Daniel Ricciardo, Valtteri Bottas, Circuit de Catalunya, 2016

Elimination qualifying planned for 2016 and ‘time ballast’ discussed

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Formula One qualifying is heading for a shake-up this year which will see drivers eliminated every 90 seconds – and could feature weight penalties for the championship leaders.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Esteban Gutierrez, Haas, Circuit de Catalunya, 2016
Haas has an innovative tie-up with Ferrari
Haas may be the closest thing to a customer team allowable in F1 today. Is this philosophy good for F1?

I like what Haas have done, and hope that they will show that you can break into F1 with decent, consistent, results, if you have the right connections and play it smart. They’ve got as much help from Ferrari as they legally can have, and they’ve gone conservative on the cooling to make the car as reliable as they can.

That being said, the fact that they have all of this help from “contacts” yet will still likely score a couple of points at best shows the problem with inequality in Formula One. Why should you need “contacts” and manufacturer support? Of course, trying to enter any support with no existing connections to other major teams and support of some kind would seem naive, but the level of help Haas has is highly unusual (and exists only because Ferrari are effectively getting a free B-team).

It would be like if a new team joined the Premier League, and Chelsea decided that they would let the new team train with them, and lend a couple of their players to them for some matches too. How ridiculous would that seem?

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Georgedaviesf1!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthdays to Alain Prost, 61 today, and Pedro de la Rosa, 45 today.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

80 comments on “Elimination qualifying planned for 2016 and ‘time ballast’ discussed”

  1. Sigh. I think the current qualy system is one of the best things about F1 at the moment.

    So I guess it’s totally predictable that the Strategy Group wants to change it.

    Hopefully this goes the same way as other SG thought bubbles like standing restarts and the reintroduction of refueling.

    1. Well said. Yet more insistence on gimmicky band-aids instead of any real attempt to fix the major problems this sport faces. It’s pathetic, frankly.

      It took all of five seconds for a flaw in this new concept to hit me, as well. The slowest driver is eliminated after a certain number of minutes into the session, but which is the slowest driver if there are multiple drivers who have yet to set a laptime, or who have set the exact same (slowest) time as each other? How do you choose just one for elimination, or do you have to eliminate everybody who hasn’t set a time at that point?

      About the only positive I can see in this is that it will force teams to get their butts on-track earlier even if they believe conditions to be sub-optimal. But that’s hardly worth the annoyance it will bring when teams are all forced onto the track at the same moment, then they all complain about traffic. And that’s before we even consider the question of what happens if multiple cars haven’t set a time, or have set the exact same time.

      1. if you want Mercedes to keep winning, keep the fuel limit at 100kg and don’t allow refueling :)

        1. Where did I suggest that I want Merc to keep winning? I really don’t care if they keep winning or not, so long as everybody else has a level playing field and the rules are completely sporting.

      2. I’m looking for forward to it, this time elimination format has been a fun staple of racing games for years.

        but which is the slowest driver if there are multiple drivers who have yet to set a laptime, or who have set the exact same (slowest) time as each other?


        Well, what would happen in the current format?

        Time elimination usually has a longer time (say 5 minutes) before the first elimination to allow everyone a fair chance to set a lap. If there are multiple cars without a laptime presumably they could do something about counting cars that have set sector times (like they do now). If two or more haven’t got out at all then presumably it would be based on practice times or championship position (again whatever they use currently to set the grid in the same situation).

        If they are on the exact same time, it’s the car that set the time first.

        I think it could be a really exciting format. I’d love it if the teams were not allowed to refuel, just change tires. You’d get faster and faster times throughout the session and you really would know who was on pole until the last elimination – which should allow them to finish the flying laps they are on like in the current format.

        It certainly seems a fair way to make qualifying more unpredictable.

        1. Ok read the article now… really seems similar to the current format, although i still think it might be a positive change. I’d like to see them just try a 45 minute time elimination race though…

        2. In the current format, you have to sit out the entire qualifying session to be dropped for not setting a time. If that happens, it makes perfect sense to exclude all cars which failed to set a single time from the following qualifying session.

          Now, though, we have a situation where if you have a single problem at the start of the qualifying session, you have no opportunity to fix it. And it gets much more ludicrous.

          Let’s imagine the first car out on track spins in a dangerous position right at the end of their hot lap. Does every other car who came out on track after them still have to set a time despite the waved yellows, and then we punish those who drove the most safely under waved yellows by excluding them from the next session? Or do we choose a number of cars to exclude at random, since *none* of them have set a time, and nor do they have the opportunity to do so before we’re supposed to start turfing drivers at X minutes into the session? After all, there’s no longer time for them to get back to the pits, change tires, and try for a second hot lap before the exclusions start. And there may not even be time for them to just circulate the track at reduced speed waiting for the track to be cleared before trying to set a second timed lap on the same set of tires, if that’s even a possibility with your strategy choice.

    2. Wait until they add blue shell shooting cannons to the cars!

    3. Lol yes. The one time drivers drive with anger to the full potential..

      But its not to bad.. Just more dramatic. Fast laps need to be placed at start of the session.

      I imagine with properly good tires, we would have 3 mini elimination races..

    4. I don’t even know why they want to tweak current qualy system.

      1. I find it very frustrating to watch at the moment due to everyone being on their flying lap at the same time. It doesn’t really work on TV as you end up just watching the last few corners of a few of the cars. I want to do the whole lap with a car and feel everything

    5. Ted Kravitz has summed this up pretty well this morning on the Sky F1 website…”The response we are getting from the viewers and the fans is that ‘qualifying wasn’t broken so why fix it?’ The message we are also getting from our viewers and the fans here at the circuit is that all this fiddling around on the edges with gimmickry is that it shows that Formula 1 bosses are fundamentally out of touch with what the real fans want – which is good, close racing on a Sunday. They don’t want this. It’s more gimmickry and it’s too complicated for the armchair fans to understand.
      “Sure, it will be interesting and it will jumble up the grid. But that is no good if, when you go racing, the front-wings are so complicated that anyone following anyone else on the track will lose 50% of their downforce. And fundamentally that is what is wrong with F1 at the moment.”
      Why is it so obvious to fans but not those in charge of F1?

    6. petebaldwin (@)
      25th February 2016, 0:59

      I actually don’t mind the changes to quali – I think it makes it much harder and less forgiving.

      Instead of having a full 15 minutes to put in a decent lap, you have around half that – fail and you’re out. Before you could make several mistakes but save yourself as the chequered flag was waved. On top of that, considering they’ll have limited tyres, when do they put their laps in? At the moment, they tend to run to a schedule but with rolling eliminations, you might need to go out and get a lap in, fly back into the pits and go straight back out if you’re looking like qualifying in 6th – 8th…

      I also think it will allow people to focus more on specific drivers when it matters. Without live timing (which I end up staring at rather than the TV), the coverage will usually focus on the top drivers and the battle for pole. The battle for 6th or 7th isn’t really considered – it will be now – for 1m30s at least.

  2. I prefer the top 10 shootout system used in V8 Supercars and that F1 used to have. One shot to to the best lap you could. To me that just seems more intense then sending all 10 cars out at once in Q3.

    1. +1. I love the Top 10 Shootouts. I wish V8SC would do them at every round.

    2. Yep, that would work well for the top 8 in F1. It was dull as ditchwater with the whole field, but with the current Q3 you never get to see the key moments or compare anyone’s laps.
      This elimination thing would be fun up to 8th place – but how will it work with exploding tyres that are only good for 3 or 4 laps? And there’ll have to be some stupid tyre rules to give the cars at the back an unfair advantage in the race…

    3. @stigsemperfi @ambroserpm The single lap system was dropped because virtually nobody liked it & the TV ratings for qualifying over the 3 years F1 used that system dropped significantly which was why the system was changed each year to try & find something that worked better (Friday/Saturday qualifying to start with in 2003, Then both sessions on Saturday in 2004 & the aggregate system & eventually single session for 2005).

      When coming up with the current system for 2006 the idea of having the top 10 be a single lap shootout was considered but there was some data which suggested that woudl still be unpopular with fans.

      1. As @gt-racer mentions, the single lap qualifying was a horrible lottery, the current system is just so much better and there really is no good reason to change it. F1 needs changes but the qualifying format was one of the things that did not need a change at all.

        As for Mercedes dominating – we have Ferrari feeling confident they can beat Mercedes, we have McLaren climbing back out of the big hole again. There really is no reason to expect that Mercedes will be dominating for years to come.

    4. God no. That was an utterly awful abomination of a system, because it meant that different drivers might face completely different track conditions (rain, wind, dirt or oil on the track, whatever) solely because of the moment they were told they *had* to go out. That’s unsporting. It was also utterly yawnworthy watching a long procession of single cars circulate the track by themselves for an hour, and meant those who attended the race in person saw far *less* of the cars, which can hardly be called a good thing.

      1. He is not suggesting the old shootout (that was awful) The new shootout would be for q3 only, and drivers could dictate when they run with preference given based on q2 times. Currently q2 times amount to nothing, so thiswould make q2 a little more interesting also. To reiterate, old shootout bad, top 8/10 shootout good.

        1. Any system in which an “order of running” is pre-decided is bad for F1 as it is unfair to some drivers in case of weather changes (rain coming going; track temperature dropping, increasing) during the session

          1. Exactly.

    5. FlyingLobster27
      24th February 2016, 10:05

      I’m certainly in a minority, but I’ve always had a disliking for the knockout system. Fastest overall time doesn’t always get pole (which is what qualifying should be about), and small teams get a disadvantage in terms of track time. It’s not massive, sure, but when I first heard of it, that was my thought. The proposed Elimination system builds on that, making it more complicated and, IMO, more inviting to foul play. There will be dozens of protests against drivers supposedly stopping a nearly-eliminated driver from improving, and eliminated drivers, bar the last one, could attempt to get payback by holding up someone they viewed as impeding. It’s the NASCAR Chase condensed into one hour, and we’ll have over twenty of them per year… It’s not exciting, I’m tired just thinking about it.

      One lap with a clear track for everyone would be ideal, but because of changing weather, it’s impractical. So what? Fastest in FP gets to choose his place in the starting order, like they did for a while in the WRC?
      My favourite qualifying format would be a one-hour session, plus a Superpole opportunity for the top 10: 5-10 minutes in which they would have the track to themselves, and could set one flying lap to attempt to improve their main session time. Everyone gets the same practice time, and there’s some drama in the tail (if it stays dry; in changing conditions, one might aswell cancel SP).

  3. At first glance, I like to new qualifying system, not to say anything was wrong with the previous one. It makes it harder to be caught as one of the bottom 4/5 and forgives minor errors by giving mediocre opportunity for advancement. It seems fairer and actually has more chance of eliminating genuine slow cars, rather than people caught up in the dropzone.

    Although I heard someone make a good point, the usual suspects at the top of the table will go out, set 1 hot lap, go in the pits until they need to come out, if it all for the session. Whereas, the midfielders and beyond will be using loads of fuel and tires darting in and out of the pits trying to avoid bottom since anybody that can possibly be pushed down (Renault, Haas, Force India, Sauber, Mclaren maybe) will be constantly on track avoiding demotion. It think this system of qualifying would work with a very balanced field where anybody could realistically be in the drop zone. Just musing here but maybe a rule where you must set a certain amount of laps per session would combat quick teams staying in the pits after a hot lap.

    Qualifying wasn’t broke and definitely wasn’t the issue and although more time is needed to analyse this brand of quali, I like it so far at a glance.

  4. New qualifying idea… be nice to see it in action before judging, but I’m not convinced kicking the slowest cars out one at a time will result in a different grid to kicking them out groups of six.

    1. Not vastly different, I mean…

  5. I mean Qualy really needed a shakeup didn’t it. I fear for the future of F1, i say that a lot at the moment

  6. I can’t stand this nonsense rumour that Alonso may retire during testing. I understand that if there is genuine insider knowledge then it is fair grounds for someone to run it as a left field article. But this is lazy journalism in my eyes. I could have predicted this article from the Japanese GP last year. If he decided to finish the abysmal 2015 season and then continued with the belief the team would improve he would have to be very stupid to think the change would be overnight. Indeed, if Alonso has any understanding of car development, he would realise the best time to evaluate would be at the start of the European season when I expect this rumour to be rolled out again.

    1. Alonso and Red Bull would be a perfect match. Who will threaten to quit more?

      1. Hopefully Bernie ;)

  7. Quali has been the strongest, most pure part of F1 race weekends for years now. It has an entertaining and practical format, remain challenging for drivers and captivating for viewers as its a rare chance to see the cars flat out, on the limit.

    In short, it’s one part of the package that didn’t need to messed with. They just can’t help themselves with changes they make to F1 though. It feels like they continually miss the crux to rearrange the chairs on deck…

    1. imagine if the FIA didn’t hold all the circuits, drivers and teams in check, you might actually get some good racing. Right now all I see is brand management and political correctness.

    2. schlewisschmosberg
      24th February 2016, 11:01

      Actually, quali has been the weakest part of the weekend, up to the point where it’s really not worth tuning in anymore.
      Every other qualifying format I’ve seen since the mid-90s was far superior to the current wait-58-minutes-and-hope-for-something-interesting-in-the-last-2-minutes-format.

  8. Hmmm. Scorned former Ferrari boss now in charge of Lamborghini.

    This move was a year in the making though, dont think just because it hit the news cycle it’s actually news :-)





  9. Fikri Harish (@)
    24th February 2016, 0:37

    I mean, I know the report’s saying that the idea’s been shot down.
    But to actually think that they were seriously discussing it? Like, for real? F1’s got lung cancer and the powers-that-be is instead discussing whether amputating its legs would help or not.

    The new qualifying rules might be a good idea since this leaves even less room for error for the drivers, but lung cancer still ain’t gonna be cured with a liver transplant.

    1. @fihar

      But to actually think that they were seriously discussing it?

      I know, it’s depressing. Unless the discussion was no more than Ecclestone saying “we should do this”, and everyone else replying “don’t be so bloody stupid”.

      1. Gavin Campbell
        24th February 2016, 8:58

        I’ll tell you one massive problem with time ballast with one word – “Monaco” – How in gods name would that work with a time ballast system??

  10. There’s a few things wrong with the proposed qualifying change.

    For starters your going to end Q3 with only 2 cars on a lap & in a situation where its rained & the track is drying your also losing that last minute dash for the line where its last guy over the line who has the best shot at pole & you have the pole time changing a dozen times.

    Your also opening the door to more blocking penalty’s because unlike the current system drivers are going to be far less willing to back off & let someone by them because that will just compromise them & could put them at risk of been eliminated so its likely the elimination will come down purely to who gets a clean lap (Especially at places like Monaco).

    The other issue is that towards the end of each segment you currently have most (if not all) cars on track, Now your going to have less cars & therefore less interest towards the end of each segment & as I mentioned earlier towards the end of Q3 there are going to be hardly anyone on track which removes a lot of the fun & tension from the end of Q3.

    The biggest problem however is the tyres. Right now you get 1 or 2 really hot laps from the tyres before the deg really starts to kick in so under this elimination system how many sets of tyres are teams going to need to go through in qualifying?

    1. All very valid points that i can see being brought up by the more knowing people inside teams to hopefully shoot down the this horrible idea before they even implement it.

      First of all qualifying did not need an overhaul, and then the new idea is as half baked and not thought through as they come.

    2. @gt-racer Not to mention the amount of fuel they will need to carry thus making times slower and slower. Just so many holes in the boat the idea is already sinking.

  11. Re cotd/Haas, I find it hard to disparage the quasi-customer approach to building a car when the rules are so prescriptive that it would be virtually impossible to tell which car was which during a race if they all had the same paint job, why should a new team have to spend vast sums just to re-invent the wheel? Of course I would be much happier if new and established teams bought something different to the 1st. practice session of the year but sadly those days are long gone.

    1. so you don’t follow f1?

      Merc has the serrated teeth barge boards and massive air intake and tricked out floor. McLaren has their fancy front suspension that no one else is using… and these are just things I can recall atm. There are and will be a whole bunch of new and interesting developments. That’s what makes F1 great.

      Well that and remembering when it had pure passing and screaming high revving engines.

      1. @apexassasin, Sure there are features you mention that distinguish the cars when they are standing still and even some you can see as they flash past you, but seeing a couple of cars coming around a bend or going away too fast to count exhaust pipes will be a lot more difficult, that’s why I stipulated “during a race”.

  12. Quali hasn’t been the problem. It’s the least of the problems. Hell it’s often been the highlight of the weekend. And ballast? Seriously, if these stupid gimmicky ideas don’t stop I’m going to give up the decades and thousands I’ve spent on F1 and I swear I won’t ever look back.

    Thankfully this has to be ratified which I’m hoping doesn’t happen. Again, I think this a ploy to keep people talking about an aspect of F1 that isn’t important and also it seems there is a whole intentional strategy of “let’s force the teams to do A so they shut up about B”.

    1. Well on this point I totally agree, sometimes I think they are intentionally trying to drive me away from F1.
      PS. It’s working.

  13. Re CoTD: How is what Haas doing a bad thing? 1)The very nature of F1 is to use and abuse loopholes. 2)Haas built the chassis and got as many internals from Ferrari as possible, and already seems to have a more stable team than Manor/Marussia/Virgin ever was, good on him. 3) There’s on more team and two more drivers on the grid because of him. 4) ‘Having contacts’ is how motorsport is run, every team has contacts at every brand that sponsors them; think of Ferrari sponsoring Haas the way Red Bull do Torro Rosso. Where’s the hate for Faenza team?

    1. I think it’s all wrapped up in your first point. There are too many people who are willing to sit back and justify the sleaziness and abuse of power in F1 as ‘natural’ because of its history. F1 isn’t natural or organic. It’s a man-made event that can be changed in any way we want it to be. I’d venture to say that people are growing tired of the douchebag side of it, and would love for it to have more equity and integrity. Most of us grew up with bullies pushing their weight around in the schoolyard. Are we really supposed to see it as a good thing in our sports as well?

  14. In the current era of F1 is always going to be harder to make races more unpredictable because the circuits in which they race are more and more similar every year because they’re all designed by the same architect.

    A car good on aero like the Red Bull only has 2 or 3 good races per year, the rest of the time it’s being overtaken in the huge 1km straight we have on every track, no variety in circuits, no variety in results, quite obvious.

    1. A car good on aero like the Red Bull only has 2 or 3 good races per year

      Meh, that is just not true @mantresx.

      First of all, the Mercedes is about as good as the Red Bull on aero configuration, just Red Bull are held back by their by now conservative approach: The idea that maximum downforce is the winner.
      They just have to move with the times and develop a car that is less draggy (i.e. better balanced) and then off course the engine plays a role too. There really is no reason why they could not do well at most tracks, off course they do need the engine to hold together to finish in a good place too.

  15. As usual, F1 is trying to fix what ain’t broken.

  16. A reader poll on the proposed qualifying change might be a good idea. I think it would be very one sided. F1 could use some changes, but certainly qualifying isn’t one of them. We already have an entertaining format that drivers and fans in general seem to like. Silly proposal considering the numerous other things that need looking at.

  17. The problem with trying to ‘spice things up’ by introducing changes to qualifying, refueling, high deg tyres, DRS etc… Is that it may work to begin with but eventually teams/drivers figure it out & fans go back to complaining about how dull & predictable it all is.

    This is a big part of why I am so against using gimmicks, You start out with 1 but when that gets figured out you have to bring in another & then another & you get stuck in a cycle of been utterly dependent on gimmicks & other artificial methods to keep things spiced up.

    By far the biggest problem with F1 the past 10-15 years has been that The FIA, Bernie & now the teams seem to be constantly, blindly throwing stuff around without giving anything any proper thought & so whatever sticks either doesn’t work as planned, creates additional problems or quickly fall’s off & requires another sticking plaster to cover the gap.

    Instead of repeating this mistake 1 more time, I say that all the planned changes for 2017 be scrapped, The strategy group be dissolved & Bernie & the teams be completely removed from all decision making regarding the next rule set.
    Jean Todt should grow a pair, Take control of the sport he’s supposed to be governing & put together a proper technical working group made up of people that are currently outside of F1 (Guys like Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne, Patrick Head, John Barnard, Gordon Murray, Steve Nichols etc…) who will be given until 2020 & whatever resources they need to put together a properly thought out set of regulations that ensure F1 is fast & features close, competitive racing without the need for any gimmicks.
    You could also have Ex-drivers as well as current drivers involved to give feedback & advice on some aspects.

    I’d also like to see Bernie removed from his position & CVC sell F1 to someone who actually gives a damn about the sport rather than the size of the cheque it puts in there bank account.
    Lets get it online so that it has a larger reach, Lets distribute the funds in a way that is beneficial to all teams & lets not rob circuit owners to the point where ticket prices have to be as high as they are & where many traditional circuits are under constant threat.

  18. Remember when we had complaints about qualifying when no-one went out in Q3 (especially China 2013) because they were saving tyres for the race? The imperative was to get cars on track.

    Now the rule to “improve the show” is the exact opposite: get cars off the track.

    In all of the whinging and moaning about what’s wrong with F1 over the last 2 years, not once did I hear that qualifying was wrong. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.

  19. Haas has come in as a breath of fresh air already this season. They have come in not setting the bar so high so that they fail and people do not take them seriously. They have come in with a good plan and a budget in place and doing this the right way. The one thing so far that i feel sets them apart from any F1 team is their willingness to be open and interact with the fans. What do we all wish as F1 fans? We would love to have that look on the inside and to feel like we are part of the team. When a part breaks on a car or something is not working you will never hear a team tell you about what failed on the car or how they would fix it. With Mr. Haas so far he is open and willing to bring the outside world into that dark secretive side of F1. Today when Mr. Haas was asked about what happen to the wing he gave this answer….

    “The problem from yesterday is given the wing had a fair amount of down force on it, it pulled out the attachment structure on the nose.
    “Some aluminum and carbon fiber are integrated, and the theory is, when the aluminum heated up, then cooled down again, it pulled away from the carbon fiber, so it had some weakness there.
    “On the track, with the down force and the vibrations, that bond was not proper, it separated, and the aluminum just pulled out from the nose, which then let the wing go underneath the car, it ran over it and broke into many little pieces.
    “So they took the two little down struts where the aluminum is, they put some straps around them, and then placed two screws perpendicular to the axis. Instead of having screws that are being pulled straight down, they are now perpendicular. That’s the fix right now for that. Eventually we’ll have to come up with some other way of bonding the aluminum to the carbon fiber.”

    What other team would do that? I do not know of very many if any. They also are very interactive with all the fans in social media world. This is not the first time he has pulled back the curtain on his team. I feel that we need an F1 that is a little more open and willing to bring the fans into the world of the teams. I hope that other teams might see this and find out you dont have to have everything a secret like it is life or death. I really hope that Haas can make a name for themselves and people become fans and support this team. I am an American and i am damn proud to have an American team on the grid after all these years. Do you all feel the same? Do you wish teams would be a little more open about things such as this? I feel it would pull alot of fans and their interests into the sport.

    1. Have to agree. I was very surprised, and pleased, to see such a detailed answer on why the wing failed.

      Definitely a great addition to the sport so far.

    2. I’m from USA and don’t care Haas is an American team. What I do care about, having more competitive drivers/cars on the grid. So far, Haas and Manor look to possibly suprise us this year, which can only be good for the sport. If Haas is successful with their current endeavor, it may allow other competitors with the “means” to do the same.

      I understand patriotic pride for ones country, in that respect, hope Haas gives many reasons to cheer them on in 2016 and the future to all F1 fans. In the meantime it looks like another year of “it’s like a GP2 engine” season for me. Damn, I wish Alonso would get another real chance before it’s too late. We’ll see.

      Another thing a succesful Haas could do is bring in more north american investment dollars into the sport. Dare I even say, possibly an american engine supplier, like Ford/Chevorlet or whomever? All of this would evolve the sport more imo. To be honest I was a little dissapointed other operations such as HRT and others weren’t more prominent, as it may have possibly done the same and grew the sport. Could you imagine where we’d be if a couple of these attempt were more succesful as far as partipation goes? Full and more competitive grids? Yes please.

      But all the failures show, how extremely difficult it is to produce results in F1, even with a bigger budget.

      1. HAAS are failing their way in to my heart.

        Thats the Fan access I want everytime…. When engine failed I want details, when tire explodes I want driver to curse at Pirelli guy….

        Well done HAAS.

        P.S. Since when teams use anything but carbon fibre in front wing design?

  20. It will be interesting if 2 or more cars haven’t taken to the track in the first 7 minutes. No time set. Who is eliminated?
    What if only 1 car goes out in the first 7 minutes? He could circulate in the 5mins bracket and get through. Who is eliminated?
    Why bother? Leave it as is. It aint broke. There’s much bigger things to concentrate resources on.

  21. Qualifying was fine the way it was…why change it? Now I think we will have to wait for Sunday morning every race to know the qualifying result once the stewards are done handing out all the impeding penalties on Saturday evenings.
    Another change that wasn’t needed while real issues are left by the wayside

  22. I don’t know if any of you read The Onion, but you might get a laugh out of this:


  23. ‘How to spice up the show’ is the wrong question.

    ‘Why does the show need spicing up’ is the correct one.

    If only the rule makers understood the subtle but crucial difference between the two…

  24. Such negativity. Must disagree with all of it. The amendments made to quali will spice up the action. In essence creating a ‘mini-race’ with more cars on track for an hour rather than a series of single lap runs and cars sitting in the pits. Plus no more Fans sight-seeing on Saturdays. All of you in two months time will be on here saying that was the best thing we’ve ever seen, F1 has never been this great, if only the races could be that awesome, that was such a great idea and so on. Just wait….

    1. The tyres are only good for one hot lap in qualifying (or occasionally two with a cool down lap in between), and the number of tyres available will not change so I do not see the drivers doing anymore laps than they do now. They will do one run early in each part of Q1 and Q2 and then a second run if needed. If they do two runs in Q3 then they will not have any new tyres left to do another flying lap by the time there are only 2 cars left at the end of the session.

      All that will change is that more of the running will take place earlier in each part of qualifying (before elimination starts), and we will lose the current climax when all the drivers are pushing to do their fastest lap at the end of the session when track conditions are at their best.

  25. ps. the the new Red Bull livery looks awesome on track. Heads and tails more visible than any of the other cars!

  26. Well done strategy group, well done. In an effort to spice up the racing you have agreed to change qualifying. Never mid that the current format is the best we have had and that qualifying is already widely regarded as the most exciting part of the race weekend. Oh and you agreed to kick the can down the road on the actual issue you were there to agree on.

    They are hopeless, absolutely hopeless. No wonder they say te only thing they can agree is the date of the next meeting. The biggest problem in F1 today is the Strategy Group, they have no clue about how to run the sport.

  27. I am seriously getting tired about these new ideas F1 comes out with but the truth still remain the same….Formula 1 is drilling itself into the ground at a very fast pace!

  28. F1’s got 99 problems but the qualifying format just ain’t one.

  29. So now a layperson will not understand tyres or qualifying and on race day when they’re asking why Lewis Hamilton has to start at the back I get to tell them it’s their fault and I hate them.

    F1, fun for friends and family alike.

  30. Unbelievable. Let’s mess around with the things that do work and leave the things that don’t completely alone.

    There’s nothing wrong with Qualy and lots right with it. The pressure at the end of q1 and q2 is absolutely brilliant. If we get a few more evenly matched cars at the front of the field it could/would be in q3 as well.

    I don’t see this stupid idea improving the “spectacle” or keeping more cars on the track – I just see a huge mess with cars tripping over each other and fans wondering what the heck is going on.

  31. It’s clear more than ever now that the people who are coming up with these rules need to be changed.

    Yet again all that the bosses achieved is changing something which worked perfectly fine. However they failed (again) to agree on changing the aero and they’ve brushed over the actual problems in F1 right now.

    At least the woeful time ballast thing seems to not be happening. It was completely flawed anyway.

  32. I’m assuming this means they’ll have to change their random weighbridge calls during qualifying now then? It’d be really bad if a driver gets called to the weighbridge and in that time drops to the bottom and the next elimination kicks in.

    What’s happening with the top 10 must start on the tyres used in Q2? Will that now just become the top 8?

    Q3 will now have fewer cars in it, and last longer too. They introduce the ultrasoft tyre, almost specifically for qualifying, and then reduce the number of cars that can actually use the extra set in Q3…

    Is the elimination time rigid? For example, if a driver is literally 2 yards from the timing line at end of a hot lap that’ll move them off bottom, but the clock ticks over, are they out?

    All seems a bit unnecessary, and will have knock on effects that I’m sure they haven’t even thought of.

  33. COTD Haas haven’t broken any rules so I don’t see the problem, just like most people never seen the problem Toro Rosso.

  34. Props to Haas. So far they look than I was expecting and my expectations were not low at all.

  35. Elimination qualifying highlights exactly what’s wrong with F1…changing something that isn’t broken while ignoring all else. The more gimmicks they implement the closer to the door I get. F1 has been my drug of choice for over 40 years and yet I find myself more excited about the upcoming MotoGP season than the upcoming F1 season and nonsense like this change is in part to blame.

  36. One upside is that at the end the TV director will only have two cars to cover, in the race for pole. And fewer cars generally. Given that he’s not the most gifted when it comes to understanding racing, that can only help.

  37. What is wrong with the them? Qualifying – the only thing that no F1 fan was complaining about – is what they decide to change. It just seems like they want to distract everyone from the actual issues in F1 by giving us something else to talk about. Time penalties and ballast are the next steps to making F1 qualifying almost pointless (unless they also introduce points – another way to potentially kill off the excitement of the final race). They’ll suggest they pull numbers out of a hat to decide qualifying next – oh hold on, is that a reverse grid BTCC style? I just hope the FIA WMSC throw this out with the rest of the rubbish proposals.
    Does anyone know where I can buy some rose tinting for my glasses, reality for an F1 fan of over 30 years is starting to become unbearable?

  38. I think the proposal is well meaning, but could backfire. The current format is probably my favourite in years of watching F1. However, the “dead air” in between runs is something I imagine the powers that be really don’t like. I’m interested in the idea of if the drivers have to be on the track.

    As one commentor already mentioned, for the first 7 minutes, drivers could still sit in the garage and wait to put their first time in. The better teams could probably just go round once and then pit. But not only that, as the driver optimises fuel and tyres for that one lap. So what you could have is cars trundling out to be “on track” for the first few minutes at a low speed and then only putting a flying lap in when the knockout phase kicks in. Then once they’ve done that, are they free to come back in? I’m not sure cars trundling round the track is any better than cars sat in the garage.

    And lastly the end of a flurry of lap times would see the end of one of the most exciting bits of the current format with times tumbling at the end of the session. I’d certainly rather see the top 10 shootout remain, even if the first 2 parts change.

  39. In Faith of current rule changes i have an idea Bernie would like. Lets make F1 a reality show called “who wants to be the next F1 champion”. In qualifying drivers drive an lap and fastest driver gets an immunity.Then drivers vote who should be eliminated and that driver gets a grid place accordingly. Continue this after all grid places are full.

    I am sure F1 fans would absolutely love this and the amount of viewers would sky rocket.

Comments are closed.