Driver Mistakes Enliven Race
- 12th August 2015, 8:11 at 8:11 am #303119
This is a greater incentive, especially for those finishing below the points scoring positions such as the Manors…12th August 2015, 11:07 at 11:07 am #303137
@pt you are suggesting that trying to finish at the highest place possible is not enough incentive to overtake, but I disagree.12th August 2015, 14:15 at 2:15 pm #303141AnonymousInactive
@pt Whenever I’ve seen two backmarkers on the same piece of track in the past, they were going at it like it was the race win. See for example Kobayashi and Bianchi in Shanghai 2014.12th August 2015, 16:37 at 4:37 pm #303147
Then imagine how much more zest would they have if there is a point they could gather…how much difference would it make for a Manor?12th August 2015, 16:53 at 4:53 pm #303148AnonymousInactive
@pt Why the assumption that drivers are not overtaking because they have no incentive to, or need extra encouragement to do so? If they are not overtaking it’s because they are unable to at that time. Their incentive to overtake comes in the form of a higher finishing position and (maybe) end-of-race points. Points for overtaking will not make more overtaking happen.12th August 2015, 18:02 at 6:02 pm #30314913th August 2015, 8:50 at 8:50 am #303163
@pt We can’t be sure beacuse we cannot prove it. But I think that all F1 drivers have a competitive nature and want to finish as high as possible. Even for those drivers that are not in the position to score points. And overtaking can be lucrative too: we have seen in previous seasons that even scoring a 12th or a 13th place can contribute to more prize money at the end of the season. So, when the opportunity is there to overtake, the drivers will have a go. So there are the incentives: points, money and competition. To me that is enough. Adding more incentives (points per overtake) just makes it too artificial for me.13th August 2015, 8:54 at 8:54 am #303157pHParticipant
I have two points to make.
1. I think that drivers already do have a rather big incentive to pass. Those at the front pass for points, those at the back pass for getting a better drive with higher pay due to being noticed. I’d definitely pass a few more cars on highway if I could be getting, say, Massa’s paycheck next year as a result :-).
2. Even if we accept that passing should be encouraged, the proposed system is not an answer for the simple reason of not being workable in the real world. There are many gray areas and saying “the system can be finetuned” is not really an answer, as there seems to be no way to actually do this.
This is in particular true of the “successful” defence part, as (as far as I know) there is no visible demarcation between a “serious attack” and “experimental nose poke”, and also between “attack failed by defending driver skilfully positioning his car” and “attack failing due to the attacker not being good enough”.
I believe that just looking back at how reliably was guilt assigned after various crashes should make it painfully clear that awarding points (and therefore deciding championships and team payoffs) for what happens between drivers is one huge invitation to controversy.
Artificial overtaking is another crucial flaw. Saying “artificial overtaking will be punished” is an empty statement as there is no way to actually determine _skillfully_ orchestrated scenario from real overtaking (e.g. like when Bottas was faster in the first few laps and then slower).
To sum it up, the system as proposed does not seem workable and when practical problems were pointed out, the “solutions” that were proposed did actually open more problems than they solved as far as I can see.
Considering the other proposal (point for the best climber), here the criterion seems quite clear and it does not lend itself to obvious misuse, so as a proposal it is reasonable. However, there are also some good arguments against it (I would feel uneasy about something like this interfering with the championship battle). Still, I imagine I might get used to it, I am not actually opposed. Perhaps I would prefer it as a parallel prize, like the “king of the quali” we have now, with some nice reward for both the driver (a bag of tax-free cash) and his team (a tasteful diploma suitable for framing, I have a few hanging in my toilet and it does enliven the place).13th August 2015, 10:03 at 10:03 am #303167
Not every driver is a Senna!
Anyway, I am now siding with @OmaRpepper’s suggestion for one point for the driver who has overtaken the most in a race.
In that respect, I’d like to reply to @pH: I do believe that pole positions, overtaking and fastest laps should also be rewarded in terms of points.
But most people object this as it would interfere with tradition. Well, to them I say we don’t live in the past but the present. And I have absolutely no qualms about fastest lap, pole position or overtaking points interfering with the final championship reckoning, because these factors are all part and parcel of racing.
It’s not like we are awarding championship points for the most PR-friendly driver, or like Formula E making fans decide who gets power boost – those are all gimmicks, and so are DRS and purposefully induced tyre degradation. Points for overtakes, fastest lap or pole positions are NOT gimmicks. By points for overtakes, I now refer to @OmarPepper’s suggestion and not to what I suggested earlier which invoked a lot opposition.13th August 2015, 10:33 at 10:33 am #303170
But most people object this as it would interfere with tradition. Well, to them I say we don’t live in the past but the present.
I am sorry, but I don’t think it’s fair to say this, actually you sound a bit smug. I don’t have a problem with suggestions that interfere with tradition. For instance, I like the current qualifying setup better than the one 15 years ago. The reason I am not a fan of your suggestion is that I think it is confusing, artificial and unnescessary.
And second to that: I rather have the focus on challenging and exciting overtakings (or attempts) rather than counting the number of overtakes.
Not every driver is a Senna!
Are you suggesting that F1 drivers settle for say 12th position when they also can overtake for 11th?
Don’t get me wrong, I think that we agree on many points on this subject. It’s just the solutions that we have a different opinion on.13th August 2015, 12:26 at 12:26 pm #303172AnonymousInactive
Of all the things that could be changed in F1 to make it more exciting, the points system is not one of them. Certainly there should NOT be any points awarded for overtaking, the reasons for this have already been explained by several people above, including yours truly.
They should design the cars so they have more power and less downforce, and the circuits should have more challenging turns included in their layouts. Also, pit stops should be banned except for emergencies (e.g. unsafe car) and the teams should be given tyres that are capable of lasting almost the entire race distance so that they shouldn’t need to pit the cars, but at the same time the driver may have to manage the tyres during the race to a small degree.
I also think that if they keep DRS on the cars then the rules regarding when it is used should be relaxed to some extent. I think the driver should be allowed to use it whenever he or she likes except for in yellow flag zones, during safety car and virtual safety car laps, during the first lap after the start and restarts, and in wet conditions.
The races should be better if they make these changes because the drivers will be more on-the-edge and therefore more likely to make mistakes. It should make for better racing for the drivers, better viewing for the spectators, and it could lead to more unpredictable results.13th August 2015, 16:13 at 4:13 pm #303174AnonymousInactive
@pt You say DRS, power boost and degrading tyres are gimmicks; but points for overtakes, fastest laps and pole are not. How have you decided this? It is only your opinion and not at all fact.
Fans endlessly talk about eliminating artificiality and getting back to the racing etc etc, but contradict themselves by wanting to pile more and more confusion into it. Rewards should only come for an end result – everyone can understand that.
And sorry, why does radical change need to happen? The racing is very good at the moment. All that needs to happen is costs to be cut to encourage more entrants.
What I think would help: make the tyres less grippy, reduce downforce (smaller wings, ban bodywork add-ons, etc), reduce as much electronic communication between pit and car as possible, and fire Herman Tilke. Leave DRS – it has worked well in enabling overtaking. Those that whine about DRS should think at how dull racing was in the 2000s without it.
And take any rule-making decisions away from all the teams – they do not know best. They only work for their own advantage. Who ever heard about competitors setting their own rules in a sport?!13th August 2015, 18:12 at 6:12 pm #303175
If the steps you have proposed lead to exciting racing, I will surely back down on my suggestion (I’d even throw it in the bin). I think we’re on the same page with respect to banning pit-stops. I am happy that someone has raised that point because pit-stops really aren’t racing. In fact, using pit-stops and team-engineered strategies (where the driver has next to no involvement sometimes) to make races exciting is the GREATEST GIMMICK of all time, and the Monaco Grand Prix was proof of that. And yet, it’s strange that the sport’s veterans including Gary Andersen (a man I have immense respect for) do not think that way…
I think it’s fairly clear that pitstops have no place in pure racing, now that in-race refueling is banned – take this degrading tyre and two tyre compound gimmicky rules out of the way and apply Robert’s suggestions. Let’s see how that works!13th August 2015, 18:27 at 6:27 pm #303176
What is DRS? A technological add-on to make the car ahead defenceless and the one behind powerful, so that the latter just blitzes past the former as if it were standing still. Isn’t that artificial? Yes.
Why are degrading tyres advocated? So that the cars lose performance and the driver (and the engineers) is made to plan when to leave the track for a pitstop and gain or lose an advantage based on his and his team’s power of strategy. The power of strategy decides the result. If that ain’t a gimmick, I don’t know what is.
All these bring in needless external elements to make the action spicy. Am I bringing in an external element? Am I making the driver or his machine powerless? Then, how on earth, can my proposal be classified a gimmick?
Overtaking has always been done, pole positions have always been set, fastest laps have always been set – these are all hallmarks of great drivers. I’m just adding points for that. It’s fine with me if you and the other fans disagree with it, but this explanation should make it clear once and for all why DRS, degrading tyres, et al are gimmicks but my proposal isn’t…I am NOT bringing in an EXTERNAL ELEMENT to spice up the action…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.