The Real Problem with Qualifying 22/03/2008 It is easy for F1 enthusiasts to criticize the FIA rulemakers from the virtual sidelines - we all do it at times. Creating rules for a sport as complex as F1 with its high tech, obscure opportunities for cheating and fierce competition is a massive task and it is no surprise that opinions vary so widely as to the best way to solve any problem that appears. But there are times when it appears that one of the reasons the FIA attracts so much criticism is that they have a talent for creating the wrong rule in the first place, and then piling unworkable solutions upon it in an effort to force it to work.Was Heidfeld blocked?This year the FIA, in an attempt to banish the fuel-burning period that showed their qualifying rules to be a farce, cut Q3 to ten minutes only and decreed that no replacement of fuel used in Q3 would be allowed. A storm of protest erupted on the internet, innumerable bloggers pointing out that this would give rise to a highly dangerous situation, with cars touring around slowly after completing their quick laps, while others were still at full speed. Two races into the season, exactly that has happened and the McLaren duo have been penalized for "blocking" on their slowing down lap. If mere bloggers could see the flaws in the changes, why couldn't the FIA?I am not going to argue over the justice of the penalty. No doubt there will be heated discussions over the matter for some time to come; always the case where the application of a rule is subject to the stewards' opinion. It matters much more to me that the FIA learn from this that their qualifying rules are hopelessly and unnecessarily complex and subject to interpretation. Already there are suggestions that even further complication is introduced to insist that drivers be penalized for returning to the pits at too slow a speed. My purpose in writing this is to try to be heard above the crowd as I shout (not for the first time), "For crying out loud, people, enough already!"When will we realize that all our debates over which qualifying system is best only serve to divide our efforts to yell some sense into the FIA? I find it tiresome that, every time we try to suggest that the existing qualifying system is broken, we get bogged down in details of previous systems and trot forth the usual arguments for our favorites. The message needs to be that the FIA have well and truly screwed the qualifying process and that they need to return to square one to start again.It is obvious what the main problem is at the moment - the insistence on cars in Q3 not being allowed to refuel afterwards is idiotic, we are all agreed on that. There is less consensus over the three knockout rounds but there can be no doubt that this is at the heart of the constant rule changes we have witnessed. For once, let us forget our own pet theories and unite in agreement that qualifying has been completely ruined by the FIA's tinkering over the years. It is time to go back to basics.Never mind the fact that you might have liked the system briefly in existence in 1991 or whenever; plenty of people did not and we merely deflect ourselves from the real issue by arguing over such details. What is needed now is a strong consensus that forces the FIA to return to a very basic format of an hour or so of qualifying, no restrictions on fuel levels or tires, just go for it and let the best man grab pole.From that position, we might be able to see how things can be improved - but this time let any tweaking be done after careful consideration and consultation. The major motive for most of the changes to qualifying in the last decade has been to improve "the show". It is time for us, as the viewers, to admit that we would rather sit through half an hour of empty track than suffer the ignominy of our favorite sport being reduced to a farce.It is qualifying, for Pete's sake - something that only diehard fans could be bothered to watch. And diehards do not need to be entertained with flash and glitz all the time; they understand why there will be times when the track is empty. Let the TV commentators earn their pay in the empty periods.The prime intent of qualifying is to establish the order for the grid. Complicating the system in an effort to make it more watchable on TV is not only doomed to failure, it interferes with that prime aim. It is not entertaining to see your heroes demoted from a grid spot because they have inadvertently contravened some petty entry in the labyrinthine rulebook, it is not entertaining to have some drivers effectively given no chance at a decent spot because some minor glitch has left them with insufficient time to get on the track again, it is not entertaining to know that the times set in Q2 will be faster than those in Q3 because the top ten are artificially disadvantaged by some stupid fuel level regulation.Enough, I say. The system is broken and the FIA has run out of duct tape to patch it with. Back to basics is the only way to solve the mess once and for all.
Clive
john f I have always like the unique aspect of the F1 Q system. But obviously it is not fair to all. I really hate to say this but maybe they could use NASCAR's system. Give each driver 4 or 5 laps alone on the track. Start with the bottom drivers from the week before and allow the top drivers to qualify last. I understand that track conditions may change over time. So even two or three cars at a time. This may take more time for qualifying. But like you said Clive let the commentators work more. More team and driver interviews would be the ticket. The CART system worked well and was as fair as possible.The system is broken and must be fixed. The way that Bernie goes is unknown because he tends to march to the beat of unknowm drummer. They Bernie/ Max never listen to the fans so don' think that they are about to start. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive You can't blame me for trying, John. ;)But the main point is that system is broken - patching it will never work. What is needed is a radical return to something much simpler, without all the gray areas created by constant meddling. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Number 38 AH! One of my favorite subjects and my friend Clive is spot-on. Back to one hour and no limitations. I believe Bernie was the one who intervened in this scheme as we used to watch a Minardi circulate intermittantly for 40 minutes then the real racers would do just the minimum at the end, it was terrible TV. The quick fix would be VERY simple, every car must do 6 or 8 or 10 laps in the first 30 minutes and 6 or 8 or 10 laps in the latter 30 minutes. The fastest single lap for each car counts. All qualifying laps would be run under race conditions, that is, any fuel load, in traffic. If a driver feels he was "impeded", he's got time to try again. How simple can it get? The one lap system stinks, I sit in the stands for an hour to watch my favorite go by ONCE????? That system was a dead, rotting elephant in the hot sun. Clives made the point, we must go back to one hour, no limits. Date Added: 22/03/2008
john f The one hour qualifying was very boring. The one and done you don't like either Number 38. Do you want to go back to the one hour. If each car has to do a minimum of x laps in the first 30 minutes, the result will still be the mad rush at the 59nt minute and hot laps being done during the cooldown of others. My borinig one lap method at least lets each car have an unimpeded drive around the track..Could there be a middel ground Clive???I would like to hear Alianora's view on this! Date Added: 22/03/2008
john f I just read a blog over on Ollie's page by Jamie. The cooldown lap should have a time limit (ie) 115% of the Q time. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive I'm sure there is merit in all the suggestions people come up with. But my point is that now is not the time for that; before we can try any of these alternatives, we need to re-establish the baseline by going back to very simple and straightforward system. On that, maybe we can build something that suits everyone.And I really don't care about the "boring" argument - it's practice, something that was never intended to be for spectators - the race is for that. Practice and qualifying is for the drivers, not the TV viewers and, if enthusiasts insist on watching it (and I would), they should accept that its intent is to establish the grid in the fairest way possible and it is not intended for entertainment. I can live with that and I don't see why other enthusiasts can't. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive So we fix the over-complication by adding more complication, John? Come on, how many times do we have to make the same mistake before we realize we just ain't getting things right? Date Added: 22/03/2008
john f OK Clive I agree. Qualifying is not for TV. Back to the basics so we can go foward? Where? and who decides? Bernie is the one that led us to this. If we go back to the one hour Qualifying session that is what it should stay. I said it was boring I did not say that I did not like it. Bernie has this idea that he must fix things that are not broken. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive And it is Bernie who worries about the ratings, changing things because he thinks he knows what the masses want (not that he ever asks them). It becomes clear that the object of everything F1 does is to pull in more viewers, not create a fair and exciting competition or to care about the survival of the drivers.I don't know about you, John, but I am heartily sick of the Max and Bernie Show. Seinfeld was much more watchable... Date Added: 22/03/2008
john f At least Seinfeld knew that his show was over and ended it before it became too painful to watch. I now get a sinking feeling whenever Bernie/Max is mentioned. Surely we are not unique to this feeling. Their world must be so different from the real world that the rest of us "peasents" live in. A change in leadership is overdue!!The bad decesions are now outweighing the good. I think that for Bernie/Max to step down they want to leave F1 in better shape then when they arrived. The problem is that time was 2 years ago. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive Too true, John.To turn to lighter matters, I'm hoping for rain in Sepang for the race. How about you? Date Added: 22/03/2008
Ollie Two years ago? Heh, that's a whole other debate.I largely agree with what you're saying Clive, and I for one have been advocating a return to 60 minute qualifying since they started this ridiculous train of silly ideas, year upon year upon year.Unfortunately, as long as Max is at the top of the FIA and Bernie is still hanging on their won't be a return to simpler times. Sorry to sound defeatist, but I cannot see both of them admitting their wrongs and reverting to start. Maybe when Max leaves next year (and he will, the uproar if he doesn't would be unbearable, even for him) then we may see an improvement. Until then, it's just going to be a continual application of duct tape I'm afraid. Date Added: 22/03/2008
John Beamer Perhaps we should embrace the qualy rule change. How about rather than prohibit blocking we encourage it ... just think, who le new avenues for strategy open up. Should McLaren try to set the fastest lap .... or should they focus on blocking Ferrari?Think of the positive ... more cars on track more of the time, better odds of seeing different cars on pole, more crashes for the fans -- this plan has no flaws it seems. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive Duct tape upon duct tape...I am just as defeatist, Ollie, I know things will not get better as long as Max runs the show. Does me good to let off steam every now and again, however. ;) Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive Don't they call that NASCAR, John? Oops, sorry, just joking, NASCAR fans... Date Added: 22/03/2008
Arnet I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again. The answer is so simple that Max wouldn't be able to see it until it showed up on the teevee. The only problem with the original quali was that the top teams would sit most of it out. This is why they changed it.Low fuel. 60 minutes. Each car is required to do a minimum of 3 laps in each 15 minute segment. Done. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Alianora La Canta I think Clive's got it right. Qualifying needs to return to a system that isn't fundamentally flawed from a sporting point of view, and the 1-hour one is that format. This time, for the purposes of evaluation, there would be no limit on laps either (in addition to the unrestricted tyres and fuel Clive suggested). The powers-that-be would resolve to leave it unchanged for three years, watch what people think, watch what the competitors think and then tentatively suggest the fewest, simplest modifications that would correct any problems revealed with the format. I anticipate that given time for the teams to understand the tactical need for them to spread out and for the commentators to re-learn the art of filling in the gap in proceedings, there would be very few problems with the format.One-lap qualifying was deeply unfair to the drivers regardless of what system was used to determine who got the earliest (and least favourable) run. It might work from a media view (though it didn't seem that way from the viewing figures - the ITV viewing figures went down dramatically once the pattern of dry one-lap qualifying became apparent, especially for the first half), but if F1 is a sport first, the one-lap system cannot have a place in it.Of course, F1 is not a sport first when Bernie and Max manipulate it as much as they do. My 2 cents is that Max should have left on 14 January 2003 (the day before he broke F1 protocol to release a fundamentally flawed ruleset which he was forced to correct - only parc fermé remains unchanged now) and that Bernie would most optimally have retired at the end of 2001 (to allow someone more enlightened to deal with the opportunity of new media). Even if they don't listen to us though, we've got to keep shouting, or else their would-be successors will not hear us either... Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive I agree, Arnet, although I think the sport needs to return to an even simpler system without specifying number of laps in segments. Once it has been proved that such a straightforward system works and is a fair method of assigning grid positions, then it can be fine-tuned as you suggest. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive Absolutely, Alianora, we have to keep pointing out the obvious to the FIA until they see the light. As you say, that isn't going to happen with Max and Bernie in charge, but there is a chance that their replacements might. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Björn Svensson Well, i'm sorry for making your FIA-bashing fade a little. But as FIA presumbly tries to make F1 become more and more roadcar-relevant there are some things to take in account.One thing i find quite interesting, is that even on normal roads, atleast here in sweden, you can get a ticket for driving to slow. And if you happen to be competing in one of the fastest sports on the face of the earth, wy the heck would you even get the idea to drive your car at below 50 km/h-speeds at your in-lap knowing that there's probably a couple of other drivers trying their best to set fast times, even though you might lose a lap or so in the race. Then you will just have to make your strategy fit the circumstances, and the situation are the same for all participants.There's not only one or two cars who are driving under these new rules, they apply to all teams, cars and drivers. So, i find it just purely insane to drive that slow. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive Insane it certainly is, Bjorn, but the drivers have to do it to minimize the consumption of fuel in their final lap. They can go a little longer before refueling in the race, therefore, which gives them a better chance of getting their pit stop strategy correct.It is the rule that forces such crazy behavior - and who makes the rules? As long as the FIA continues to make such stupid rules, I will continue to bash them. It's my right as a blogger! Date Added: 22/03/2008
Steven Roy As Clive said most of us anticipated this problem so why can't the FIA with all their resources?For what it is worth I liked the 12 lap system. The anticipation of watching Senna getting suited and booted to go out for a last minute flyer beats anything I have seen since. All the tinkering really started because we regularly had 15 minutes of empty track at the start of the session. All that was needed to sort that was to give the drivers a few more laps or to reduce the session to 40 minutes. It isn't rocket science.However for the sake of some kind of consensus I am happy to go along with Clive's idea.Pole position has to mean something. There is no point in drivers accumulating pole positions because they happened to have less fuel than anyone else or because they happened to have the right ambient conditions in a one lap system.Jim Clark's and Ayrton Senna's record of collecting pole positions are revered because it meant that on every occasion they were the outright fastest driver on that day. How can anyone ever be allowed to threaten Senna's record of poles because of fuel strategy, engine reliability, etc etc. Date Added: 22/03/2008
Clive Agreed, Steven.Personally, I never had a problem with qualifying before all the tinkering started. We may have had just the Minardis to watch in the first minutes but that was probably our only chance to see them. It was a part of their charm, in fact, to go out early and selflessly lay down rubber for the later drivers. They were just happy to be a part of the whole thing - and F1 could use a little of that spirit now.I can understand people's objections to empty tracks but it is a small price to pay for avoiding all the nonsense that goes on these days. If nothing else, it was a chance to replenish the coffee mug and perhaps grab a snack! Date Added: 22/03/2008
chunter Not to play the young vs old card, but, anybody remember when it was possible to fail to qualify and therefore not race that week? Date Added: 23/03/2008
Pink Peril I have thought about it, and agree that Q3 is flawed in the fuel (and other) regulations. My suggestion is that we keep Q1 & Q2 as is - anyone can go out in the timeframe allowed & do as many hot laps as they like, with the 6 slowest times being dropped progressively. Then when we get to Q3 we do a top ten shootout with the remaining runners. Each driver does one flyer only - the track should be fairly rubbered in at this point, therefore each driver should be able to extract the maximum from his car. And as there is only one car on track at a time then there are none of these blocking allegations. And you are able to use any strategy you like to try & obtain pole - low fuel, soft tyres etc. Keeps the 60 minutes of TV spectacle alive - as Bernie wants it - removes issues like the ones we have seen yesterday, keeps the drivers on their toes by having to make the cut through all three rounds, and keeps us, the hardcore enthusiasts enthralled.I hate to mention the V8 supercars again, but until this year this is the format they used and it was hugely popular. They too have tinkered with the quali format and dropped the shootout - which was the best bit ! The calls for it to be reinstated have been loud and concise.On another topic, I was watching some NASCAR this morning, and I can see why you guys call it NASCRAP ;) Date Added: 23/03/2008
Clive I remember it, Chunter - in fact, I remember at least two periods when it was possible to fail to qualify. There was the 107% rule, where you had to get within that percentage of the pole time to qualify, and there was the pre-qualifying period, when there were more entrants than allowed on the grid. That goes back to the early eighties, I think, but my memory goes much further back than that - even to the sixties.Why do I suddenly feel old...? ;) Date Added: 23/03/2008
Clive Ah Peril, to my mind the problem lies in the attempts to make qualifying entertaining. It was never intended as such and I think it misses the point when it tries to be good viewing. Its intent is to set the grid order and asking viewers to watch it is like expecting football fans to watch training before a match - not very exciting but interesting to those who really want to know.The football fan would not expect his team to put on a special show for him in training - the interest is in being allowed to see what happens behind the scenes. And it's the same with qualifying - not really for the masses but a privilege for the informed fan. It doesn't need the complication of trying to be a good show. Date Added: 23/03/2008
john f Clive,I had some family matters to attend to that is the cause of my delay. Any way I am looking foward to a bit of rain for the race. No TC and rain in the first two races that would be great. I would love to see how the cars and tyres work on the wet!! Date Added: 23/03/2008
john f Yes our ability to gripe about F1 on these blogs is very important to us. The problem is that it really seams that we are only talking to one another. There must be a way for us to be heard by the FIA. Bernie/Max never read the web. If they do it is on the F1 home site. They listen to what their lackeys tell them about the web. I am sure that the lackeys are honest with the boss. Like most of us are. The unique aspect of this string is that we had a free flow of ideas no shouting or cursing just discussing like human beings. We had a couple of ideas and they were discussed. We seem to all agree that the system is broken and we all have ideas. I look foward to the time that our opinions will be worth something to the FIA(if ever). Date Added: 23/03/2008
Clive Here's hoping, John - both for a wet race and a change in the FIA! Date Added: 23/03/2008
DBT I posted here yesterday, but for some reason it doesn't appear to have shown up.It was something along the lines of keep it simple, stupid (that's the FIA, not you)60 minutesFastest time gets poleAs many laps as you likeFuel yourself as you like for the next day's race.Everything sorted then, right? Date Added: 23/03/2008
Clive In a nutshell, yes, DBT.The reason that sometimes comments go astray is because the program reckons the CAPTCHA number hasn't been filled in correctly. Unfortunately, it doesn't scroll down to the comment so that you can see it's message in red letters regarding this - you have to do so manually. So it's easy to assume the comment has gone through when it hasn't.The only remedy is to check that it has accepted your comment after posting it, I'm afraid. Date Added: 23/03/2008
DBT I'll be sure to check... Cheers, Clive.Hope you enjoyed the race. Date Added: 23/03/2008
Clive Not the most exciting race I've seen, DBT, but it had its moments. Great to see Kubica on the podium and a reasonable recovery from their problems by McLaren, meanwhile Ferrari manage to throw away a 1-2 finish, regardless of whether Massa's retirement was caused by driver error or mechanical failure.The championships make interesting reading at this stage. ;) Date Added: 23/03/2008
john f Yes Clive a most uneventful race. I was hoping for rain. The BMW of Kubica looked good. I am not sure about where you watched the race but did it seem as if it was LH TV. All the onboard stuff was LH except for one shot of Alonso and one of Jorno or Timo I think. The coverage was almost exclusivly for Hamilton. He was never challanging Weber though the coverage stayed with it through the pit. I am not sure if this was the only challenge on the circut because our US announcers are watching the same feed and cannot see the track or any other camera views. I noticed LH fight the car the whole way. I do not thing Ron wanted us to see all this. Kimi, on the ohter hand ran very smooth. Like the ice man that he is nicknamed. If Ferrari has succeeded in getting rid of their gremlin they will be a fomidable force in the upcomming races. All in all GO BMW Date Added: 23/03/2008
john f Happy Easter everyone!! Date Added: 23/03/2008
Clive Yes, happy Easter, all.I agree that the TV coverage was very Hamilton-centric, John - and not at a good race for him. The television service is provided by FOM and all broadcasters have to accept what is given, so we should not blame SpeedTV for such things.There was quite a lot of incident that we were not shown, thanks to the emphasis on Hamilton and this contributed to making the race seem more boring than it probably deserved.Ferrari and McLaren have swapped races compared to last year - and McLaren has lengthened the car's wheelbase while Ferrari has shortened theirs. No-one has said by how much, however, so we don't know whether they have effectively swapped wheelbases with each other. It is tempting to think it has some bearing on the fact that they seem to have swapped circuits at least... Date Added: 23/03/2008
Björn Svensson Yes Clive, it's your right and privilege as a blogger to bash who ever you want to, and i think you do it really good.You never go out swinging your arms blindly, even though i think that you sometimes does it just for fun. Not to say you did this comment just to let your angers out, but maybe because you wanted to show your hatred against FIA.Of course all drivers have to save fuel to be able to race the way they must, considering strategy and predictions in their strategy. But going slow on one inlap will only save them one or two litres. And that is not an amount of fuel or weight that will decide a race. Carying one or two litres of fuel extra in the car would not make any difference if they all did it.As the rules was previously was even more insane, because then they went around the track consuming as much fuel as possible instead. So, all in all, i think that Peril has the most reasonable solution this far. There will be the wanted spectacle of the first two sessions, and the fairness to all in the Q3-shootout. Date Added: 24/03/2008
Alex Andronov Sorry for being late to the party. In the vein of revisiting qualifying from a simplistic point of view I must ask - what is the point of qualifying? What is it for?It used to be important to be able to decide if your car was suitable for racing - was it fast enough? But that's long gone out of the window.Now with ultra reliability (saving Melbourne) all we end up doing is putting the cars in order of speed and making the race a foregone conclusion.Both the multiple sessions and the race fuel suggestions are, I guess, attempts to mix up the grid for the race artificially.They seem to have been meddling without asking the big scary question "why do we have qualifying in the first place"?Clive, I think we should hear what you want qualifying to do before we change the rules. At this point I think I'd almost go to the reverse championship grid. It would force some changes to aerodynamics pretty quickly when Force India start winning some races because nobody can get past them. Date Added: 25/03/2008
Clive You're absolutely right, Alex, we should establish what we're trying to do before messing about with the rules again. My fear is that we'd then find out that entertainment won years ago and we would have to frame the rules accordingly. It might be better to pretend that we're still trying to establish grid order and stay well away from things like reversed grids. I think I'm too old fashioned to be able to deal with such things! Date Added: 25/03/2008
chunter I agree with what Alex said very much, it was the point of my terse statement.The only "major" forms of racing that I can think of where there are more competitors than grid positions are Nascar events and the Indianapolis 500; both have formats that are extremely necessary and extremely boring. (Someone more knowledgeable should know if Le Mans gets more cars than grid spots as well.)Why must we arrange the car in lap speed order at all? In Grand Prix racing, the true running order is decided when the lights go out at the starting grid, so I ask, would it be harmful or dangerous to the racing if the grid positions were determined entirely through a blind draw? Date Added: 28/03/2008
Clive I think the reason grids in F1 have always been sorted from fastest to slowest is a safety one - the idea is to actually limit the number of overtaking attempts made in the early laps. That may sound crazy but in an age where passing was a lot easier than it is now, it made sense. We have seen what happens when too many cars try to get through the first corner together in modern F1 - if the grid were reversed, the traffic jam would be much worse and similar things would continue to happen throughout the early laps.And the idea just runs counter to the accepted ethos of F1 - it is about the fastest machines as well as the best drivers and so we have accepted that the cars will gradually string out according to relative performance in most races. Strangely, this makes overtaking that much more of an achievement - it is generally a matter of a driver of superior skill managing to get more than others from an inferior machine.Introducing other systems of assessing grid order to increase the number of overtaking moves immediately devalues overtaking - it becomes commonplace, expected and hardly an indicator of superior skill. I think we need to accept that the time-honoured method fits best with what F1 is supposed to be and, if we want more overtaking, we should be looking at the reasons for its rarity nowadays, rather than trying to force it to happen through strange qualifying and grid order systems.That's what I think, anyway. Date Added: 29/03/2008
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
