Are Grands Prix over too quickly?

flyboy10 · Post by **flyboy10** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:10 pm

I know there's argument about how boring races are becoming and it's difficult to put up with one hour of F1 let alone 2 or more, but what if they increased the length of a race, first of all by increasing the distance?

What if they were allowed to race around the likes of Monza for a full two hours at racing speeds in the dry?

What if rain affected races could go on for another half an hour?

I can't help thinking that sometimes a race is just getting interesting or a driver from lower down is making a charge and then it's all over and we didn't get the climax we were hoping for.

Would longer races help, or would they just be painfully difficult to watch?

ottostreet · Post by **ottostreet** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:13 pm

I've always thought they should aim to be around 2 hours in time, not in terms of distance.

Monza will be no longer than 1 hour 17 minutes (assuming it's dry)...mark my words!

RunningMan · Post by **RunningMan** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:27 pm

We don't have refuelling in this current era of F1. So it would be very difficult for teams to guage fuel needed if we were basing it on time. For example, the teams could aim for 80% flat out running in that 2 hours with a safety car preventing it being flat out for the whole time.
But what if there is no safety car and you run at 90%? It would lead to much more drivers driving in fuel saving mode towards the end of a race and that would imo ruin the spectacle.

So, if they wanted to base races on a time limit rather than lap limit they'd probably have to reintroduce refuelling. Which is a whole other can of worms.

Secondly, this issue only really occurs at Spa and Monza. That's because these are the only two occasions where the flaws in the method are exposed. Races are judged by the minimum amount of laps it takes to pass 305km. The problem with this is that on tracks like Monza and Spa, where drivers are lapping at full throttle for about 75% of the lap, they able to complete the distance quicker so the races are shorter. Compare that to Singapore where the drivers are on full throttle for about 45% of the lap. Combine that with a street circuit with a high chance of a safety car, you have a race which nearly always drags onto the 2 hour limit. Before the Pirelli age was introduced, the drivers were talking about getting it shortened it was that long. Whenever I watch the Singapore GP it always seem to drag on for an age to me.

So really, all I think they need to do is to make exceptions to their rule for Monza and Spa. Increase Monza to about 60 laps and Spa to around 50.

mcdo · Post by **mcdo** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:04 pm

I like the varying lengths of races. Monza will be done in 1hour 20ish while Singapore while nearly last the full 2 hours. Another little example of variety that I enjoy about F1.

flyboy10 · Post by **flyboy10** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:18 pm

It's Monza that's really sparked me off thinking about this. Every year they complete that race in the shortest time (weather and safety cars permitting) and it just seems to go so quickly, even though they run it to the same rules as every other race (300km ish).

Si, maybe it's time to have a formula that runs on time elapsed rather than laps completed? Maybe 2 hour races?

I mean, you wouldn't get a football match finishing early, even if one team was leading 7-0 so I'd like to be more certain of how long a race (particularly from the point of view of TV) is going to last.

mcdo · Post by **mcdo** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:29 pm

flyboy10 wrote:It's Monza that's really sparked me off thinking about this. Every year they complete that race in the shortest time (weather and safety cars permitting) and it just seems to go so quickly, even though they run it to the same rules as every other race (300km ish).

Si, maybe it's time to have a formula that runs on time elapsed rather than laps completed? Maybe 2 hour races?

I mean, you wouldn't get a football match finishing early, even if one team was leading 7-0 so I'd like to be more certain of how long a race (particularly from the point of view of TV) is going to last.

F1 v Soccer?

Every single soccer match goes to 90 mins, gets played on a pitch and the weather affects the crowd more than the game itself.

An F1 race takes as long as it takes to get the laps done (with a maximum of 2 hours), they can take place on purpose-built circuits or public streets, fast circuits, slow circuits and the weather can change everything. The variety is fantastic, race lengths included IMO.

RunningMan · Post by **RunningMan** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:31 pm

flyboy10 wrote:It's Monza that's really sparked me off thinking about this. Every year they complete that race in the shortest time (weather and safety cars permitting) and it just seems to go so quickly, even though they run it to the same rules as every other race (300km ish).

Si, maybe it's time to have a formula that runs on time elapsed rather than laps completed? Maybe 2 hour races?

I mean, you wouldn't get a football match finishing early, even if one team was leading 7-0 so I'd like to be more certain of how long a race (particularly from the point of view of TV) is going to last.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't think they could do it on time elapsed because of issues regarding fuel.

RacingFan1 · Post by **RacingFan1** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:39 pm

Aren't they supposed to last around 1hour and a half? I think thats not short

Schumacher forever#1 · Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:43 pm

First of all, I think the 2 hour limit is horrible. The best of races were often over two hours, which makes it highly unlikely to see a Canada 2011 again.
I think the time it takes to complete the race is too short aswell. I'd prefer 2 hours to be the average time to complete the race, increasing the total amount of laps.

painless · Post by **painless** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:52 pm

when I read the title of the thread two thoughts went through my head:
Premature Celebration
Eight tyre stops

I don't know when the two hour max. rule came in; probably around the time Bernie figured you couldn't engage the casual viewer for longer than that! NASCAR usually runs (much) longer than two hours, Golf (aka televised grass and sky) is interminable, and then of course there is the five day test match. Has anybody got any numbers for length of event:audience ratio?

mcdo · Post by **mcdo** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:56 pm

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:First of all, I think the 2 hour limit is horrible. The best of races were often over two hours, which makes it highly unlikely to see a Canada 2011 again.
I think the time it takes to complete the race is too short aswell. I'd prefer 2 hours to be the average time to complete the race, increasing the total amount of laps.

The 2 hour limit only applies to time spent racing. If a red flag appears they stop the clock. It has been in place for a good while (and have no idea when it was introduced).

But there is an overall time limit of 4 hours as well for a red flagged race. This was brought in because of Canada 2011.

ForthRight · Post by **ForthRight** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:25 pm

Normally I would agree (that Grand Prix are over too quickly), however after watching Spa I was left with the feeling that they're about an hour and a half too long.

Seanie · Post by **Seanie** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:33 pm

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:First of all, I think the 2 hour limit is horrible. The best of races were often over two hours, which makes it highly unlikely to see a Canada 2011 again.
I think the time it takes to complete the race is too short aswell. I'd prefer 2 hours to be the average time to complete the race, increasing the total amount of laps.

The two hour limit has been in place for years, even for the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix. They don't count the red flag periods.

The actual racing in Canada 2011 was actually slightly over 2 hours, by 4 minutes. Surprised Red Bull never contested it.

Misinformed · Post by **Misinformed** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:37 pm

I've gotta say that I wouldn't mind 2 hour races, you know, with the timer at the top of the screen rather than a lap counter. I don't really feel that fuel would, or rather should play a part either. If a team wants to fuel up the car 90% and run on a gamble that there might be a safety car then that's their decision to make. If they have to save fuel then too bad for them, I very highly doubt that all teams would be doing it so I doubt it would ruin the spectacle much. If anything tyres and reliability would more than likely play a part.. but who doesn't like a little bit of reliability? And if Michelin come in, they could create some tyres that really cater for interesting 2 hour races.

RunningMan · Post by **RunningMan** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:42 pm

Misinformed wrote:I've gotta say that I wouldn't mind 2 hour races, you know, with the timer at the top of the screen rather than a lap counter. I don't really feel that fuel would, or rather should play a part either. If a team wants to fuel up the car 90% and run on a gamble that there might be a safety car then that's their decision to make. If they have to save fuel then too bad for them, I very highly doubt that all teams would be doing it so I doubt it would ruin the spectacle much. If anything tyres and reliability would more than likely play a part.. but who doesn't like a little bit of reliability? And if Michelin come in, they could create some tyres that really cater for interesting 2 hour races.

You mean 2010 spec bridestone's and 1 stop races?

Arai_or_Nothing · Post by **Arai_or_Nothing** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:56 pm

While most are OK in terms of time, I think Spa is one that could and should run an additional 20-25 laps. The circuit is large but runs rather quick so the race is over really quickly. At least that's how I feel after the Belgian GP each year.

TheThirdTenor · Post by **TheThirdTenor** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:34 pm

I think it's fine as it is.

Singapore is particularly long race (in terms of time) and i find it really drags.

Kevin McDonald · Post by **Kevin McDonald** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:52 pm

Could the engines last 2 hours at Monza? Monza is known for being one of the hardest (if not the hardest) GP on engines. The race is awfully short though.

I look forward to the Singapore GP; feels a bit like an F1 Endurance Special

Kevin McDonald · Post by **Kevin McDonald** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:52 pm

Could the engines last 2 hours at Monza? Monza is known for being one of the hardest (if not the hardest) GP on engines. The race is awfully short though.

I look forward to the Singapore GP; feels a bit like an F1 Endurance Special

DJKIMI · Post by **DJKIMI** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:39 pm

They could make the engine last if they wanted to. They push the parts to their extreme. They can make changes. Heck even running at a few hundred rpm lower helps

Laura23 · Post by **Laura23** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:42 pm

If Hamilton/Alonso et al win in Monza people will say it wasn't long enough.

If Vettel wins with ease in Monza people will say it wasn't short enough.

Kevin McDonald · Post by **Kevin McDonald** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:15 pm

Could the engines last 2 hours at Monza? Monza is known for being one of the hardest (if not the hardest) GP on engines. The race is awfully short though.

I look forward to the Singapore GP; feels a bit like an F1 Endurance Special

ColdWinter · Post by **ColdWinter** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 pm

I think a 1 1/2 - 2 hours is perfect.

Misinformed · Post by **Misinformed** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:11 am

RunningMan wrote:
Misinformed wrote:I've gotta say that I wouldn't mind 2 hour races, you know, with the timer at the top of the screen rather than a lap counter. I don't really feel that fuel would, or rather should play a part either. If a team wants to fuel up the car 90% and run on a gamble that there might be a safety car then that's their decision to make. If they have to save fuel then too bad for them, I very highly doubt that all teams would be doing it so I doubt it would ruin the spectacle much. If anything tyres and reliability would more than likely play a part.. but who doesn't like a little bit of reliability? And if Michelin come in, they could create some tyres that really cater for interesting 2 hour races.

You mean 2010 spec bridestone's and 1 stop races?

Well if that's how you interpret the word 'interesting' then yes, 2010 Bridgestone spec tyres.

orbthef1fan · Post by **orbthef1fan** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:23 am

mcdo wrote:I like the varying lengths of races. Monza will be done in 1hour 20ish while Singapore while nearly last the full 2 hours. Another little example of variety that I enjoy about F1.

+ 1.

flyboy10 · Post by **flyboy10** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:24 am

Dalemac wrote:Could be worse, it could be a motoGP race and be over in 10 minutes.

I think you'll find that most MotoGp races last a good 45 minutes, during which, in my opinion, there is often far more excitement than in most F1 grands prix.

However, they are two completely different sports and while one has maintained the spectacle over the years, F1 has just reached some limits which make the actual racing no more interesting than a hill climb.

zack14 · Post by **zack14** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:51 am

singapore is just too long and boring.

Blackhander · Post by **Blackhander** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:19 am

I would like for the races to be slightly longer, maybe aim for 1hour 45min to allow for yellows, rain or safety car without stretching it over the 2 hours but bring it closer. The race should still be measured in a fixed number of laps though as its more of a hard target, it's easier for teams to plan for and viewers to keep track. Look how often teams JUST miss their final lap in Q3 and that's only 10 minutes. Rather than a hard 305km it should be a 105minute time, so say its a 1:42.00 avg lap that's 62 laps.

Having said that most races start at around 2200-2330 on Sunday night (for me) so it's probably best that they aren't any longer

shim2 · Post by **shim2** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:37 am

Doing what they do in the time they do it in, I think the races are plenty long. I know I couldn't do what they do for that long, I'm certain I would die first.

Blackhander · Post by **Blackhander** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:11 am

That is true, driver endurance should definately play a higher importance than fans appetite. I hadn't really thought about it before but I doubt many fighter pilots could handle the G-loading suffered in a formula 1 cockpit for as long as F1 drivers do. If a fighter jet was pulling a sustained 3-5.5G from full tanks I doubt they would last an hour and that's with 33,000lbs of fuel not 150kg. And even if it could the pilots aren't trained for it

Edit: having said that a fighter pilot will be on around $110k per year and even the lowest payed formula 1 drivers are being payed 10X that so is it fair to expect more from them?...

Point45 · Post by **Point45** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:42 am

Monaco shouldn't have a distance exemption. It's 260km of racing, rather than 306km. Besides, the Moncao race isn't even pushing 1 hour 35 mins, let alone 2 hours.

If the FIA can make an exemption for Monaco, they should surely be able to make exemptions for Monza and Spa to be longer/S'pore to be shorter, some races to have a timed limit, some races to have a lap limit.

nelore · Post by **nelore** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:07 pm

Take up baseball instead...4 to 6 hours marathons. You can have dinner at 7 when the game starts and finish at bedtime at 11.
I have been to baseball games and all those nice families together at the stadium. There is no game to watch..it is booorrrinnggg. By the time the 2 hour mark comes around those nice 4 to 5 year old just about had with this BS. They have eaten 2 $8.95 hot dogs and also had 2 $4.95 cokes and they are ready to go. Shame really, for mom and dad. There is 2.5 hours of game left.

Blinky McSquinty · Post by **Blinky McSquinty** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:44 pm

Discounting the pre and post race shows, Bernie has the Formula One television package neatly wrapped up in a two hour package. And it is definitely aimed directly at the European television audience, most races are at prime time in the afternoon. So this entertainment package is directed to the TV viewer who turns on to watch the race at a usually very predictable time, and it ends in a very predictable time frame.

Although I don't live in Europe, I find this has a lot in common with the most popular game in the world, football. There could be countless hours of pre and post race coverage, but the actual game starts just a few minutes after the hour, and it is all done within two hours.

That is how it is done in Europe, neat and tidy two hour packages that are predictable for the viewer, and maximize the financial return for the organizers.

Covalent · Post by **Covalent** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:23 pm

How about this; The race is over if 1.5 hours have passed and the leader holds a gap of at least 10s, or a maximum time of 2 hours has passed? That way "boring" races won't be too long but an exciting one can be longer.

Point45 · Post by **Point45** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:47 pm

Covalent wrote:How about this; The race is over if 1.5 hours have passed and the leader holds a gap of at least 10s, or a maximum time of 2 hours has passed? That way "boring" races won't be too long but an exciting one can be longer.

But then you take away the possibility of the leader retiring even if he had a 60 second lead? Senna in Monaco '88? Besides there are a lot of exciting battles for positions/points among the rest of the grid. Heck, a lot of people enjoy the backmarker battles too.

Seanie · Post by **Seanie** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:17 pm

Races are long enough as it is. Any longer they'd risk losing the casual viewers.

wolfticket · Post by **wolfticket** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:41 pm

Point45 wrote:Monaco shouldn't have a distance exemption. It's 260km of racing, rather than 306km. Besides, the Moncao race isn't even pushing 1 hour 35 mins, let alone 2 hours.

If the FIA can make an exemption for Monaco, they should surely be able to make exemptions for Monza and Spa to be longer/S'pore to be shorter, some races to have a timed limit, some races to have a lap limit.

This.
Other historic tracks should be allowed a distance exceptions, not just Monaco. Races should aim to be between ≈ 1:35 and 1:55.
I don't mind a bit of variation, but I think having sub-1:30 races somewhat devalues classic high speed circuits like Monza and Spa.

raceman · Post by **raceman** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:09 pm

Seanie wrote:Races are long enough as it is. Any longer they'd risk losing the casual viewers.

Agreed.

Making a boring race longer won't make it more exciting while making an exciting race longer makes it less exciting overall.

mcdo · Post by **mcdo** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:36 am

zack14 wrote:singapore is just too long and boring.

For you maybe. It's one of my highlights of the season.

mds · Post by **mds** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:43 am

wolfticket wrote:I think having sub-1:30 races somewhat devalues classic high speed circuits like Monza and Spa.

I agree. Don't know why it took until this year to strike me how short the Belgian GP actually was.

For me the sweet spot for a race is at about 1:40.