Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

El_Duderino 09

AMKC wrote: »

Yes that's true but the two races before it were much better and much more entertaining so it can be done without silly reverse grids. Tell me this exactly how would you decide in a reverse grid who goes at the back and who at the front? Surely if Hamilton, Max or any other driver knew that getting pole meant they would go the the back of the grid then why would they bother?

Why would there be qualifying if the starting order is already determined? I don't think i understand your question

"The plan is the same now as it was 12 months ago. At selected races, instead of a qualifying session, a sprint race would be held, beginning with the drivers in reverse championship order. The finishing positions of that would would set the starting order for the grid."

El_Duderino 09

the_pen_turner wrote: »

several options.

give points for qualifying to make it worth their while. no time in qualifying then start from pit lane

use the results from previous race

championship order reversed

The way they appear to have wanted to do it was to have a sprint race instead of the current qualifying. The starting order for that race would be the reverse of the championship order. The finishing order of the sprint race would determine the start order for the race.

Simple enough system. The more places a driver makes up in the sprint race, the higher up the order they start in the main race. It's not the evil, anti meritocratic system it's being made out to be. We'd probably end up with the fastest cars starting at around the midfield instead of scarpering away from the beginning.

The fastest car-driver combo would still win the championship. They'd just have to overtake a hell of a lot more cars to do it.

the_pen_turner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The way they appear to have wanted to do it was to have a sprint race instead of the current qualifying. The starting order for that race would be the reverse of the championship order. The finishing order of the sprint race would determine the start order for the race.

Simple enough system. The more places a driver makes up in the sprint race, the higher up the order they start in the main race.

i would love to see it trialled. it could be a disaster but it could really liven it up.

El_Duderino 09

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would love to see it trialled. it could be a disaster but it could really liven it up.

It could be a disaster and then they'd just not continue with it. They've trialed loads of things and not carried on with them.

Man with broke phone

Reverse championship grid is the way to go.

Charlie-Bravo

I'd like to watch that. Staurday qualifying doesn't bring too many dramas, plus I'll only watch about the last 2 mins of Q2 and Q3. A sprint race covering 80 miles or so on a Saturday would be great, then go full feature race for the proper 200 miles.

Would you get rid of parc ferme between the races? If your setup isn;t working for the Staurday, then having a second day of it ain't going to be great.

tipp_tipp_tipp

quokula wrote: »

A meritocracy would be where all competitors were competing equally on merit, and F1 hasn't been that since Mercedes forced through favorable rules that they had a head start on in 2014 and all the limits on development and testing ever since have prevented anyone else from having a genuine opportunity to catch up.

Ferrari caught up in 2017 and 2018.

Re reverse grid races, I think 2-4 races done in this manner could be fun. Not every race should be like this, ultimately you want the top dogs gunning out at the front, but i think a bit of fun should be allowed now and again. I see this as similar to the superspeedway races in Nascar at daytona and talledega. Bit silly, but good fun and a good spectacle. A bit of that is good from time to time. It could be used to liven up some of the more boring venues.

Frank Bullitt

Inquitus wrote: »

F1 is a race decided on meritocracy, not a randomised farce. All the drivers agree with Mercedes, not that they get a vote, it is against the DNA of the sport. Mercedes won't dominate forever.

GarIT

I don't understand any of the complaints about reverse grids.

If you benefit from a reverse grid you then suffer from that benefit later on. It balances out over a season.

All reverse grids does is change qualifying from who can set the fastest lap to who is the best at overtaking. Removing some emphasis on car performance and replacing it with driver ability.

Inquitus

GarIT wrote: »

I don't understand any of the complaints about reverse grids.

If you benefit from a reverse grid you then suffer from that benefit later on. It balances out over a season.

All reverse grids does is change qualifying from who can set the fastest lap to who is the best at overtaking. Removing some emphasis on car performance and replacing it with driver ability.

Would work really well at Monaco then :P

El_Duderino 09

GarIT wrote: »

I don't understand any of the complaints about reverse grids.

If you benefit from a reverse grid you then suffer from that benefit later on. It balances out over a season.

All reverse grids does is change qualifying from who can set the fastest lap to who is the best at overtaking. Removing some emphasis on car performance and replacing it with driver ability.

As with everything else with F1 fans, the main objection is that it's a change. And f1 fans don't like change.

Mercedes main objection is that it would interrupt their unbridled domination. They would almost certainly win the driver' and constructors' championships over the course of the season. But they would have to fight in a different way to achieve it and they're doing great in the current formula by dominating Saturday qualifying and Sunday race.

Reverse grids would have been a great idea as the best car/driver combo would still have won and would have injected life into the stale spectacle we currently have. But, alas, it involved change and was dismissed out of hand by many.

ELM327

It's enforced change. The same as the silly hybrid eco nonsense from the early 2010s onwards. And I dislike it for the same reason.

El_Duderino 09

Inquitus wrote: »

Would work really well at Monaco then :P

Well, it wouldn't have worked at Monaco. But nothing works well at monaco. It's without doubt, the most boring race of the year. It's visually stunning ad the camera is so close to the cars because there's no run-off or gravel traps.

But Monaco is just not fit for purpose in so many ways and lack of overtaking is one of those. It's such an act of self harm for f1 to have the most boring race as "the jewel in the crown" of the season also be the most boring race. Imagine all the prospective fans who tune in to watch the biggest race in f1 and find Monaco. It's Paul Ricard with prettier pictures.

duploelabs

ELM327 wrote: »

It's enforced change. The same as the silly hybrid eco nonsense from the early 2010s onwards. And I dislike it for the same reason.

Your failure to understand the ecosystem of the motor industry and the planet at large is staggering

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

It's enforced change. The same as the silly hybrid eco nonsense from the early 2010s onwards. And I dislike it for the same reason.

What does that even mean? I'll bet that sounds edgy in your mind but what change in sport isn't usually enforced? As it stands the teams in f1 are allowed to create their own rules (mercedes gets 3 or 4 votes because they supply engines anf financial support).

The teams/manufacturers picked the rules on hybrid engines because they wanted them. So the hybrid engines were voluntary change BY the teams themselves.

So who is enforcing the rules and who are they being enforced on?

the_pen_turner

Inquitus wrote: »

Would work really well at Monaco then :P

not sure how monaco would fair out.
it will either be a pressesion with no overtakes (like now) and a slower car and driver winning
or the passes would be done in the pits (like now) but the drivers driving on the limit to make up time once they get free road

ELM327

duploelabs wrote: »

Your failure to understand the ecosystem of the motor industry and the planet at large is staggering

I've said it here before, there are road cars for sale today in V8,v10,v12 and w12 configurations. There are no road cars for sale today with v6 turbo hybrids.


Remind me again why V6 turbo hybrids feed into road cars?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What does that even mean? I'll bet that sounds edgy in your mind but what change in sport isn't usually enforced? As it stands the teams in f1 are allowed to create their own rules (mercedes gets 3 or 4 votes because they supply engines anf financial support).

The teams/manufacturers picked the rules on hybrid engines because they wanted them. So the hybrid engines were voluntary change BY the teams themselves.

So who is enforcing the rules and who are they being enforced on?

Why did you reply twice to the same post?



It's inherently biased. The series as we have since 2014 was led by Mercedes, as they had already worked for some time on the engine development and were confident they'd lead the arms race. AFAIR Ferrari wanted to keep the v8s and someone else wanted I4 turbo.

quokula

duploelabs wrote: »

Your failure to understand the ecosystem of the motor industry and the planet at large is staggering

But Formula 1 is / was / should be a sport. Not a marketing platform for Mercedes and the like. The ecosystem of the motor industry should have no place in F1.

I say this as an EV owner who absolutely believes transport needs to be cleaner. F1 is not transport. It's racing. They burn more fuel carrying these significantly heavier cars around the planet for each event than they save by them being driven like grannies and saving fuel during the race.

The current hybrid formula exists because Mercedes pushed and pushed and pushed for it. They pushed for it because they had a head start in developing for it. They claim it is "R&D" but in their accounts the Formula 1 budget comes under marketing. Because that's all it is. They want to say "hybrid" because that's apparently good for sales (even though mild hybrids should really be killed off by PHEVs and EVs soon)

This new formula is both slower and worse for racing than what came before. That's not an advancement. Advancement is when the tech makes the cars better at what they're supposed to do, not worse. This was a step backwards. And yes, they've eventually clawed back laptime in other ways through bigger slick tyres and more downforce, but that's all come at the cost of making racing worse again.

I'm in favour of gun control but I don't think clay pigeon shooting should be switched to throwing rocks at the targets. The boating industry moved away from manual rowing centuries ago but I don't think they should replace olympic rowing with cruise ship racing because that's what the industry wants to market. If you apply the backwards "it should be like the motoring industry" logic to any other sport you start to see just how incredibly stupid it is.

ELM327

quokula wrote: »

But Formula 1 is / was / should be a sport. Not a marketing platform for Mercedes and the like. The ecosystem of the motor industry should have no place in F1.

I say this as an EV owner who absolutely believes transport needs to be cleaner. F1 is not transport. It's racing. They burn more fuel carrying these significantly heavier cars around the planet for each event than they save by them being driven like grannies and saving fuel during the race.

The current hybrid formula exists because Mercedes pushed and pushed and pushed for it. They pushed for it because they had a head start in developing for it. They claim it is "R&D" but in their accounts the Formula 1 budget comes under marketing. Because that's all it is. They want to say "hybrid" because that's apparently good for sales (even though mild hybrids should really be killed off by PHEVs and EVs soon)

This new formula is both slower and worse for racing than what came before. That's not an advancement. Advancement is when the tech makes the cars better at what they're supposed to do, not worse. This was a step backwards. And yes, they've eventually clawed back laptime in other ways through bigger slick tyres and more downforce, but that's all come at the cost of making racing worse again.

I'm in favour of gun control but I don't think clay pigeon shooting should be switched to throwing rocks at the targets. The boating industry moved away from manual rowing centuries ago but I don't think they should replace olympic rowing with cruise ship racing because that's what the industry wants to market. If you apply the backwards "it should be like the motoring industry" logic to any other sport you start to see just how incredibly stupid it is.

Agree.

And I'm also an EV owner.

duploelabs

ELM327 wrote: »

I've said it here before, there are road cars for sale today in V8,v10,v12 and w12 configurations. There are no road cars for sale today with v6 turbo hybrids.


Remind me again why V6 turbo hybrids feed into road cars?







Why did you reply twice to the same post?



It's inherently biased. The series as we have since 2014 was led by Mercedes, as they had already worked for some time on the engine development and were confident they'd lead the arms race. AFAIR Ferrari wanted to keep the v8s and someone else wanted I4 turbo.

It's the hybrid technology not the engine itself. By that analogy you use, then maybe the merc amg One, ferrari f50 and the espace van might qualify as having direct translation of F1 engines in them.
It's the technologies themselves that filter down, like the kers system developed in F1 to the kers in the prius

ELM327

duploelabs wrote: »

It's the hybrid technology not the engine itself. By that analogy you use, then maybe the merc amg One, ferrari f50 and the espace van might qualify as having direct translation of F1 engines in them.
It's the technologies themselves that filter down, like the kers system developed in F1 to the kers in the prius

The prius tech that predated F1 kers by 14 years+?

the_pen_turner

quokula wrote: »

But Formula 1 is / was / should be a sport. Not a marketing platform for Mercedes and the like. The ecosystem of the motor industry should have no place in F1.

I say this as an EV owner who absolutely believes transport needs to be cleaner. F1 is not transport. It's racing. They burn more fuel carrying these significantly heavier cars around the planet for each event than they save by them being driven like grannies and saving fuel during the race.

The current hybrid formula exists because Mercedes pushed and pushed and pushed for it. They pushed for it because they had a head start in developing for it. They claim it is "R&D" but in their accounts the Formula 1 budget comes under marketing. Because that's all it is. They want to say "hybrid" because that's apparently good for sales (even though mild hybrids should really be killed off by PHEVs and EVs soon)

This new formula is both slower and worse for racing than what came before. That's not an advancement. Advancement is when the tech makes the cars better at what they're supposed to do, not worse. This was a step backwards. And yes, they've eventually clawed back laptime in other ways through bigger slick tyres and more downforce, but that's all come at the cost of making racing worse again.

I'm in favour of gun control but I don't think clay pigeon shooting should be switched to throwing rocks at the targets. The boating industry moved away from manual rowing centuries ago but I don't think they should replace olympic rowing with cruise ship racing because that's what the industry wants to market. If you apply the backwards "it should be like the motoring industry" logic to any other sport you start to see just how incredibly stupid it is.

well said. f1 doesnt need to be represenitive of the motor secter. its crazy to try.
it will never be relivent to your everyday car

flazio

I still have a curiosity as to which car/driver is the fastest around a track over a single lap if the car is setup for that purpose. That's what I like about the qualifying system.

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

It's inherently biased. The series as we have since 2014 was led by Mercedes, as they had already worked for some time on the engine development and were confident they'd lead the arms race. AFAIR Ferrari wanted to keep the v8s and someone else wanted I4 turbo.

Yeah, and what has that got to do with enforced change? Who enforced the hybrid change and who's enforcing the reverse grids idea?

El_Duderino 09

flazio wrote: »

I still have a curiosity as to which car/driver is the fastest around a track over a single lap if the car is setup for that purpose. That's what I like about the qualifying system.

It's Hamilton. It's almost always Hamilton.

I agree it's a nice addition to have the quali session, but I'd drop it in exchange for something better. Watching Hamilton pit in a fast lap in free air is ok. Watching Hamilton start from the back in a 20 lap sprint race would great. I'd take that over qualifying, wouldn't you?

skipper_G

You know how we have a problem in races where cars aren't able to follow other cars and need to be a second a lap faster just to get close enough for an overtake attempt.....how exactly does a reverse grid change that? There's a misconception amongst some F1 fans that on track action and racing are the same thing, they are not. One good battle between two evenly matched cars with some of the best drivers is worth more than a load of meaningless overtakes of Williams, Alfa, Haas that run 2 seconds a lap slower. I can hear the fans with the attention spans of a goldfish complaining already because of all the easy overtakes. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is the gap in performance between teams. You know what will help, budget caps, better revenue distribution, simplified aero to allow cars follow more closely. All things which are coming for 2022, I see no reason to trial reverse grids in a championship race. It will only serve to cheapen a Grand Prix victory, something only 109 individuals have ever done. Winning a GP isn't meant to be easy, why people would forsake that achievement for a few cheap overtakes on a Saturday is beyond me.

donspeekinglesh

skipper_G wrote: »

You know how we have a problem in races where cars aren't able to follow other cars and need to be a second a lap faster just to get close enough for an overtake attempt.....how exactly does a reverse grid change that? There's a misconception amongst some F1 fans that on track action and racing are the same thing, they are not. One good battle between two evenly matched cars with some of the best drivers is worth more than a load of meaningless overtakes of Williams, Alfa, Haas that run 2 seconds a lap slower. I can hear the fans with the attention spans of a goldfish complaining already because of all the easy overtakes. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is the gap in performance between teams. You know what will help, budget caps, better revenue distribution, simplified aero to allow cars follow more closely. All things which are coming for 2022, I see no reason to trial reverse grids in a championship race. It will only serve to cheapen a Grand Prix victory, something only 109 individuals have ever done. Winning a GP isn't meant to be easy, why people would forsake that achievement for a few cheap overtakes on a Saturday is beyond me.

This. A thousand times this.

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

You know how we have a problem in races where cars aren't able to follow other cars and need to be a second a lap faster just to get close enough for an overtake attempt.....how exactly does a reverse grid change that? There's a misconception amongst some F1 fans that on track action and racing are the same thing, they are not. One good battle between two evenly matched cars with some of the best drivers is worth more than a load of meaningless overtakes of Williams, Alfa, Haas that run 2 seconds a lap slower. I can hear the fans with the attention spans of a goldfish complaining already because of all the easy overtakes. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is the gap in performance between teams. You know what will help, budget caps, better revenue distribution, simplified aero to allow cars follow more closely. All things which are coming for 2022, I see no reason to trial reverse grids in a championship race. It will only serve to cheapen a Grand Prix victory, something only 109 individuals have ever done. Winning a GP isn't meant to be easy, why people would forsake that achievement for a few cheap overtakes on a Saturday is beyond me.

It's interesting to see contradictory arguments used to reach the sane conclusion. Yesterday a poster was heralding the meritocricy of F1 where the fastest should be at the front. That's precisely the situation we have right now. The Hamilton-Mercedes is the fastest driver-car combo and they are odds on to qualify on pole win every individual race.

I don't necessarily agree that they should win every single race (because it's boring) but I go think the fastest car-driver combo should score the most points and win the championship over the course of a season.

I agree that the 2022 changes should help. The budget caps will take years to fully take effect. But there's absolutely no reason to not try reverse grids in the meantime. You could write the script for next season. Hint: Hamilton dominates and wins the championship by such a margin that he could not bother driving the last 5 races.

Also, did you think Gasley winning in Monza cheapened bring a GP winner? I think it was heralded as a great relief from the meritocracy of Hamilton winning unless there's a penalty or mechanical failure.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

It's the hybrid technology not the engine itself. By that analogy you use, then maybe the merc amg One, ferrari f50 and the espace van might qualify as having direct translation of F1 engines in them.
It's the technologies themselves that filter down, like the kers system developed in F1 to the kers in the prius

Nonsense as I've pointed out several times before with KERS being a prime example of the "technology" argument being nonsense. Things like KERS are brought it at such a restricted level that they're not "innovating". The first season of KERS the teams that had it had it at the limit of what was allowed because the technology was way ahead of where F1 was at and there was no improvement or development made because of F1.

eviltimeban

It's a bit of both - meritocracy but also with a bit of competition. Less aero reliant and cars that are closer in speed.