So, now that the season is over, do you think the rule changes had a positive or negative effect on the racing?

Is the racing more exciting? More competitive?

Do you think what the FIA was trying to accomplish with the new rules was actually accomplished?

Jason-


Modified by Jason W at 6:53 PM 11/3/2003

 

I think it basically worked as planned. The same teams were at the top but definitely closer together.

However, I for one would still like to see them be able to adjust the cars after the qualifiying (at least for adding fuel). I also think the change theyve made for next year is good where both qualifying laps on the same day, so you dont have the crazy weather factor as much.

The other thing, I think the gap from 1st to 2nd points wise should be a little larger, instead of the 2 points it is now.

 

I'm disappointed with the way they do qualifying now, ... becoming so much like NASCAR!

Other than that I haven't followed F1 as closely this year as in the past, which probably says something in itself.

LOL! In hindsight, it probably started going down hill with the introduction of pit lane speed limits!

 

I think everything has been change for the better this year. It might not be that all of the fun was a direct result of the changes but it was an interesting year. I like the new qualifying format simply because nobody can bitch that their lap was spoiled. Listen to all of the whining in CART about that - bleah!

K

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I like the new qualifying format simply because nobody can bitch that their lap was spoiled.</TD></TR></TABLE>

True to some extent, but it cuts down on the drama and leaves some people vulnerable to weqather situations and the like at the end of a qualifying session when the faster cars are supposed to take the track.

Might be good for the "show" and to help out some of the slower teams at times, but ... racing, especially at the level of F1 is/should not be about making everyone feel artificially warm and fuzzy.

 

*brushes the dust off*

I think the changes worked well, especially the ones that dealt with qualifying. No whining, just one lap to prove your merit. It showed that Coulthard wasn't the best qualifier, often times putting himself mid-pack, which certainly hurt his championship run.

The points system needs a little adjustment, but I like seeing more drivers/teams eligible to score points. Perhaps 4 points for victory; 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1?

I'm eagerly awaiting the demise of traction control. After watching Valentino Rossi actuate his throttle at the Valencia GP last night with sutble twists of his wrist he showed what a skill it really is to master all of that power. F1 drivers are supposedly the best in the world. Let's see some of that skill.

I'd like to see one car teams return to F1. I'd like to ditch refueling. I'd like the cars to have the option of self starting. I'd like the races to be three hours in length. I'd like to abolish chicanes at Monza. I'd like to remove a lot of gravel traps. I'd like to see different displacements return to F1; 1.5L forced induction and 3.0L naturally aspirated. I'm tired of all this 10 cylinder homogeny.

I'd also like to finish the bottle of wine I started just 10 minutes ago...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zygspeed &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm disappointed with the way they do qualifying now, ... becoming so much like NASCAR!</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree. Qualifying sucked this year. It wasn't the fastest a driver could go in the fastest possible configuration of their car. It was an extension of the race. I enjoy it more when they were two seperate races with the winner of the "race" getting the top position in the following day's real race. It was exciting seeing each driver trying to one up each other. That's qualifying!!

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by zygspeed &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In hindsight, it probably started going down hill with the introduction of pit lane speed limits! </TD></TR></TABLE>

Cracked me up!

 

Definately an entertaining season. If I were Michael I would be pissed though that it was so close in the end. Although it was fun to watch, the points system is a little whacked.

Friday practice was a joke, but qualifying was okay. It was generally entertaining for a solid hour, as opposed to very exciting for the last 10 min.

 

it depends on who you ask; the f1 techie-philes (read: engineering geeks) will say that the "sport" shouldn't be artificially spruced up by regulations meant to further "level the playing field" apart from the impositions of the fia tech regs.

then there's the contention of the "purists" that believe f1 should be a sport, not a technical excercise (these people are still reading , and re-reading, james hunt's "how to **** your wife's sister, land a helicopter and win a GP.")
as for everyone else (read: the "other" teams) the 1 lap qualifying gets everyone equal TV coverage (bonus), and it get some of the faster guys on a green tarmack to lay rubber down for the mid-grid runners (another bonus for the slower guys), but the overnight impound, imo, hampers the "racing" as the cars can't be fine tuned, and is another artificial means of bridging the gap b/w a dog **** slow car, and a over developed technical windtunnel goliath.

again, it just depends on who you ask, and what you like; i , for one, didn't sense that this season had any more "racing" in it than the last season; it's just that there was more varied coverage. the racing has always been there, but it's 5 to 6 cars down from P1, and the tv cameras don't usually focus on the backmarkers...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bb6h22a &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">it depends on who you ask; the f1 techie-philes (read: engineering geeks) will say that the "sport" shouldn't be artificially spruced up by regulations meant to further "level the playing field" apart from the impositions of the fia tech regs.

then there's the contention of the "purists" that believe f1 should be a sport, not a technical excercise (these people are still reading , and re-reading, james hunt's "how to **** your wife's sister, land a helicopter and win a GP.")
as for everyone else (read: the "other" teams) the 1 lap qualifying gets everyone equal TV coverage (bonus), and it get some of the faster guys on a green tarmack to lay rubber down for the mid-grid runners (another bonus for the slower guys), but the overnight impound, imo, hampers the "racing" as the cars can't be fine tuned, and is another artificial means of bridging the gap b/w a dog **** slow car, and a over developed technical windtunnel goliath.

again, it just depends on who you ask, and what you like; i , for one, didn't sense that this season had any more "racing" in it than the last season; it's just that there was more varied coverage. the racing has always been there, but it's 5 to 6 cars down from P1, and the tv cameras don't usually focus on the backmarkers...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hubert?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jason W &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Hubert? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Jason?

 

It's claimed that limiting testing, both at other tracks and at the race venue, was to reduce costs. So now instead of packing cars and all the crew off to test, they develop computer models of the cars and any changes made and run them through computers. When looking at what high end animation costs per hour, I wonder if real or virtual testing is cheaper. People I spoke with who were at F1 races this year said there was very little time with cars actually on track and qualifying with only one car is fairly boring on a track where you can only see a small portion from your seat.

I think the GP motorcycles are a perfect example of what is wrong with most car racing now. The only aerodynamic effect they have on each other is to punch a hole in the air to make drafting possible. A faster bike can pass a slower one without needing to be massivley faster. The cars have so much reliance on aerodynamics that they cannot run close to each other so a faster car has to be much faster or the driver has to force his way past. The new qualifying simply put some of those much faster cars in amongst the slower ones, that gave more passing. But the slower cars up front still held up many faster ones. I suppose it gave the non Ferrari, McLaren, Williams a chance to have an effect on the race/championship outcome, if only by holding one of them up for a while.

I think the beginning of the end was when they went to requiring pit stops and refueling to give chances for passing, just like NASCAR. I think that was when F1 admitted passing was so difficult and rather than fix the aerodynamic rules, they brought the pit crew into the race.

To make the racing really interesting and show who is really the best driver, give them back real tires, lose the wings, minimum 6" ground clearance, no TC, no ABS, take away the PS. Oh yeah, and show Bernie the door. And make them show the support races, not just the F3000, I hear they are better racing than the big show.

 

when i was at the monaco GP , i'd have to agree that you don't see very much of the cars, but from my vantage point i could see the drivers getting out at pit enterance, and dropping the cars off to be weighed. ( i was in sector rocher right above rascasse and the little chicane that opens up onto the front straight) the support formula renault and porsche super cup races were very fun to watch indeed.


i personally think that f1 is just too big a venture for the top teams, and that no matter what restrictions you impose, there will always be a huge defecit b/w the developed works cars, and the rest of the grid. you can do whatever you like to the rules (within sportsman reasoning), and the big teams will find a way to bounce back. i would like to see a return to slicks, but i don't think that will ever happen, and the latest idea of a 1 engine weekend is just more of the same; whomever blows the motor doesn't race. so, either 1. they'll detune, run slower and let the little teams catch up, or 2. the big boys will dump even more money into the engines, charge more to supply the little teams,and conversly shrink the grid either by eliminating the competition by way of mech. failure, or by wiping them out financially.

 

I'm thinking they don't show those races because we might figure out they are more fun to watch. World and US superbike racing was great a few years ago when all the factories were involved and there were a bunch of bikes that could win. Whole packs running feet apart with any of 6-10 bikes the possible leader at any time. That's what I want F1 to have. Instead we have a bunch of technological marvels that get slower as soon as they can see each other.

Maybe they should switch to rally style rules and run cars with separations against the clock. Do the race distance in 5 or 6 stages over 2 or 3 days and add up all the times. Make them pick one tire for the day, regardless of weather changes, and allow repairs between stages.

I think the popularity of F1 is at least in part due to it being F1, not due to the great racing. A Spec Miata race has way more racing and passing going on than any F1 race in years.

Maybe install sprinklers on all the tracks and turn them on at random during the race. The rain in the last few races at least mixed stuff up and made it interesting.

 

I always like to read Paul Van Valkenburgh's editorials on racing in Racecar Engineering (V-angles). Something he said a while back (quoting someone else I believe) was that the formula for good racing is more power than traction. Sounds quite simple but when you really think about it, the assertion rings true.

For example, many have pointed out MotoGP as exciting and fun - indeed, lots more power than traction there. I agree with those that advocate reduced aerodynamics. To fix F1, simply:

1. Significantly reduce or eliminate aerodynamic downforce
2. Give them lots of mechanical grip
3. Let loose the engine development
4. Screw the current qualifying rules (meaning let them make changes between qualifying and the race).

The only other option is to employ Van Valkenburgh's "box" formula. This is your box. Your car must fit inside the box and weigh at least this much. Have at it!

C_A_T

 

i think the qualifying format was fine and good for watching an extra day before the race must-see-TV. I liked having the better guys go last so it makes it more exciting to see it til the end. it probably just happens its better for TV ratings.

but i DONT like the POINTS system. i think it was clear it was not fair this year simply by MS winning so many more races than Kimi, but yes, that probably was the goal to make the championship so less easily won by Ferrari and the gang, which they stepped up to very respectfully and no one can take anything away from them for winning last season.

 

1) I love the new qualifying for the impact it has on the race grid. It mixed things up very nicely (putting drivers like Alonso, Trully, and Webber further up than they would have been), and made for better racing.

2) I love the no re-fueling after qualifying rule, because it adds an extra element of strategy and surprise during the race. Things like both BARs on a 2 stop at Suzuka were great.

3) More points for the win, 12 sounds good. 1 point for pole, 1 point for fastest lap of the race. The 1 point for the pole would also mix things up really well, as some of the lower teams might put out a car at a very low fuel load just for that one point. Again, mix up the grid, get more TV time for the smaller teams.

4) No traction control, no automatic shifting. Like somebody else said, let the best drivers in the world actually drive their cars. I can't do it, but they can, so let them.

5) Increase mechanical grip by bringing back slicks. Decrease aerodynamic grip by changing rear wings. Both measures will increase passing.


Matt (who is obsessed with F1)

 

As someone already mentioned, people like F1 simply because of what it is and what it stands for. If there is even closer racing, then all the better. However, I see this as a double edged sword. Slowing F1 cars down by reducing the aero and placing more restrictive rules can make for better racing, but will also slow F1 cars down. If you slow F1 cars down enough, there will be little left technologically and speed wise to distinguish them from the other similar series and/or feeder series and therefore F1 will loose its unique allure/identity – the only thing that keeps so much money in F1, yet also the what sacrifices closer racing. IMO, F1 is really good at the moment. This year was just great and if something were to change it should be the points system to give maybe 12 points for a win as opposed to just 10. CART, although in financial problems, have closer racing primarily due to a much reduced aero package compared to F1 that can keep cars in closer proximity to each other. But personally I would not like to see F1 cars become ~8-10 seconds slower per lap and drop to the level of CART of F3000 speeds, just to promote “better racing”. You can visibly see the speed difference even on TV between an F1 car and a CART/F3000 car. Personally I want/like to see this difference. Those who want to see even closer on track racing have a lot of choices out there, so go watch those. F1 has its own unique definition of what better racing is and it does not all have to do with having cars physically closer to each other on the track. Although better on track racing certainly does help F1 sell itself, it’s the allure of being the fastest and most technologically advanced series in the world by far that brings in the big money, the prestige and most importantly keeps people watching it.

But one thing I still can’t fully explain that happens at every race, is how come they can qualify about 2 seconds faster than what their best lap is during the first 10 laps of the race and still may get to only within a second of their qualifying time by their pit window when running on fumes? Are they really driving that much faster in qualifying when the car is heavier than it will ever be on the first stint, or do they have a magic speed button they push to go faster?? I know BAR has the pass button 300 rpm(?) extension on their revs they can use, but there is no way that this alone can account for ~2 seconds. Any ideas?

 

[/QUOTE]

They only have to set the car up for a few laps, so hence alot different settings. Ie. the fuel load. IMO!