the 60 minute, 12 lap sessions could be. Quite often the front-runners wouldn't bother going out for the first 30 minutes, as the tracks would get faster and faster throughout the session, so only laps done right at the end would count for anything. The final 10 minutes would be very exciting, but we still get this excitement from the current 3-part qualifying. Add in the fact that engine/gearbox life is limited, and I think you'll find that a return to the old style qualifying could be a disaster.

The FOTA proposals sound ridiculous to me, but they're so vague that it's difficult to really understand how the session would work.

Personally I love the current system, with the exception of the race fuel loads in Q3. A low-fuel Q3 would perfect qualifying for me.

[Ben Gilbert]

I think people need to remember just how dull the 60 minute, 12 lap sessions could be. Quite often the front-runners wouldn't bother going out for the first 30 minutes, as the tracks would get faster and faster throughout the session, so only laps done right at the end would count for anything. The final 10 minutes would be very exciting, but we still get this excitement from the current 3-part qualifying. Add in the fact that engine/gearbox life is limited, and I think you'll find that a return to the old style qualifying could be a disaster.

The FOTA proposals sound ridiculous to me, but they're so vague that it's difficult to really understand how the session would work.

Personally I love the current system, with the exception of the race fuel loads in Q3. A low-fuel Q3 would perfect qualifying for me.

Well, if the ban on refuelling for next year does happen, then Q3 will be done on fumes, with the cars filled up afterwards.

One reason why it should happen, along with new skills being required of the drivers.

[CarlosFerreira]

I remember when the present system came into force, I though it was stupid, meaningless and detracting of the sport. After some time, I realised it actually brought a new dimension, and made sense. I now endorse the system, even if I understand it can't work next year, and will have to be changed.

Let's have the novelty and innovation. Everyone is always scared of what's new; we need a good shake-up from time to time. I say let's try, and offer a couple of points for pole-position. That might even spice things up further.

[BB01]

The current system is quite exciting. I didn't like it to begin with because it seemed a bit artificial but it worked out ok. The only thing i would like to see would be low fuel in Q3 because i don't like the fact that teams are comitted to setup and strategy on saturday. This proposed system seems really pointless, however the idea of each team running 3 cars, which seems to be mentioned there, would always be a good thing. I would always be excited to see more cars on the grid.

[jackanderton]

They shook it up already and miraculously found a formula for qualifying that works really well.

Trust them to mess with it.

[Captain Hammer]

I question the validity of this. It says teams may run a third car, but they also signed a legal document, pledging to reduce costs. How does running a third car achieve that?

[muttley]

I question the validity of this. It says teams may run a third car, but they also signed a legal document, pledging to reduce costs. How does running a third car achieve that?

They didn't say they're going to race the same car. In fact they're planning to create a F1 Rejects 1987 Austin Metro Supercup

[Bert]

I like the one-car-on-track system. No complaining about being blocked or whatever. You get to see everything, the whole lap of each driver, you can see where the mistakes are made. I know this system has drawbacks, such as changing weather conditions.

The one change that I would bring would be to do 2 flying laps. Drivers could then put one in the bank and then do a maximum attack!

[rffp]

The more complex a system is, the larger the chance for it to be stupid.
They should stick to the three-tier system and as mentioned by others the fastest car should be on pole not the lightest.

[thehemogoblin]

The more complex a system is, the larger the chance for it to be stupid.
They should stick to the three-tier system and as mentioned by others the fastest car should be on pole not the lightest.

My complaint:

If the fastest car is on pole, then there's bound to be no passing for the lead.

[CarlosFerreira]

The more complex a system is, the larger the chance for it to be stupid.
They should stick to the three-tier system and as mentioned by others the fastest car should be on pole not the lightest.

My complaint:

If the fastest car is on pole, then there's bound to be no passing for the lead.

I just realized how boring Formula 1 will be from 2010 onwards.

[Jordan192]

If the fastest car is on pole, then there's bound to be no passing for the lead.

A) There's not exactly shedloads of it at the moment.
B) The fastest car on fumes will be on pole. This will not neccesarily be the fastest car with 190 miles worth of fuel on board.

[Faustus]

I question the validity of this. It says teams may run a third car, but they also signed a legal document, pledging to reduce costs. How does running a third car achieve that?

Economies of scale. In a 3-car team, the cost per car is cheaper than in a 2-car team.

[LukeB]

B) The fastest car on fumes will be on pole. This will not neccesarily be the fastest car with 190 miles worth of fuel on board.

Indeed, wasen't there like a whole season (2002?) where JPM kept getting pole and didn't do win a single race?

[Waris]

I question the validity of this. It says teams may run a third car, but they also signed a legal document, pledging to reduce costs. How does running a third car achieve that?

Economies of scale. In a 3-car team, the cost per car is cheaper than in a 2-car team.

So? The total cost would still be higher.