planetf1.com

Herb wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Well, I think they are going about it in the right way. Give it a few try's next year. If people like it then it can be kept if not then it can go.

I personally think it will make things more exciting and make things harder for the better drivers. If I have concerns it's more about deals being done and relationships between the large and small teams. Is Giovinazzi going to fight Vettel as hard as Hamilton. That sort of thing. I don't want weekends decided by off track bribes.

I never thought about that aspect of it, let's not forget that Red Bull own 2 teams, if ever there was a way to manipulate a WDC then reverse grids would enable it.

In respect to giving it a try well I don't want it so won't watch, if other such like people watch well then you're going to get what you don't want.

Don't knock it till you've tried it. There are many formulae that race with a reverse grid. Some of them are awesome.

Which I don't watch.

I thought you followed F2 quite closely?

But if you don't watch them, how do you know how entertaining they are?

They still have the traditional feature race, the sprint race merely produces artificial winners.

kleefton wrote:I want to see who has the fastest car and who is doing the best job driving it and I want to see them rewarded. Reverse grids taint that for me. It is puzzling to me though that so many would be in favor of it while we like to argue about who is the greatest, fastest pretty much all day long. With reverse grids those discussions become pointless.

I've just watched FP3, one aspect that's really interesting is watching the qually sims which basically will no longer happen with reverse grids, then again some people find the practice sessions to be too boring.

The future of F1 it seems is to cater for the short attention span crowd with the intellectual aspect of it to be taken away because essentially that's all too boring, but it's that part of it that holds my interest.

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:I want to see who has the fastest car and who is doing the best job driving it and I want to see them rewarded. Reverse grids taint that for me. It is puzzling to me though that so many would be in favor of it while we like to argue about who is the greatest, fastest pretty much all day long. With reverse grids those discussions become pointless.

I've just watched FP3, one aspect that's really interesting is watching the qually sims which basically will no longer happen with reverse grids, then again some people find the practice sessions to be too boring.

The future of F1 it seems is to cater for the short attention span crowd with the intellectual aspect of it to be taken away because essentially that's all too boring, but it's that part of it that holds my interest.

Depending on the track of course, and the duration of the wacky race, I think for the most part we'll still see the usual suspects finish on the podium in the real race on Sunday. It'll just be more of a lottery who out of the 6, or we might as well say 5 now, who ends up there.

The race fan in me tell's me the reverse grid format will be here to stay as the races will be more exciting & unpredictable. The F1 purist in me thinks the concept is criminal.

Is F1 devolving into some Gladiatorial Combat situation in the interest of fan excitement? IMO there is no reason to feed the trolls in the stands to liven the show... Reversing the grids puts lives at risk. If the crowd wants some testosterone high, let them watch fake wrestling matches, or human cock-fighting (boxing).

Throughout its history, F1 has never been about livening the show to excite a crowd. F1 is about the march of technology, where the best are rewarded with the privilege of starting at the front. That naturally strings out the field with the also-rans at the back. There's nothing wrong with it.

Honestly these kind of ideas rankle me. Life is not fair, as big fishes eat little fishes everyday, and I suppose the little fish are not happy with it. Too bad. We should not permit this sport to devolve into events with results determined by manufactured chance.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I never thought about that aspect of it, let's not forget that Red Bull own 2 teams, if ever there was a way to manipulate a WDC then reverse grids would enable it.

In respect to giving it a try well I don't want it so won't watch, if other such like people watch well then you're going to get what you don't want.

Well that's just daft. You might end up enjoying it. There's lots of things about F1 I don't like but I still watch. Out of interest did you watch the final Grand Prix of 2014?

Abu dhoable, at least it wasn't an handicapped race and thankfully got dropped the following year, Bernie also tried to introduce reverse grids which the teams managed to change to the appalling qualifying system that got abolished after 3 races.

But did you watch it even though you didn't want it?

The race itself was not compromised, fastest guy qualified at the front and won the race.

You were asked a simple question...

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: Well that's just daft. You might end up enjoying it. There's lots of things about F1 I don't like but I still watch. Out of interest did you watch the final Grand Prix of 2014?

Abu dhoable, at least it wasn't an handicapped race and thankfully got dropped the following year, Bernie also tried to introduce reverse grids which the teams managed to change to the appalling qualifying system that got abolished after 3 races.

But did you watch it even though you didn't want it?

The race itself was not compromised, fastest guy qualified at the front and won the race.

You were asked a simple question...

The double points finale was an atrocious concept but still not nearly as bad as a reversed grid, why would I not watch the race when the race itself was not compromised, you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Jezza13 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:I want to see who has the fastest car and who is doing the best job driving it and I want to see them rewarded. Reverse grids taint that for me. It is puzzling to me though that so many would be in favor of it while we like to argue about who is the greatest, fastest pretty much all day long. With reverse grids those discussions become pointless.

I've just watched FP3, one aspect that's really interesting is watching the qually sims which basically will no longer happen with reverse grids, then again some people find the practice sessions to be too boring.

The future of F1 it seems is to cater for the short attention span crowd with the intellectual aspect of it to be taken away because essentially that's all too boring, but it's that part of it that holds my interest.

Depending on the track of course, and the duration of the wacky race, I think for the most part we'll still see the usual suspects finish on the podium in the real race on Sunday. It'll just be more of a lottery who out of the 6, or we might as well say 5 now, who ends up there.

The race fan in me tell's me the reverse grid format will be here to stay as the races will be more exciting & unpredictable. The F1 purist in me thinks the concept is criminal.

So if the top drivers finish somewhere in the top 6 then it doesn't matter and consequently if the top 6 finish in the top 6 of the WDC then it doesn't really matter which order they get jumbled up into, entertainment comes first, let's share out the wins because diversity counts above actual excellence.

Covalent wrote:

Sutton wrote:

Covalent wrote:What I'd like (and have been suggesting since at least 2015) is that they should mix up the weekends a bit as I don't see why they need to be identical to each format-wise.
I'd welcome having a sprint race replace the quali in some of the weekends and keeping a conventional quali in the rest.

We have had the same format, with 3 Free practice sessions for about 25 years now. Apart from FP1 at Australia, I never watch them.

Yes same here, practically never watch the practice sessions. At most I'll have it running in the background whilst I do something else.

The practice sessions aren't really there to be watched per se though are they, hence why two of them are held on the Friday. They are more there for teams to prepare themselves for the two sessions that actually matter. Obviously some fans will attend on the Friday but it is a cheap day as it's not really about the competitive spectacle, it's more like testing really.

It's a bit like before a professional football match, the teams practice out on the pitch for half an hour or so before the game to warm themselves up, but if you are going to watch the match as a fan you usually don't bother going early to see that bit and instead just enter the stadium shortly before kick-off. That doesn't mean that players should have to stop practicing on the pitch pre-kick-off though, just because nobody watches it, as the practice session serves a different function other than pure spectacle. It's something that helps serve the true spectacle later, a bit like the practice sessions in F1 do.

F1 Racer wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Sutton wrote:

Covalent wrote:What I'd like (and have been suggesting since at least 2015) is that they should mix up the weekends a bit as I don't see why they need to be identical to each format-wise.
I'd welcome having a sprint race replace the quali in some of the weekends and keeping a conventional quali in the rest.

We have had the same format, with 3 Free practice sessions for about 25 years now. Apart from FP1 at Australia, I never watch them.

Yes same here, practically never watch the practice sessions. At most I'll have it running in the background whilst I do something else.

The practice sessions aren't really there to be watched per se though are they, hence why two of them are held on the Friday. They are more there for teams to prepare themselves for the two sessions that actually matter. Obviously some fans will attend on the Friday but it is a cheap day as it's not really about the competitive spectacle, it's more like testing really.

It's a bit like before a professional football match, the teams practice out on the pitch for half an hour or so before the game to warm themselves up, but if you are going to watch the match as a fan you usually don't bother going early to see that bit and instead just enter the stadium shortly before kick-off. That doesn't mean that players should have to stop practicing on the pitch pre-kick-off though, just because nobody watches it, as the practice session serves a different function other than pure spectacle. It's something that helps serve the true spectacle later, a bit like the practice sessions in F1 do.

Like I said practice is too boring for some whilst others take everything in, in order to gain any information possible to what might happen in qualifying and the race, invariably I wouldn't be too surprised that the ones that find it boring are also quite happy to see reverse grids, am I not entertained?

We can talk about practice sessions being deemed boring by many and that some of us find them interesting because we realise the intricacies of those sessions, but the truth is that practice sessions get shockingly low viewing figures yet cost the teams millions to take part in and the sport millions to put on. I can only assume that attempting to spice up Saturday, possibly Friday too, is to dramatically increase viewing figures on those days which will bring in more money for the sport through advertising. They will probably charge TV companies more to show it too!

Asphalt_World wrote:We can talk about practice sessions being deemed boring by many and that some of us find them interesting because we realise the intricacies of those sessions, but the truth is that practice sessions get shockingly low viewing figures yet cost the teams millions to take part in and the sport millions to put on. I can only assume that attempting to spice up Saturday, possibly Friday too, is to dramatically increase viewing figures on those days which will bring in more money for the sport through advertising. They will probably charge TV companies more to show it too!

Today wasn't exciting, the sport is already doomed then?

I don't know the financials of it all but it's the first I've heard of Friday's being too expensive.

pokerman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:I want to see who has the fastest car and who is doing the best job driving it and I want to see them rewarded. Reverse grids taint that for me. It is puzzling to me though that so many would be in favor of it while we like to argue about who is the greatest, fastest pretty much all day long. With reverse grids those discussions become pointless.

I've just watched FP3, one aspect that's really interesting is watching the qually sims which basically will no longer happen with reverse grids, then again some people find the practice sessions to be too boring.

The future of F1 it seems is to cater for the short attention span crowd with the intellectual aspect of it to be taken away because essentially that's all too boring, but it's that part of it that holds my interest.

Depending on the track of course, and the duration of the wacky race, I think for the most part we'll still see the usual suspects finish on the podium in the real race on Sunday. It'll just be more of a lottery who out of the 6, or we might as well say 5 now, who ends up there.

The race fan in me tell's me the reverse grid format will be here to stay as the races will be more exciting & unpredictable. The F1 purist in me thinks the concept is criminal.

So if the top drivers finish somewhere in the top 6 then it doesn't matter and consequently if the top 6 finish in the top 6 of the WDC then it doesn't really matter which order they get jumbled up into, entertainment comes first, let's share out the wins because diversity counts above actual excellence.

No I agree 100% poker. As I said earlier, this system rewards mediocrity over excellence in the name of equality & in every & any aspect it's patently wrong. When that happens, the overall quality & integrity of the product suffers.

What I was alluding to that if people think all of a sudden we're going to Renault, TR & Alfa et al gracing the podium on a regular basis I think they're going to be disappointed.

It'll make the racing closer. It'll probably make the championship closer. It'll throw the odd spanner in the works more often than it does now. It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

I do not agree with the idea, though I'd still be prepared to watch it with (hopefully!) an open mind. Apart from a way in which results may be manipulated there is the risk of more damage to cars over the weekends, thereby further increasing costs over the season.
The powers-that-be are looking at the dirty-air factor and making the sport a bit more of a level playing field from a financial perspective but should focus their attention more to these than the above as far as I am concerned.

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

The format of other sports has changed or is changing as well.

Expanding international tournaments in football, T20 cricket and sweeping changes to the diamond league format in athletics are ones that jump clearly to mind. All in the name of trying to produce more mass appeal.

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

Motor racing's not really the only sport where this is happening. In fact, F1's probably a tad late to the party.

Just looking at sports relevant to Australia here. Over the years cricket has developed hybrid forms of the sport in an attempt to increase on field action & thus increase it's public appeal. We've gone from pretty much having only the 5 day test match version up where players wore white clothing, had a drinks break every hour plus breaks for lunch & tea, was played solely in the day time & play stopped for bad light. Test cricket is very much a long term strategic game.



Then in the 1970's a 50 over a side version was introduced which took 6-7 hrs to complete & could be played at night time. The players wore coloured clothing, it could be played at night and gave the crowd a much more dramatic version of the 5 day game.



Eventually over the years even the 50 over a side version started to suffer from dwindling interest so eventually a 20 over a side version came along that was over & done with in 3 hrs. The hits became bigger & more prevelant the fielding more spectacular. We saw machines spurting fire, music played between overs , cheer leading & players wired up with mics



Thankfully all 3 versions of the sport remain. Test cricket is pretty much the domain of the purist while the 20/20 version appeals to the masses.

Different sports have player drafts & salary caps designed to equalise performance among it's competitors in a bid to increase it's appeal to the public. Some sports, like rugby league, have changed rules over the years attempting to make the game faster paced & introduce more scoring opportunities. It's also, in the last 30 years or so, moved to remove a lot of the violence from the sport to the point where now a simple slap across the face results in the player being sent off for 10 minutes in the attempt to make the sport more family friendly & to encourage parents to allow their kids to sign up without worrying they're going to get hurt.

Unfortunately it's all about the fight for the public dollar & the public, along with i'd say Liberty Media, rightly or wrongly, is increasingly demanding more bang for their buck.

I suppose if you don't move with the times the times leave you behind.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

The format of other sports has changed or is changing as well.

Expanding international tournaments in football, T20 cricket and sweeping changes to the diamond league format in athletics are ones that jump clearly to mind. All in the name of trying to produce more mass appeal.

££££ and $$$$$$. The sport very firmly takes a backseat when those two on the left can be increased. It's a business first, last and all the time.

You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote: Abu dhoable, at least it wasn't an handicapped race and thankfully got dropped the following year, Bernie also tried to introduce reverse grids which the teams managed to change to the appalling qualifying system that got abolished after 3 races.

But did you watch it even though you didn't want it?

The race itself was not compromised, fastest guy qualified at the front and won the race.

You were asked a simple question...

The double points finale was an atrocious concept but still not nearly as bad as a reversed grid, why would I not watch the race when the race itself was not compromised, you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Ok so you do watch something you don't want.

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

Hence why I think they need to look in to using slow zones likes they do in endurance racing. Gaps will remain the same, racing will continue over the majority of the circuit and cars will be going very slowly, like they do behind a safety car, where the incident has happened.

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

Is it simply greed, the need of the owners to make as much money as possible?

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote: But did you watch it even though you didn't want it?

The race itself was not compromised, fastest guy qualified at the front and won the race.

You were asked a simple question...

The double points finale was an atrocious concept but still not nearly as bad as a reversed grid, why would I not watch the race when the race itself was not compromised, you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Ok so you do watch something you don't want.

Ok so you continue to make comparisons with something that is clearly not the same?

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

Why are you being disingenuous? We both know a full, from scratch, restart is not the only other option. And benefiting from the safety car is actually just pure luck. At least with a reverse grid a better performance will be rewarded.

I can't get on bored with thinking the safety car is fine and dandy and still pure enough whilst a reverse grid is so unpure you'd stop watching all together.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

Why are you being disingenuous? We both know a full, from scratch, restart is not the only other option. And benefiting from the safety car is actually just pure luck. At least with a reverse grid a better performance will be rewarded.

I can't get on bored with thinking the safety car is fine and dandy and still pure enough whilst a reverse grid is so unpure you'd stop watching all together.

What are the other options beside a SC bearing in mind we have the VSC?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

There is a pretty simple solution, abolish the SC, put Bernd Maylander out of a job, have only VSC periods where the cars circulate at about 20mph to 30mph and have a stationary time levy of 15 or so seconds, (circuit dependent), for any car pitting under the VSC. Even if you have a broken car or worn tyres, most cars can still circulate at 20mph anyway, so you could even just close the pitlane if refuelling isn't part of the sport. If (current) cars struggle to run at 20mph due to overheating etc., then adapt future models of F1 cars so that they can run at that speed, it's not a difficult solution and the race stays pure. Marshals will be able to be on the track as cars are only moving past them at very slow speeds and are being piloted by talented drivers.

If the track is completely blocked, (which is ridiculously rare), then maybe a red flag or something is required but that will hardly ever happen so it is a non-factor really.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

Why are you being disingenuous? We both know a full, from scratch, restart is not the only other option. And benefiting from the safety car is actually just pure luck. At least with a reverse grid a better performance will be rewarded.

I can't get on bored with thinking the safety car is fine and dandy and still pure enough whilst a reverse grid is so unpure you'd stop watching all together.

What are the other options beside a SC bearing in mind we have the VSC?

Actually use the VSC and close the pitlane when doing so,
Restart with aggregated times,
Use of slow zones,
Restart with appropriate gaps.

Just a few that would result in much purer races.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:You have to remember that the FIA has for many years allowed teams to take advantage of safety procedures to gain a sporting/competitive advantage, (for example Australia 2018), instead of easily closing up this loophole by adding delta time to cars that pit under SC/VSC conditions. This is artificial too, but not many people seem to complain about it. This sport hasn't been 'pure' for a long time.

I do wish it was as pure as possible of course.

This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

Why are you being disingenuous? We both know a full, from scratch, restart is not the only other option. And benefiting from the safety car is actually just pure luck. At least with a reverse grid a better performance will be rewarded.

I can't get on bored with thinking the safety car is fine and dandy and still pure enough whilst a reverse grid is so unpure you'd stop watching all together.

What are the other options beside a SC bearing in mind we have the VSC?

Worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc4fFktVJOc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtseGcIX6WM

https://www.lemans.org/en/news/24-hours ... work/46782

Can't think of a reason they wouldn't work. Sorry about the boring chap talking in the second vid!

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
This is a very good point. The safety car is a massively corrupting factor. Nobody in favour of pure F1 can support the use of the safety car surely?

It's still better than totally restarting the race.

Why are you being disingenuous? We both know a full, from scratch, restart is not the only other option. And benefiting from the safety car is actually just pure luck. At least with a reverse grid a better performance will be rewarded.

I can't get on bored with thinking the safety car is fine and dandy and still pure enough whilst a reverse grid is so unpure you'd stop watching all together.

What are the other options beside a SC bearing in mind we have the VSC?

Actually use the VSC and close the pitlane when doing so,
Restart with aggregated times,
Use of slow zones,
Restart with appropriate gaps.

Just a few that would result in much purer races.

We do actually use the VSC, and it has recently been implemented into F1 to stop the lottery that sometimes happens with a safety car. How can you use this as an argument suggesting F1 are moving away from purity, when it was only set in place recently? Yes it hasn't been used of late, but I would imagine that's because of the new race control's reluctance more than anything. Also, there has been no tactics implemented by FIA to spice up the race by deciding whether to use a VSC or safety car. They have always been unbiased with this.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second one, and assume you mean drivers should restart, say 3 seconds behind other car. If my interpretation of this is right, it's very complicated, and doesn't necessarily make things fair (drivers could be very close to each other and the car behind will have to fall back).

Slow zones are flawed as some cars will pass through them once more than other cars. I don't know why you would want to implement this.

Restarting with the same gaps behind each car is once again complicating things unnecessarily.

The safety car is implemented with fair reason. It allows cars to bunch up so that a single part of the circuit can be occupied by marshalls, cranes etc with no disruption. It has always been part of F1, and allows the best, least complicated, solution to a sporting problem. I don't see how you can compare this to reverse starts, which serve as a solution to a lack of entertainment, something that has nothing to do with the sport. Next thing you'll start using the weather as an example of bias against the top cars.

pokerman wrote:Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Well, if you asked the people in the fastest cars what would you expect them to say? Wonder what the guys in the Williams' think?

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Well, if you asked the people in the fastest cars what would you expect them to say? Wonder what the guys in the Williams' think?

To be honest, I'm not sure the Williams drivers would want to start at the front. They'd be looking in their mirrors more than looking forward as they'd be sitting ducks from corner 1 until they're at the back.

Asphalt_World wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Well, if you asked the people in the fastest cars what would you expect them to say? Wonder what the guys in the Williams' think?

To be honest, I'm not sure the Williams drivers would want to start at the front. They'd be looking in their mirrors more than looking forward as they'd be sitting ducks from corner 1 until they're at the back.

I bet if you asked the likes of Perez, Hulkenberg etc

[deleted]

Jezza13 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

Motor racing's not really the only sport where this is happening. In fact, F1's probably a tad late to the party.

Just looking at sports relevant to Australia here. Over the years cricket has developed hybrid forms of the sport in an attempt to increase on field action & thus increase it's public appeal. We've gone from pretty much having only the 5 day test match version up where players wore white clothing, had a drinks break every hour plus breaks for lunch & tea, was played solely in the day time & play stopped for bad light. Test cricket is very much a long term strategic game.

Hmm. We don't seem to have the same problem with the traditional 'Big Four' (Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey) over here. Despite complaints about this sport or that sport being boring, they've all been pretty constant in terms of big rules for a very long time. Hockey did make the change of 3 on 3 overtime during the regular season to shorten games and appeal to the casual fan, but in the playoffs it's still infinite extra periods of ordinary 5 on 5 play.

I can't think of an example of any American sport (except for NASCAR) making such a fundamental change as the proposed elimination of qualifying in F1. And all the changes NASCAR has made have definitely not been well received.

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:It'll appeal to the masses who demand non stop action & unpredictably at the expense of the few who find enjoyment in the purity, quality & meritocracy of the sport as it has been.

Excellent summary.

But why is motor racing the only sport plagued by this attitude? You don't see any other established sports tearing up their own rulebooks for the sake of the never-ending drive for constant action, but we've had NASCAR self-destruct with its idiotic 'playoff' system and now F1 is considering taking the hatchet to the tradition of qualifying. Why is motorsport so much less confident of itself and its tradition?

Motor racing's not really the only sport where this is happening. In fact, F1's probably a tad late to the party.

Just looking at sports relevant to Australia here. Over the years cricket has developed hybrid forms of the sport in an attempt to increase on field action & thus increase it's public appeal. We've gone from pretty much having only the 5 day test match version up where players wore white clothing, had a drinks break every hour plus breaks for lunch & tea, was played solely in the day time & play stopped for bad light. Test cricket is very much a long term strategic game.

Hmm. We don't seem to have the same problem with the traditional 'Big Four' (Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey) over here. Despite complaints about this sport or that sport being boring, they've all been pretty constant in terms of big rules for a very long time. Hockey did make the change of 3 on 3 overtime during the regular season to shorten games and appeal to the casual fan, but in the playoffs it's still infinite extra periods of ordinary 5 on 5 play.

I can't think of an example of any American sport (except for NASCAR) making such a fundamental change as the proposed elimination of qualifying in F1. And all the changes NASCAR has made have definitely not been well received.

Yes but those big American sports already follow the structure the others mentioned are going towards. Fast action, stop, fast action, stop, fast action, stop, fast action, stop, fast action....

They have done things to try to appeal to fans. I don't know much about Football but aren't some league games played outside of America now. Pretty sure I've seen some played at Wembly etc.

Asphalt_World wrote:

ALESI wrote:

pokerman wrote:Meanwhile both Vettel and Hamilton have slammed the proposal, Vettel has said it's bs whilst Hamilton questions if they know what they are doing?

Well, if you asked the people in the fastest cars what would you expect them to say? Wonder what the guys in the Williams' think?

To be honest, I'm not sure the Williams drivers would want to start at the front. They'd be looking in their mirrors more than looking forward as they'd be sitting ducks from corner 1 until they're at the back.

By the time they're at the back, they have to start looking in their mirrors because of the silly blue flag rule.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:... It (the safety car) has always been part of F1, and allows the best, least complicated, solution to a sporting problem. I don't see how you can compare this to reverse starts, which serve as a solution to a lack of entertainment, something that has nothing to do with the sport. ...

I can only assume you are a very young F1 fan, because I remember very well how afraid I was that F1 might take over the idea from US motorsport. Perhaps they eventually did, and I'm willing to believe, with safety in mind at first. But its use has been seen to provide artificial excitement possibilities - throwing away all the work that had up to that point been done by drivers and teams - and as we have seen as recently as the last race, bunching up the cars for restarts increases the amount of accidents following each withdrawal of the SC from the track.
What makes you believe it has always been a feature of F1 is frankly puzzling. There is nothing F1 about the whole concept of a Spectacle Car.

Fiki wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:... It (the safety car) has always been part of F1, and allows the best, least complicated, solution to a sporting problem. I don't see how you can compare this to reverse starts, which serve as a solution to a lack of entertainment, something that has nothing to do with the sport. ...

I can only assume you are a very young F1 fan, because I remember very well how afraid I was that F1 might take over the idea from US motorsport. Perhaps they eventually did, and I'm willing to believe, with safety in mind at first. But its use has been seen to provide artificial excitement possibilities - throwing away all the work that had up to that point been done by drivers and teams - and as we have seen as recently as the last race, bunching up the cars for restarts increases the amount of accidents following each withdrawal of the SC from the track.
What makes you believe it has always been a feature of F1 is frankly puzzling. There is nothing F1 about the whole concept of a Spectacle Car.

Are you implying Fiki that in the past the stewards may have, on the odd occasion, had the interest of the spectacle & not safety as the overriding reason to bring out the safety car or are you just alluding to the fact that the increase in the post safety car race excitement is just a by-product of the safety car?

Just out of interest the first time a safety car was used was at the 1973 Canadian GP but was only officially adopted in 1993.

Speaking of ideas from US motor sport though I will say not only US motorsport, I wonder if F1 could ever head down the track of individual car sponsorship?

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:... It (the safety car) has always been part of F1, and allows the best, least complicated, solution to a sporting problem. I don't see how you can compare this to reverse starts, which serve as a solution to a lack of entertainment, something that has nothing to do with the sport. ...

I can only assume you are a very young F1 fan, because I remember very well how afraid I was that F1 might take over the idea from US motorsport. Perhaps they eventually did, and I'm willing to believe, with safety in mind at first. But its use has been seen to provide artificial excitement possibilities - throwing away all the work that had up to that point been done by drivers and teams - and as we have seen as recently as the last race, bunching up the cars for restarts increases the amount of accidents following each withdrawal of the SC from the track.
What makes you believe it has always been a feature of F1 is frankly puzzling. There is nothing F1 about the whole concept of a Spectacle Car.

Are you implying Fiki that in the past the stewards may have, on the odd occasion, had the interest of the spectacle & not safety as the overriding reason to bring out the safety car or are you just alluding to the fact that the increase in the post safety car race excitement is just a by-product of the safety car?

Just out of interest the first time a safety car was used was at the 1973 Canadian GP but was only officially adopted in 1993.

Speaking of ideas from US motor sport though I will say not only US motorsport, I wonder if F1 could ever head down the track of individual car sponsorship?

I can't speak for Fiki but we have seen on several occasions this season the safety car brought out yet by the time the cars have lined up the issue that supposedly necessitated it has been cleared.

With that in mind you have to ask yourself why it was used?

If it was seen as spicing up races I don't think we would have the safefty car at all anymore tbh. There are other solutions that do the job without corrupting a race result.