2006 F1 Qualifying Sceme

[Matra et Alpine]

I like it, in principal. In practice it might be rubbish, but superpole seems to work well in DTM and superbikes (<?)

I hated superpole in F1, it always seemed an anticlimax and seldom wirth watching.

BBC coverage of Superpole for bikes used to be OK but only because Suzy Perry was covering it

[MrKipling]

Heh heh. Superpole in F1 was before my time I think.

I've always quite liked it in DTM and I look forward to the possibility of seeing some more last minute qually battles!

[Jack_Bauer]

Hmmmm, been having a closer look at the rules for qualifying and think I've spotted a fairly significant flaw in the system. In the first two miniature qualy sessions the cars can run as light as they like for optimum speed. Those first 12 cars to be eliminated can then rest their engines and refuel with as much/little fuel as they desire. The 10 cars that go through to the superpole have to qualify using their RACE fuel. Therefore there will naturally have to be a compromise between fuelling for one-lap pace and fuelling for race strategy. They will also have to put an extra few miles of hard work on their engines, which will have reliability stretched to the absolute limit with the two-race per engine rule.

So what I'm thinking is that finishing around 11th/12th place in the new qualifying will actually be a BETTER place to be than aroung 9th/10th. If you're on the sixth row of the grid as opposed to the fifth then surely you will be able to save running your engine slightly, possibly save an extra set of tyres from the weekend's running and, most significantly, be able to fuel up as much as possible in parc ferme, allowing you to run much further into the race than the cars immediately infront of you and possibly even take one less pitstop.

Am I seeing this right people, or have I missed something here?

If this is the case then I would guess teams like Red Bull Racing and BMW-Sauber would be the ones perfectly placed to take advantage of this potential loop-hole. Could we even get a situation where some of the midfield teams actively try and AVOID the Superpole? How farcical would that be?!

[Rockefella]

Hmmmm, been having a closer look at the rules for qualifying and think I've spotted a fairly significant flaw in the system. In the first two miniature qualy sessions the cars can run as light as they like for optimum speed. Those first 12 cars to be eliminated can then rest their engines and refuel with as much/little fuel as they desire. The 10 cars that go through to the superpole have to qualify using their RACE fuel. Therefore there will naturally have to be a compromise between fuelling for one-lap pace and fuelling for race strategy. They will also have to put an extra few miles of hard work on their engines, which will have reliability stretched to the absolute limit with the two-race per engine rule.

So what I'm thinking is that finishing around 11th/12th place in the new qualifying will actually be a BETTER place to be than aroung 9th/10th. If you're on the sixth row of the grid as opposed to the fifth then surely you will be able to save running your engine slightly, possibly save an extra set of tyres from the weekend's running and, most significantly, be able to fuel up as much as possible in parc ferme, allowing you to run much further into the race than the cars immediately infront of you and possibly even take one less pitstop.

Am I seeing this right people, or have I missed something here?

If this is the case then I would guess teams like Red Bull Racing and BMW-Sauber would be the ones perfectly placed to take advantage of this potential loop-hole. Could we even get a situation where some of the midfield teams actively try and AVOID the Superpole? How farcical would that be?!

You may be onto something there Jack.. just maybe.

[RacingManiac]

IMO the system will be perfect if they reward some points for pole....to avoid the deal as mentioned by jack....

[Matra et Alpine]

Hmmmm, been having a closer look at the rules for qualifying and think I've spotted a fairly significant flaw in the system. In the first two miniature qualy sessions the cars can run as light as they like for optimum speed. Those first 12 cars to be eliminated can then rest their engines and refuel with as much/little fuel as they desire. The 10 cars that go through to the superpole have to qualify using their RACE fuel. Therefore there will naturally have to be a compromise between fuelling for one-lap pace and fuelling for race strategy. They will also have to put an extra few miles of hard work on their engines, which will have reliability stretched to the absolute limit with the two-race per engine rule.

An extra few laps on an engine necessary to cmplete 2 hours of race is not significant. There IS a risk, but for any team to consider it statistically significant then they are relying on prayer every time they race

So what I'm thinking is that finishing around 11th/12th place in the new qualifying will actually be a BETTER place to be than aroung 9th/10th. If you're on the sixth row of the grid as opposed to the fifth then surely you will be able to save running your engine slightly, possibly save an extra set of tyres from the weekend's running and, most significantly, be able to fuel up as much as possible in parc ferme, allowing you to run much further into the race than the cars immediately infront of you and possibly even take one less pitstop.

The assumption is that the car behind will run as fast as the car on front with the same or more fuel ?
Possibly false, but even if it is then that is no different to the decisions the team tactician makes on fuellign strategy anyway.
Yes it WILL be interseting to see what happens around the cars in that are of the grid but significant enough to make a difference to teh results ? Nto a large indicator to that other than in perhaps Monaco where they may get a jump at the start.

Am I seeing this right people, or have I missed something here?

I think you are seeign a valid point, I'm not sure that I see teh ebnefit you ascribe to it thoug. Remember that IF a car choses to fuel higher thatn the car in front then it will be slower off the grid and lose advantages. The car in frotn may have choses a one or no stop strategy anyway. Your conern really only proves true IF the car in front has chosen a strategy that isnt' optimal anyway.

If this is the case then I would guess teams like Red Bull Racing and BMW-Sauber would be the ones perfectly placed to take advantage of this potential loop-hole. Could we even get a situation where some of the midfield teams actively try and AVOID the Superpole? How farcical would that be?!

That's the risk with making rules about dropping out and why I am not convinced of it.
Will teams try to use it to their advantage ? For sure, ior it woulnd't be F1
Are the advantages that obvious ? Not really when you consider how often grid position effects race results !!! Anyone chosing to take a position one back from what they might achieve is a very dangerous choice to make
We'll not see the vagaries of THIS rule until we see how the teams innovate on tactics. Your ideas may be one that someone tries

IMO the system will be perfect if they reward some points for pole....to avoid the deal as mentioned by jack....

I hope NOT.
F1 is supposed to be a pinnalce of motorsport and racing.
To give points for gettig poel position is NOT abotu racign.
Just as giving points for being in thelead lap etc etc.
Nope F1 shoudl be abotu the race to the line and only that IMHO.
All the other stuff is about keeping second tier fans interested and not racing.

[magracer]

I'm going to leave the tacticians to find if there are loop holes in the system... I'm thinking things are not going to be very different from last year. At least the people at the fornt are going to be in same conditions.

Now, sponsors of the slower teams are going to lose exposure because of this rule, so I'm thinking it could make it harder for them to find proper budgets.

[Matra et Alpine]

Now, sponsors of the slower teams are going to lose exposure because of this rule, so I'm thinking it could make it harder for them to find proper budgets.

I dont' think so.
Consider this years coverage of qualifying.You knew when the "good" drivers were going out adn how many actually bothered wathcin gthose first 30 minutes when all teh usually slower guys were going out anyway ? hardly anybody -- except for the times when a "faster" driver was starting earlier because of previous problems in Q1 giving slow times.
So in reality the only ones watching the "slower" guys were the sponsors themselves

So NOW we have ALL cars out on the track for the first 15 mins.
So likely LOTS more folks willing to pay to come see and more importantly watch on TV durign that time.
THAT measn more coverage for the sponsors fo ALL cars during those times. More cars on track is more exposure. As it focusses in on who the bottom 6 are going to be then inevitably more coverage will be given durign the last 5 mins of that 15 on teose trying to avoid the cut. So more excitemetent -- better TV.

[magracer]

More cars on track is more exposure.

OR, more track time is more exposure??? In my opinion, those 15 min of TV are going to be focused on the leaders, so the slower/poorer teams are going to have less exposure. Also, 15 min seems a little short and that might provide some surprises if the fast guys can't find a clean lap.

I'm with you in that allowing light cars for max performance is going to be fun to watch though...

[Matra et Alpine]

OR, more track time is more xposure???

yeah that too for sure

Any way, those 15 min of TV are going to be focused on the leaders, so the slower/poorer teams are going to have less exposure. Also, 15 min seems a little short and that might provide some surprises if the fast guys can't find a clean lap.

As I said I think the TV will concentrate on those near the cut point in those last 5 monutes of it. Also, remember that if someone luke Schumi goes out and puts a time up 1 second faster than the worst 10 cars then he can afford to NOT run in those times. Again an aspect fo teh tactics will be interstign to view. Do you go out VERY early and bank a VERY fast lap and try NOT to go out again untill the 30 minutes limit ??

I'm with you in that allowing light cars for max performance is going to be fun to watch though...

Unless someone spots a VERY easy way to guarantee a posiive outcome I thik it will be "exciting" because of tactics and circumstances -- back to when planning a fast lap at one time in quali can fall awray because fo a baulk from a slower driver also trying for thier fastest

[MrKipling]

I think tactics will really only play a big part in extreme situations, weather and so on.

Just think what will happen if it rains during superpole.

First lap mayhem: Ferrari, Honda, McLaren and Toyota in the last 8 grid slots.

[henk4]

Just think what will happen if it rains during superpole.

First lap mayhem: Ferrari, Honda, McLaren and Toyota in the last 8 grid slots.

one of the reasons why I suggested to simply draw straws

[Matra et Alpine]

one of the reasons why I suggested to simply draw straws

But that doesnt' take away from the fact that a timed exit measn WEATHER has a major part to play in resutls.
WHO it affects isnt' what bothers me, that it affects the otucome does.
It should be as much as possible about the driver, the car and their tactics.

[henk4]

But that doesnt' take away from the fact that a timed exit measn WEATHER has a major part to play in resutls.
WHO it affects isnt' what bothers me, that it affects the otucome does.
It should be as much as possible about the driver, the car and their tactics.

apparently Max M was also thinking about a Formula that would save energy/fuel. My suggestion also perfectly fits into that masterplan. We may end up by having the whole race decided by straws

[MrKipling]

Yeah, I guess the bottom 12 positions aren't affected by the superpole times.

I'm looking forward to it, as I said I'm really hoping to see some furious battles for pole.

It'll be interesting to see what Couthard does too.