Fernando Alonso, McLaren, Albert Park, 2016

Alonso hoping for “extreme F1 car” in 2017

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Fernando Alonso hopes the regulation changes for 2017 will make F1 more “extreme”.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Why elimination qualifying didn’t work the way it was supposed to in Australia:

On paper, having a car drop out every 1 minute, 30 seconds is exciting except for the fact that the cars need to an in-lap and an out-lap sandwiched around their quick lap, keeping in mind it is very rare for a tyre to give a car a faster lap on a second consecutive flying lap. In Australia, they were running roughly 1 minute 30 second laps. That’s 4 minutes, 30 seconds to get in one actual qualifying lap. And that’s not taking into account that not everyone leaves the pit lane the instant a qualifying session starts. So let’s say you get in one lap and get a tyre change after (generously) 5 minutes. You would then have 30 seconds (generously) to get back out and ensure that you are not going to be P22 and hope to God you are not stuck in traffic (you likely will be). Now think how this system will work in Spa, where the lap time is around 1 minute 52 seconds.

If you consider all of the above, the system would be ideal if everyone were just out on the track doing lap after lap without pitting, without factoring in fuel weight, and the tyres somehow lasted several laps. But in reality, you go out and set a time and then essentially the bottom 5-6 cars are done. And that goes for Q1, Q2 and Q3. Then, if you have survived, you go out one more time and the session is over. There is no strategy or added drama. You have just added another “mini” elimination period. Q.5, Q1.5, and Q2.5 if you will. The problem in Australia was that after “Q2.5”, the remaining teams didn’t really have time to execute another lap after they already knew their positions.

Now add in the factor that saving tyres for race day is paramount to gaining one or two spots up the grid and you have what we saw in Australia and what we will see again in Bahrain.
Justin B

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Alianora La Canta, Fallon, Henrique Pinheiro, Jake and Jorge H.!

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

Lella Lombardi, the only woman to score points in an F1 race, was born on this day 75 years ago. Lombardi died in 1992.

Today is also former Simtek and Virgin designer Nick Wirth’s 50th birthday.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 78 comments on “Alonso hoping for “extreme F1 car” in 2017”

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      26th March 2016, 0:09

      I still consider emojis a childish thing, but Alonso’s tweet intrigues me.
      No Easter egg hunt for me as I’ll be decoding Alonso’s message.

      1. @coldfly I never understand those emojis, so please tell me what you find out after you finish decoding it ;)

      2. @coldfly the one thing I’ve learnt is that Fernando loves his meds.

        Probably not a surprise after the crash.

      3. @coldfly @mickey18 @sonicslv What I got from that tweet was:

        “I flew home, spent a lot of hours doing nothing but trying to get better, not being able to ride a bike or take a walk, on painkillers every hour, starting to get crazy about it, more and more hours, more and more sleep, more and more painkillers and where’s this going to end? feeling bad, then good after painkillers, still no excercising, more sleep, more feeling sick, as the clock kept ticking still without being able to do anything but stay strong”

        Or something along those lines :P I hate emoji’s aswell

      4. He is tired in open wheeler, the routinity, slow car, travelling, but he still eager for wdc

      5. Aah … “The Alonso Code”.

    2. could someone translate Alonso’s tweet for me i’m really bad at emojis

      1. I have no idea of the accepted meanings but my immediate conclusion is that for the next few days he will be flying, sleeping, taking medication, and exercising with a short break to monkey around in the middle.

      2. Jack (@jackisthestig)
        26th March 2016, 5:38

        With all the pills and cycling Lance Armstrong springs to mind.

      3. Sergey Martyn
        27th March 2016, 11:34

        I think he was tweeting that emoji eruption during the crash – while you’re rolling madly across the gravel trap it’s hard to post something intelligible.

    3. With the teams all admitting in Melbourne that the new qualifying system was rubbish and needed changing, and now it’s been confirmed that the system will still be used in Bahrain, is there any possibility that the teams will simply not run in qualifying as protest? What would happen then?

      1. All the teams did in Melbourne is prove they do not know how to read a clock.

        The amateurish levels displayed by the teams with regards to timing in the Australian qualifying session was beyond pathetic.

        Knowing how many smart people are in these teams leads one to suspect that they manufactured that qualifying session to be the joke that it was.

        If those teams cannot understand how a clock works as bad as they did in Aus then none of them deserve a say in how qualifying should be run because they have demonstrated complete failure in basic time keeping.

        Nothing was hard about sending drivers out in time.

        1. The only teams that failed to “read the clock” in Australia is Sauber and Haas. The others are deliberately not running anymore because saving fresh set of tires is more important.

      2. @keeleyobsessed Q1 classification started same as the end of FP3 classification. So if no one actually run anything at qualification, the grid will be the same as the end of FP3. Of course that wouldn’t happen because it’s prisoner dilemma.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          26th March 2016, 8:35

          No prisoner’s dilemma I reckon, @sonicslv, @keeleyobsessed.
          – Drivers can announce early via the GPDA to all fans and stakeholders that they won’t run in quali.
          – They will use 1 hour qualification session for all cars as pseudo quali.
          – According to the rules the grid will be as per the outcome of P3!

          McLaren/RBR and probably other teams (and many fans) will support them.
          Any driver to break ranks might have his 15mins of fame, but will be frowned upon afterwards.

          1. @coldfly Except there will be nothing to support it but gentleman agreement, between all the team. Also then they need reschedule their programme to set up a “pseudo” qualy at the end of FP3. Even though they only need to run 5mins at the end, the work to evaluate proper quali and racing setup and then to apply the changes of the car is not that quick. On the other hand, imagine Manor goes out, doesn’t complete a lap and goes in, Haryanto could be the first man to get pole in his 2nd race in F1! Also that assuming every other team still respect the agreement and only watch with pouting their mouth. I expect there will be chaos after someone break the agreement. For teams like Sauber, Manor, Haas, and probably Renault, breaking the rule and getting pole could translate to very big chance of finishing in points and extra cash at the end of the season. That alone is worth ridiculed by other team and media for 2 week at most before Bernie/FIA/FOM grabbing the headline again. For Vettel/Ferrari/Red Bull, getting easy pole could mean a race victory and could affect the outcome of WDC.

            And note, when things goes into chaos or someone break the rules, there’s nothing that can made the offender get penalized or fined.

            The only good thing though, parc ferme rule isn’t in effect at the end of FP3 so we can see a different qualy and race setup. Everyone starts with free choice of fresh tires too, I think, because the top 8 doesn’t set any time in Q2.

    4. Neil (@neilosjames)
      26th March 2016, 1:43

      Alonso’s tweet… Fly to circuit. Do lots of practice laps, which are boring – you can’t really do anything interesting. Take sleeping pills, wake up when alarm goes off feeling like a monkey with a sore head. Wait until feeling wide awake, then go to gym for a bit. Then elimination qualifying starts and no one has a clue what’s happening. Lots of times are set. Lots of people fall asleep because it’s boring. Car gets some medicine because it made it through Q1, people still looking but none of them like the format. Distribute Prozac to the crowd, and they all perk up. The cars go into parc ferme and no one is allowed to do anything with them. From a random sample of eight fans, three are asleep, two are still watching and three are really unhappy with what they just saw. More sleeping pills, then the race the next day. Manage six laps before the car breaks down. No bikes for a lift back to the pits, and can’t walk back because it broke down on the outside of the track. Go to the gym. Run out of characters.

      1. @fihar That is the best link anyone has posted on F1 Fanatic all year, including all of mine :-)

    5. Alonso’s tweet. Let’s see.

      Got on an airplane while still seeing double. Lost a track of time completely. Had a major hangover, so biking and running was out of question. Then, popped a few silly pills and started seeing monkey. Then, in the style of a cat from Alice in the Wonderland, the monkey morphed into just a pair of eyes. Then those eyes turned into six eyes. Suddenly, I’ve got two elbows in the head. Hangover again. Totally lost a track of time again, drifting in an out of consciousness. But a bit of that good old hair of the dog, I got meself a few more of those silly pills, and the eyes appeared again. Then it was kinda weird, but it suddenly turned into a really bad trip. So I ppoed a few more silly pills, and the trip turned to a good, good, good one! Still, biking was out of option, walking also, so I just crashed. I started dreaming those eyes again and woke up with a major hangover headache. A bit more of a hair of the dog, I got myself some more of them silly pills and the time started going crazy again. Kept thinking about biking and walking, but then I got two more elbows in the head.

    6. Funny that Bob Bell mentions in the linked article the teams that will do well in 2017 are the ones which started developing their cars for the new regs 6 months ago. Obviously Renault did not have that luxury, but I’m left wondering who did? Are the regs for 2017 already decided? There are proposed regs, does that mean some teams are already developing cars based on regs that are not yet written in stone? Or are they? What is really going on?

      How can any team start developing a car based on proposed regs that won’t be finalized until the 30th of April 2016? At least that is the latest deadline given. These proposed regs, arrived at by the same F1 governance that can’t even make up their minds on what actual current regs should be. To wit, radio regs, tear off regs, qualifying regs. Those are 2016 regs already in place, supposedly, and they still do not know what they are doing with them from race to race and even make waffling changes almost right up until race time.

      So, if you were technical director or team principal for a F1 team, what actual 2017 car development would you be doing right now? (Or 6 months ago?)

      1. @bullmello
        I guess they prepare some base models on the data they got about how the models look like and work on it to see whether it will be the choice or not. I agree its some what shooting in dark but more or less the rear wing design is now lower than current versions so they go and see how much DF it produces and all other factors like DRS / Rear wing assembly / Suspension settings can be gathered by design chiefs. Same with Front Wing.

        Also them being in discussions know how they will be shaping up than us fans and media. But i dont agree that 6 months head start would help as the news we got 6 months earlier about regulation details is not the same to now. So over all they try simulations with different models to see how they pan out but all the teams are in same boat.

        1. Miki – “But i dont agree that 6 months head start would help as the news we got 6 months earlier about regulation details is not the same to now.”

          Right, and who knows what it will change into next.

          1. @bullmello
            I hope there is no need of drastic changes considering how fast these cars right now. If they want to change any thing add Beam wing and increase Diffuser height so that teams can run more AOA. Wider Tires will give more mechanical grip as well. Such that the requirement of 3-4 secs will be find out quite easily.But knowing the teams/FIA/FOM we can be pretty sure they will come up with another set of stupid regulations and the far cry will be even more.

      2. These 2017 reg’s belong in the bin.

        Get a proper testing programme together for Pirelli + a proper mandate to produce PERFORMANCE RACING TYRES.

        Within that there’ll be 3 or 4 best case 5 seconds, and it’ll be through mechanical grip which I’m sure we all know by now is what we need.

        1. @thef1engineer – “These 2017 reg’s belong in the bin.”

          Very much agreed. Also with your remedies. Hard to fathom that these folks who theoretically know infinitely more about F1 than I do as a mere fan cannot comprehend this. Or, why they choose not to.

          I keep watching because as a fan of more than 50 years I can’t seem to look away. But, I keep hoping a long awaited change in the hierarchy will happen to create a chance to make things better.

          1. @bullmello, It comes down to cash for Bernie and the forty thieves, the teams pay for the tyres out of FOM revenue, Pirelli contract for on track advertising with one of FOMs sideline companies.

    7. Makes sense why McLaren want it. They were higher placed than other teams who were better than them in race pace. Jenson was the second last finisher in the end.

      Can’t understand Red Bull’s motivation. Kvyat obviously struggled with the format and looking at the fastest laps from Australia, it must be said Ricciardo neither underachieved nor overachieved with this qualifying, he was where he was supposed to be.

      1. Paul Ortenburg
        26th March 2016, 3:13

        They don’t want it, that’s why they are refusing to vote for a compromise system.

        By not allowing for a compromise system which was the only other offer on the table they are playing chicken/guaranteeing that qualifying in the next race will totally bomb thereby forcing everybody to either continue to look like a laughing stock or go back to last years qualifying system.

        The only people who actually want this system is Force Indian, because 9th~10th is where they are likely to end up each race under wither system and that way they can start on whatever fresh tires they want rather than their Q2 tires that they would have to under the old system.

        1. With due respect to Bob Fernley, he’s apparently an idiot. Yes, he knows a lot more about F1 than I do, but the teams that are most likely to be impacted heavily by this rule are the mid-field teams– Force India, Haas, Red Bull (sorry guys), Torro Rosso, and Renault. Sauber and Manor are still voted “most likely” to drop out in Q1, and the big teams can power through on their first lap, even if it means burning a set of tires.

          We’ve already seen Haas lose out on Q2 due to poor timing, and Renault came close.

      2. They’re sticking a knife into the FIA and FOM at the exact moment where both organizations have been caught with their drawers down.

        The FIA tried to bluff the teams into not rejecting the elimination format, because to revert to the original format 100% would be a serious disgrace for the rule makers (who, remember, were just called out by the GPDA for being a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes) because they would be admitting the new format was a complete bust.

        McLaren and Red Bull, sensing an opportunity to give more control back to the teams (FOTA Mk II, perhaps?) decided to call the bluff.

        Result, we have a hated qualifying format for another race weekend, the teams will do their damnedest to make it as painful for the FIA as possible, and political pressure on Todt and Ecclestone (who pushed through this new format) rises exponentially.

        1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          26th March 2016, 11:15

          Your GPDA reference – are you a hitch hikers guide to the galaxy fan buy any chance?

          1. How could one not be.

            1. “How could one not be.”

              Ummm … by liking girls, or going outside?

      3. @Sumedh
        They just made it clear that if they don’t get 2015 Q Format as a choice they would avoid the Hybrid (2015Q3+ 2016 Q1/2) which is what FIA want to save their face after the disaster happened in Melbourne.
        Whether its their team interests or a sport interest as a whole by Mclaren and Redbull they did absolute right thing and gave FIA and FOM the right response. With one more disaster FIA cant afford to run it.
        Its the Political battle between saving faces and personal / sporting interests.

        1. Also the next race is Bahrain Grand Prix which is the home Grand prix if you consider that majority of CVC holders are from bahrain only(iirc) . Majorly they dont want to have any thing against their Product. But the current situation is going to put a bad show here atleast on Saturday evening which will surely required some explanations to the CVC holders by Bernie. So Mclaren and Redbull choice of not reverting to Hybrid Q format looks even more sense as they forced Bernie’s Hand and FIA’s hand to cover their faces. An interesting week is ahead

          1. Miki, on the contrary, CVC has virtually no ties to Bahrain at all – in fact, they have very little to do with the Middle East in general.

            They don’t have a single office in the entire region (their headquarters are in Luxembourg and most of their offices are in Europe and North America), and the vast bulk (over 90%) of their investors are either from Europe or North America, most of which comprise of US and European pension funds. Most of their funds, meanwhile, invest in European, North American and Asian markets, whilst all of the senior directors are either from Luxembourg or from the UK.

            Essentially, CVC is an almost entirely North American and European institution – if they were to have a “home” race, it would probably be the German GP or the Belgian GP (especially since one of those venues, the Nurburgring, did once host the ‘Luxembourg GP’).

        2. Thanks everyone.. Now I understand. Although it is sad that sports is playing second fiddle to politics.
          It’s a disgrace that FIA tried to force them into choosing only the compromise option. Calling everyone to vote and then giving just one option, how childish by the FIA.

    8. The odds of BMW coming back into F1? Not likely. With McLaren? Even less likely…

    9. Renault really did performance close or even better than they did in 2014, on race pace they were at least capable of passing cars under DRS, maybe that’s all RBR needs to monopolize some races this season.

      McNish, I’m not going to single out some incidents on your career, let’s just say that often you make no sense, your thought process is scrambled and no one understand what the fuss is about when you are speaking, you are the driving version of Eddie Jordan without the funny/embarrasing bits. There’s a reason Coulthard didn’t call you for C4. F1 cars have roll hoops and raised profiles either side, in the event the car rolls the roll hoop makes sure there’s clearance from the ground and the side bits whose name I can’t recall make sure large objects are deflected on an area surrounding the driver’s head. The only situation where the driver’s head would be in dangerous is whether a projectile is small enough to fit between the raised side bits or if the car was to land on a 90º upside down on a barrier, a scenario that would surely test even a wrc style roof.

      2017 is really not going to happen, logistically there’s no tyres yet no engines no agreements or whatsoever.

      1. Forgot to say that JB no matter how adorable he is, has no performances to show for. JB did a good job beside Hamilton but apart from that, every team-mate bar Sato has beaten him. The grid is filled with fickle talent as it has always been at least ever since the late 90’s. There’s a few champs and many front runners from junior categories but even so there’s no guarantee an accomplished driver is going to deliver on a certain period of F1, but at least they deserve a chance. JB Nasr, Ericsson, Perez, Verstappen, gutierrez etc, didn’t win a champ before enlisting in F1 but after given an opportunity some of these are making a good job and others not really and failing to do so for some time. On the other hand some champions were perhaps not that worthy, looking at the guys that won for DAMS, none has really taken f1 by storm.

        1. @peartree I disagree, JB still has lot of speed and he’s certainly better than most of current drivers. He’s not always make any car looks faster than it should like Alonso or Hamilton, but he always get the job done when the car is good. Case in point is some of his years in Honda, Brawn(!), and early McLaren years. Actually I think JB can give Hamilton more challenge if he drove that Mercedes instead of Rosberg.

          1. @sonicslv beating Sato is not the greatest plaudit. Brawn were miles ahead of anybody. Jb had more pre season time than rubens. After brawn lost most of their advantage, it was rubens who out performed jb. I agree that jb played the right role as ham’s team-mate, he took alternative strategies and ended up surprising people, never on speed though. In my view Nico has the speed but Lewis approach to setup and his demeanor make him much stronger

            1. @peartree JB only beats Sato? You may want to read the facts first before posting. Let’s see:

              2000 (Williams BMW): Lost against Ralf Schumacher
              2001 (Benetton Renault): Lost against Fisichella
              2002 (Renault F1): Win against Trulli
              2003 (BAR Honda): Win against Villeneuve
              2004-2005 (BAR Honda): Win 2-0 against Sato, and getting 3nd in WDC only behind Ferraris!
              2006-2008 (Honda Racing): Win 2-1 against Barichello
              2009 (Brawn GP): Win against Barichello (and become WDC)
              2010-2012 (McLaren Mercedes): Lost 2-1 against Hamilton. Getting 2nd in WDC on 2011.
              2013 (McLaren Mercedes): Win against Perez
              2014 (McLaren Mercedes): Win against Magnussen
              2015 (McLaren Honda): Win against Alonso

              With 16 completed season and 11-5 record you still saying he lost to all his teammate bar Sato? Also on those 5 losses, 2 is on his rookie and 2nd year and 2 against Hamilton. Even if we discounted 2014 (against rookie) and 2015 (rubbish car) his record is still 9-5 against 8 different team mates.

              Also if Barichello is better in 2009 please explain why he only managed to get 3rd in WDC behind Vettel? And explain why JB can get 2nd in 2011 ahead of Webber?

              Never on speed? You may want to rewatch Canada 2011. Also JB regularly overtakes too and he usually doing same strategies as others, only better at adapting on changing conditions.

            2. @sonicslv your wiki argument mirrors one i wrote here a couple races from the end of last season. You distorted facts to support your view as i did for my view. It is the dennis/button stand off im referring to, dennis didnt want button but he failed to sign someone more appropriate. On paper button even beat hamilton, but that doesnt mean he was either quicker or more reliable than ham, it was more the case the car was not reliable or that jb was did the most pre season test on the brawn or that sato is below par or that villeneauve was burned out. The only guy jb convinceably beat is sato. Perez was quicker and even mag, not better but quicker. Perez and mag got sacked because jb sells much more. Jacques was right from the start, jb is a marketing stunt and has developed to become a reliable driver, he had more chances than most drivers, he should be thankful to the support and career that he built as many better drivers were not given a single chance let alone a decade.

            3. @peartree I don’t understand where are those argument comes from. Although the record books may not telling the whole story, but that doesn’t mean it was totally a lie. More pre season practice or luck or having sub par teammate doesn’t make you WDC contender 3 times and won one of them. Also on his early years, JB is already hot commodity and many people acknowledged him to be a great talent that deserve to win the championship (which he did although not as soon as many people predicted). And there’s the Buttongate scandal which further prove how much he valued back then. The way I see it, its the opposite that JB is a reliable driver that has developed to having great marketing value.

              Perez and KMag is certainly below JB on driving F1 skill. Having few better weekend doesn’t mean they are better and losing only because of luck or the team prefer their teammate, otherwise the same argument can be brought to say JB is better than Hamilton for example.

              Also your “never convincingly” beaten teammate excuse can also be applied to say Hamilton is not great driver too (vs Rosberg and Button), nor does Vettel (vs Webber, Ricciardo), Schumacher in Ferrari (vs Barichello, the history skewed by how many team orders and how many wins that should’ve been Barichello’s), Senna (vs Prost), etc.

          2. “Actually I think JB can give Hamilton more challenge if he drove that Mercedes instead of Rosberg” – I’ll have whatever you are on!

      2. I think (three-times Le Mans Winner Alan) McNish forgot there’s a freakin’ roll hoop on top of the car which is required to be able to support the entire weight of the car.

      3. @peartree What a bizarre comment and attack on McNish when the point is clearly about the dangers of track side walls which you even agree to. McNish uses the example of Marco Campos and I saw myself Greg Moore die live on TV in a similar situation. (an uneven road surface flipped the rar, head landing on a wall).

        In fact it’s hard to understand the thought process that deviated away from the main point here. (or even how most pundits didn’t make it except McNish, just focusing on if Alonso could get out after)

        1. @balue you are certainly right on that, mcnish nearly killed a dozen spectators a couple years, but none bats an eye on that, and that fact clouded my mind. However tha scenario is almost impossible on an f1 grade track, not to mention that even the roof of a lmp1 car is not strong enough to resist such impact that was what i said. Alan is the one who deviated from the point, for sensationalism.

          1. @peartree McNish nearly killed people? How did you possibly connect that to anything here? What was that about scrambled thought process? ;)

    10. You know things are bad when I agree with Villeneuve on something…

      1. I agree with him also… Remove all hollywood elementz.

    11. Did a 13 year old Japanese school girl hack Fernando’s account?

    12. I am guessing McLaren and Redbull refused to compromise because they believe that with one more utter failure of the qualification-system in Bahrain in the bag, everyone will be on board to drop the idea completely.

    13. COTD is spot on.

      The best way to go elimination-qualifying is to eliminate cars and RESET driver’s lap-times lap-after-lap on a continuous basis, rather than a single-run and then pitting. However, whilst the current generation of tyres could do a 7-lap run say (as 7 drivers are knocked out in Q1), they’ll obviously get slower lap-on-lap, and that kind of defeats the key point of qualifying for me.

      The point of qualifying is that you try to get faster and faster. Not slower and slower.

      For that reason, and all other formats considered, I really do think we should be having 12-laps of qualifying, a qualifying hour, made up of 4x 15mins mini-sessions where EVERY driver runs in EVERY session. No eliminations, no knock-outs, fastest starts first, slowest starts last.

      This guarantees 22 cars are flat-out 4 times EACH across a single-lap over an hour. The Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 structure allows teams to go out, set a time, then hone their car ready for the next mini-session. It also allows for TV breaks inbetween the sessions, the sessions are short, sharp and frenetic which hopefully keeps people’s attention, and the smaller teams traditionally run early-on in these sessions so they get their TV time aswell.

      All things considered, from both the sporting and commercial sides, that ticks all the boxes as far as I can tell, and is immediately implementable in the context of the current tyre rules.

      Mixing up the race I’ve long held the view should be done via rules on “race start tyres.” Starting the top 5 on the softest compound of the weekend for example would drop them back into the pack early-on, giving us the effective mixed grid/running order that they are seeking to achieve with qualifying.

      1. @thef1engineer And how you propose to determine the fastest and slowest from 4 session? Aggregate time? Believe me, when someone like Rosberg/Hamilton/Vettel made a mistake in 1 of those mini session and get thrown to the back of the grid there will be quite many (in internet) people complaining the rules is not fair, blah blah blah.

        Also at each of those 15 minutes, we gonna stare at empty track for 11mins. Then flurry of cars getting out of the track and trying start their flying lap just about the timer ends. At the start of Q2 we probably seeing flurry of cars early on because the rubber still quite fresh from last session then empty track again for 11 mins. Repeat Q1 and Q2 for Q3 and Q4. Unless weather play its part of course, but every format became interesting when weather decides to hop into the game.

        Also I don’t know what you mean by “race start rules” since without it, almost every car on the grid going to start on the softest compound anyway, and current rules actually giving more disadvantage for the top 8 because the must start on worn tires. Note that even with that there’s nothing that made the front runners drop behind early on.

        1. Each session you set a lap-time. The next session you try to beat it, and those of everyone around you. Every session, you’re getting 22 cars doing 3 laps each, so over the course of 15mins, you’re going to get 66 laps worth of rubber go down on the track. The result of each mini-session can also be used as the provisional grid, in the case of weather, red flags, crashes etc. So it always pays you to be putting a hot-lap in, because you never know.

          There’s no knock-outs or eliminations. Each mini-session is simply about trying to make your car faster relative to yourself, and to everyone else.

          We’re not going to stare at an empty track for 11mins. The “old” Q1 and Q2 were 18 and 15mins respectively. Did we stare at an empty track for 11mins? Rarely. If we were doing the old 12-lap quali hour, I’d agree with you.

          In the spirit of taking your point though, how about reducing each of the 4 sessions to 12mins? That’s 48mins of being able to start your hot-lap + the time it takes to complete any hot-laps per session. That’s probably better thinking about it. You’re not going to be far off an hour all-in.

          There’s a bit of an unwritten rule in Formula 1 that the backmarkers go out early in this format of session to “clean the track up,” and in reality, this is what will happen, plus it gets the smaller teams more TV time, which is also a major reason and MASSIVE plus for them!

          Of course, everyone could go out in the final 3mins, there’d be nothing to stop them, but then you’re caught up in traffic and significantly increasing your risk of a crash. It’s risk/reward.

          The opportunity to improve your lap-time session to session, the opportunity to beat your opponent’s lap-time session to session, the significantly improving track conditions session to session, would all be enough to attract the drivers/teams out onto to circuit to maximise their grid position.

          If teams for some reason chose not to buy into that ethos, sure, you could add an “average” component in across the 4 sessions, but I really doubt you’d need it.

          Let’s just enjoy 22 cars doing 88 hot-laps of qualifying over an hour, and not try to over-think it too much :).

          I actually said “race start tyres,” not “race start rules.” The race start tyres would be very simple. Top 5 start on the softest compound of the weekend (new or used), next 5 start on the next softest (new or used), 11>22 get free choice. Or some variation thereof. Again, there’s no need for the sport to try and have a PhD about it. The simplest rules are always the best :).

          1. @thef1engineer So basically you mean each driver only have 4 hot lap chance, divided by sessions? The problem is since you only get 1 chance per session, there’s no advantage at all to go out in first few mins. It’s of course about clear track vs rubbered track. TV time too probably. Even looking at last year quali, in we actually have empty track in the middle of each session because each time only want to run once if possible, or twice normally.

            Also instead of 12 mins, why don’t we just make it 6 mins? With each driver can complete their fast lap after the timer reach 0.00 its practically 10mins session and we can complete the whole qualy in 40 mins, 50 mins if you count commercial break.

            Also even with 4 session, teams that almost guaranteed top spot like Ferrari or Mercedes might just skip Q1 and Q2 entirely. Without superficial ways to ensuring participation in each mini session (getting fined?), they just need to wait the track to evolve and post best lap while saving fresh tires for the race.

            The simplest rules are always the best :). Well you only make 2 wall of text so far to describe your proposal ;)

            About your “race start tyres”, I still don’t understand because so far it’s proven that the preferred tires to start the race is the softest one and only few teams/drivers willing to gamble to start on “primes” and its not on every circuit. Your proposal seems to actually give more advantage to the top 5 than what they have now.

            1. Right, let’s look at this practically.

              If you’re Mercedes or Ferrari, then no, there probably is no point in going out at the start of the session, but if you’re any of the midfield or backmarker teams, there is every point. They know they’re not going to get Pole, they just want to qualify as far up the grid as possible, through setting as fast a lap-time as possible. The best chance they have of doing that is through having an empty track, and their best chance of having an empty track is going out at the start of the session.

              The timing’s can be whatever’s appropriate. I’d suggest starting off with 12mins sessions, if it turns out they need to be shorter, reduce them at the next grand prix, if they need to be longer, extend them. You can simulate and speculate these things to death, ultimately, there comes a point where you just need to get your hands dirty, get out in the real-world and find out for definite.

              I understand where you’re coming from on the Merc’s and Ferrari’s sitting in the garage. I’d like to think they wouldn’t. I’d like to think they’d buy into the premise of improving your car session to session to end up with an ultimate pace at the end of Q4, and that those teams who had continuously refined their car throughout the hour, wouldn’t be beaten by 1 hail mary run.

              But, nevertheless, I acknowledge the possibility, therefore, I WOULD bring in the “average” component across the 4 sessions, but automatically drop the slowest lap-time before taking the average, to allow for 1 bad-run.

              LOL. The proposal is simple. If someone asks you to describe the in’s and out’s behind it of course it’s going to get wordy ;).

            2. Race tyres, that’s simply not true.

              The Oz GP ideal race tyre was the “soft” compound tyre. The softest compound of the weekend was the “super-soft” compound tyre, so my suggestion is simply that of the Oz GP weekend, the top 5 would have been forced to start the race on the “super-soft” compound tyre.

              Obviously the “super-soft” is a short distance tyre, so that would have put the Merc’s and Ferrari’s back in the pack inside maybe a handful to 2 handful’s of laps, especially if they were used’s.

              That’s how you mix the races up. Which compounds of tyres the drivers can start on according to grid position.

              Leave quali alone as a pure demonstration and appreciation of driver and car on the absolute limit.

            3. Actually, scratch that. I wouldn’t drop the slowest lap-time at all. 4 qualifying runs. THEY ALL COUNT!

              Lewis, Nico and Seb are supposed to be amongst the best drivers in the world, if they can’t put 4 hot-laps together without sticking it in the barrier, maybe those fans should have a re-think about how good their beloved hero’s really are ;).

    14. Q3 could be okay if Ferrari do a second run and Bernie lets the TV follow the Mercs, with maybe the onboards, instead of killing time in the pitlane to spite them.

      Even in the old system we often knew the result before the end of the session, after all. The main thing is to follow the action on track, and see the driving that earns pole not just the last three corners.

    15. More extreme choo-choo train, great.

    16. F1 cars are fast enough in 1 lap but they are not fast enough during races because of the fuel restrictions and tyres.
      Pole position lap from Lewis Hamilton was the fastest in history but fastest lap during race was much slower against 2004 lap time.

    17. Aye, fuel restrictions and tires should be fixed.

      What happend to those nice promises of Pirelli developing regular tires designed to push in 2017?

      Fuel capacity also, if they need 120kg fuel on some track to push entire race, then go ahead…

    18. All qualifying needs to be is, “fastest starts first, slowest starts last.” The End.

      It should be an appreciation of driver and machine on the absolute limit, on the knife-edge of either setting their ultimate lap-time, or sticking it in the barrier.

      1. All well and good @thef1engineer, but what about Sunday? The fundamental issue is trying to have an exciting contest on Saturday, yet not have the cars start already in speed order on Sunday when it’s supposed to be The Race.

        We need an admirable criterion which is somehow different on each day. Parc Ferme helps, and the start helps, and different tyres, but they’re looking for something more. Something with a similar effect to rain, kinda thing, on one day and not the other.

        1. That’s an easy one. If you start the top 5 on the softest tyres of the weekend, they’ll be in the pits within a couple of handful’s of laps, dropping them back into the pack. The next 5 could start on the next softest tyre, and so on.

          1. That just makes it a bad idea to be one of the fastest five in qualy @thef1engineer :) Plus it’s artificial, handicapping and a kludge.

            1. Not really. A similar rule exists now, only in more convoluted terms, yet do teams not want to be in the top 8? Nope.

              Any rule is artificial and a handicap somewhere along the line. I’ve never understood that argument :S.

            2. When we get the “old” Q1, Q2 and Q3 back, the rules have been designed such that the top 8 must start the race on which they set their fastest lap in Q2. This in reality means the top 8 guys will be in the pits inside 10 laps.

              How is that not artificial, handicapping, and a kludge?

              Yet fans are OK with that and it got written into the rulebook…

            3. Well it’s been the top 10 before now @thef1engineer so it hasn’t been a viable strategy for the front runners, and also there hasn’t been the Ultrasoft.

              Not all rules are artificial, they’re just a structure so people don’t win by putting machine guns in the headlights :D The question is what is the contest measuring? If it’s some kind of excellence it’s valid. If it’s kind of excellence-suppressing handicap it isn’t.

              The problem is finding two different, interesting and awesome ways of measuring excellence using the same cars and drivers, on two consecutive days.

            4. Not everything is the same @thef1engineer. Rules are necessary and can be valid, or not, depending whether they help make the outcome meaningful. ‘Artificial’ is a meaningful word and I’m not at all averse to change.

              If you penalise speed by forcing the wrong tyres on the fastest cars that’s a handicap system, is all I’m saying. So I don’t think it’s easy at all.

            5. All rules have a meaningful affect on the outcome to some extent or another, therefore by extension all rules are artificial to some extent or another.

              You can’t have a rule in a sport and not have it have an affect on the outcome, compared to if it wasn’t there. Yellow cards, red cards, sin bins, time limits, offsides etc.

              You say, “penalise speed by forcing the wrong tyres on the fastest cars that’s a handicap system,” but then the manufacturers handing out inferior engine software is also a handicap system, probably the most artificial/handicapping aspect of F1 atm, yet plenty of people seem OK with overlooking that :S.

              As I say, artificial is subject to individual interpretation.

              If the cars were more equal engine-wise, they wouldn’t be messing about with the sporting rules.

            1. Yea I put the top 10 below :). Read so many quali changes recently I got confused. Probably will be top 8 by the time this whole things get’s sorted :P.

              And your 2nd paragraph is really what this whole thing comes down to, because “artificial” is subject to individual interpretation.

              Is the “away goals rule” in football not artificial and handicapping for example?

              Every sport requires rules in order to exist, otherwise it’d just be a free-for-all, and that doesn’t work.

              As soon as you set a rule, and inparticularly a new rule, someone is always going to pipe up, “oh that’s artificial,” when truth is, it’s not artificial at all. It’s just a new rule, and ultimately, people don’t like change.

              When I started in F1, we had 12-laps of quali over an hour. No-one mentioned knocking people out (at least not in quali ;)), eliminations or anything. It was simply, go as fast as you can.

    19. top 10 sorry :).

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.