Thanks to the fuss made over the breakdown of McLaren's strategy in session 3 of qualifying for the Hungarian GP, focus has returned to the weaknesses of the current qualifying system. When the three-part system was first introduced, there was general approval and the FIA congratulated itself on getting it right at last. But we should remember that a large part of that approval was relief at the demise of the one-lap, get-it-right-first-time-or-you're-dead, system. At last we could see more than a single car on the track again.
Time has revealed serious problems with the new system, however. The development of Q3 into a fuel-burning phase has been criticized many times as an obvious contradiction of the sport's stated intention of becoming more environment-friendly. A few drivers have pointed out that the requirement that cars in Q3 be fueled as they will be for the race means that it is actually better to qualify in eleventh place, rather than tenth. You are then free to adjust your fuel strategy to suit the race, instead of attempting a compromise between that and the need to set as fast a lap as possible in qualifying. And there are still long periods in Q1 and Q2 when the track is empty as teams wait for others to lay down rubber and so optimize the track surface.
Scrapping the fuel requirement for Q3 might seem the easiest way to get rid of the complications of Q3. Yet this would turn it into just another version of Q1 and Q2, with everyone waiting until the last moment before attempting to set a fast time. The complaints of hot laps being spoiled by traffic would multiply, and we have seen just how hot and bothered the stewards can become if they suspect that a crowd favorite has been blocked.
Allow me to suggest that the FIA's optimistic experiment with the qualifying system and its constant adjustment as problems are encountered has gone on long enough. I cannot recall when the governing body first started meddling with the rules in this area but it hardly matters; the point is that it has gone on for years and still we encounter one unforeseen problem after another. It is time to admit that it was a mistake to change things in the first place and to return to an older system that worked.
Give the drivers an hour to get in a decent time with no limit on number of laps or fuel or tires. It should be as simple as that.
Immediately I hear the shouts that this would lead to the old problem of an empty track for three quarters of an hour and a hectic last quarter as everyone tries to take advantage of improved track conditions. My response is: so what? If teams want to risk their best laps being hampered by traffic in the dying minutes of qualifying, that's their problem.
I know that the real objection to this system is that it makes for a pretty poor show for the audience, especially the television viewers. And this is what matters to Bernie and the FIA, since TV viewers are now numbered in the millions, whereas those who can still afford to attend the races are counted in thousands only.
It becomes a matter of priorities in the end. Is F1 just a form of entertainment that must take account of viewing figures or die? Or is it a contest between the best drivers and teams in the world that just happens to be pretty entertaining to watch too? The answer is that F1 will continue even if the bottom drops out of viewing figures; there are thousands who participate in motor sports around the world where the only audience is a man out walking with his dog. We are human and will compete whether anyone is watching or not.
Of course, the disappearance of an audience will also destroy F1's sources of income. Yet it would continue, adjusting its cloth to suit its finances. And really, things are not quite as bad as this worst case scenario.
The empty track problem is more a failure of television to cope with reality than a deficiency in the sport. With a little imagination, the television producers could fill this period with interest and solve another of F1's problems at the same time. Consider how often we hear the complaint that the drivers are too remote from the public in F1, that the accessibility of the stars has been a factor in the enormous success of NASCAR in the States. Why should not the TV cameras be allowed full access to the pits during qualifying, so that we could have interviews with the drivers that are a little longer than those conducted in the grid walks of the likes of Martin Brundle and Peter Windsor?
It is inevitable that drivers will give little more than peremptory platitudes in the heat of the last few minutes before a race; in fact, I am always amazed that they bother to speak with us at all in the circumstances. How much more could be obtained if they were to be approached in the more relaxed atmosphere of the long wait while Super Aguri or Spyker clean the track for everyone else.
So the problem of satisfying the television audience is not insurmountable. With a little thought and invention, we can reach a compromise between the demands of entertainment and the health of the sport. Let us stop trying to patch over-complicated systems with yet more complication and get back to something that we can all understand and enjoy. It's racing, for pete's sake - so let's race!
Time has revealed serious problems with the new system, however. The development of Q3 into a fuel-burning phase has been criticized many times as an obvious contradiction of the sport's stated intention of becoming more environment-friendly. A few drivers have pointed out that the requirement that cars in Q3 be fueled as they will be for the race means that it is actually better to qualify in eleventh place, rather than tenth. You are then free to adjust your fuel strategy to suit the race, instead of attempting a compromise between that and the need to set as fast a lap as possible in qualifying. And there are still long periods in Q1 and Q2 when the track is empty as teams wait for others to lay down rubber and so optimize the track surface.
Scrapping the fuel requirement for Q3 might seem the easiest way to get rid of the complications of Q3. Yet this would turn it into just another version of Q1 and Q2, with everyone waiting until the last moment before attempting to set a fast time. The complaints of hot laps being spoiled by traffic would multiply, and we have seen just how hot and bothered the stewards can become if they suspect that a crowd favorite has been blocked.
Allow me to suggest that the FIA's optimistic experiment with the qualifying system and its constant adjustment as problems are encountered has gone on long enough. I cannot recall when the governing body first started meddling with the rules in this area but it hardly matters; the point is that it has gone on for years and still we encounter one unforeseen problem after another. It is time to admit that it was a mistake to change things in the first place and to return to an older system that worked.
Give the drivers an hour to get in a decent time with no limit on number of laps or fuel or tires. It should be as simple as that.
Immediately I hear the shouts that this would lead to the old problem of an empty track for three quarters of an hour and a hectic last quarter as everyone tries to take advantage of improved track conditions. My response is: so what? If teams want to risk their best laps being hampered by traffic in the dying minutes of qualifying, that's their problem.
I know that the real objection to this system is that it makes for a pretty poor show for the audience, especially the television viewers. And this is what matters to Bernie and the FIA, since TV viewers are now numbered in the millions, whereas those who can still afford to attend the races are counted in thousands only.
It becomes a matter of priorities in the end. Is F1 just a form of entertainment that must take account of viewing figures or die? Or is it a contest between the best drivers and teams in the world that just happens to be pretty entertaining to watch too? The answer is that F1 will continue even if the bottom drops out of viewing figures; there are thousands who participate in motor sports around the world where the only audience is a man out walking with his dog. We are human and will compete whether anyone is watching or not.
Of course, the disappearance of an audience will also destroy F1's sources of income. Yet it would continue, adjusting its cloth to suit its finances. And really, things are not quite as bad as this worst case scenario.
The empty track problem is more a failure of television to cope with reality than a deficiency in the sport. With a little imagination, the television producers could fill this period with interest and solve another of F1's problems at the same time. Consider how often we hear the complaint that the drivers are too remote from the public in F1, that the accessibility of the stars has been a factor in the enormous success of NASCAR in the States. Why should not the TV cameras be allowed full access to the pits during qualifying, so that we could have interviews with the drivers that are a little longer than those conducted in the grid walks of the likes of Martin Brundle and Peter Windsor?
It is inevitable that drivers will give little more than peremptory platitudes in the heat of the last few minutes before a race; in fact, I am always amazed that they bother to speak with us at all in the circumstances. How much more could be obtained if they were to be approached in the more relaxed atmosphere of the long wait while Super Aguri or Spyker clean the track for everyone else.
So the problem of satisfying the television audience is not insurmountable. With a little thought and invention, we can reach a compromise between the demands of entertainment and the health of the sport. Let us stop trying to patch over-complicated systems with yet more complication and get back to something that we can all understand and enjoy. It's racing, for pete's sake - so let's race!