 | |
Qualifying is still crap
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Qualifying is still crap -
05-17-2007
, 07:03 PM
|
David Melville wrote: In article <xn0f6b71j7ekqy600l (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>, bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com says... David Melville wrote: In article <xn0f6b6137d95lq00h (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>, bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com says... David Melville wrote: In article <464bd906.1832270359 (AT) news (DOT) snap.net.nz>, Mark (AT) Jones (DOT) co.nz says... On 17 May 2007 03:10:13 +0300, Phil Carmody thefatphil_demunged (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote: "Von Fourche" <Khonakong (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> writes: "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote in message news:464b337b$0$27182$742ec2ed (AT) news (DOT) sonic.net... I still think the qualifying is crap. The first two sessions are OK but the >> >last session should be run single car, one lap. The problem is, when >> >everyone is out on their final hot lap the television is watching the start >> >finish line. BORING! And I'm still tired of the race-fuel qualifying, even >> >if they do get to burn it off. It's all so stupid, really. Qualifying was changed because of the Schumacher/Ferrari domination. >> There was really nothing wrong with the 12 total laps/one hour format. So you found 24 minutes of completely empty track interesing? Maybe they should combine practice and qualfying again? That way there'll always be something happening. Why not split the field into four equal groups according to Championship ranking and mandate each team in each group perform at least x laps during a specified 15 minute period of qualy? So, bottom feeders must run x laps between Q0:00 and Q0:15, 2nd from bottom, x laps between Q0:15 and Q0:30, etc. All teams are free to use the track at any time during the session for setup and reconnaisance. Qualifying times may be set at any time during the hour. First it is a return to low fuel qualifying Fantastic. Exactly! which is a big backward step. How so? It's old ground but... For e.g. say the Ferrari is on pole at Barcelona and has an open choice of what strategy to run, you are third on the grid how do you go about choosing your strategy? Same way they did in the "old days", FFS. These guys get paid for something. If you choose the optimum but are a lot lighter you are compromised until your first pitstop handing the race to the Ferrari. If you compromise and are a lot heavier than the optimum you are slower over race distance. It is all about second guessing the other cars strategy. Yeah. So? I don't see the difference between the two. As long as there are pit stops, it's ALL about second guessing. I let you think on it. Currently with qualifying pace more representative of relative start pace you still have the opportunity to run your own race/pace. {snip] Didn't you just contradict yourself? Did I? I don't think so, but I do beleive we have a mis-understanding though hence I won't simply repeat myself... (besides with all these posts I've made in this thread it is probably starting to look like a crusade, I'm just happier with the qualifying syastem at the moment, taking into consideration the state of the racing, than I would be with any previous system that was in use). No hard. Each to his own. ;-) |
Dave
"I wish that this were not our problem."
- Australian Prime Minister John Howard showing
compassion for refugees... an "Australian Value"
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
If you choose the optimum but are a lot lighter you are compromised until your first pitstop handing the race to the Ferrari. |
If you can't overtake the Ferrari on the road you don't deserve the place.
The problem with modern F1 is not the qualifying format, it's the fact that
the cars are so aero-sensitive that they can't get close enough to eachother
to pass - and that's a direct result of spending gazillions of dollars in
wind tunnels where you only test one car in isolation.
Paul
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:xn0f6b71j7ekqy600l (AT) news (DOT) individual.net... If you choose the optimum but are a lot lighter you are compromised until your first pitstop handing the race to the Ferrari. If you can't overtake the Ferrari on the road you don't deserve the place. The problem with modern F1 is not the qualifying format, it's the fact that the cars are so aero-sensitive that they can't get close enough to eachother to pass - and that's a direct result of spending gazillions of dollars in wind tunnels where you only test one car in isolation. |
true. But F1 has been like that for 20 years. At least in the old
qualifying we used to see them working hard over an entire lap.
#44
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
Qualifying was all about determining who deserves to be and where on the grid, based on their outright speed. Period. Nothing to do with the race. My point exactly. As I have been saying I like it that qualifying is now related to the race. The qualifying is simply a required thing, because we can't line up 22 |
Quote:
|
I hate the idea that (with refuelling allowed) someone could have the fastest qualifying setup then, for example load up on fuel and lead a procession for umpteen laps and that cars behind must set their strategy based entirely on what the cars in front may do. If that was possible in the past when cars could pass one another more easily think what it would be like now. Its been done already and it is even more possible to do now then it |
Quote:
|
Now qualifying is part of the race strategy. Which is wrong. Race is race. Qualifying is qualifying. |
Quote:
|
If you also think the strategic alternatives for the race are no different under either system then I have the same opionon of you. You have not thought about it. Heh, my days of me caring about who thinks what about me on Usenet is |
Quote:
|
If you can explain how both are identical I will retract. So you will hang on that word of "identical" and act as if you didn't |
AMOF, i don't recall "identical" being mentioned. I think he said
"it's the same". Of course, if you want to ride on those words without
even trying to evaluate what he meant, then you are absolutely right.
- It is not identical, nor the same, just as crossing the street at
any two different points is not the same.
However, the requirement for "a" strategy *is* the same. The factors
which decide on what strategy to use in the various formats what may
differ.
Surely you don't think that there was no strategy involved in
qualifying even in the old days ?
--
Regards, Frank
#45
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 19 May 2007 08:17:51 GMT, "Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: Qualifying was all about determining who deserves to be and where on the grid, based on their outright speed. Period. Nothing to do with the race. My point exactly. As I have been saying I like it that qualifying is now related to the race. The qualifying is simply a required thing, because we can't line up 22 cars side by side at the start of the "race". I hate the idea that (with refuelling allowed) someone could have the fastest qualifying setup then, for example load up on fuel and lead a procession for umpteen laps and that cars behind must set their strategy based entirely on what the cars in front may do. If that was possible in the past when cars could pass one another more easily think what it would be like now. Its been done already and it is even more possible to do now then it was back in the qualy-setup days. Toyotas ring a bell ? Now qualifying is part of the race strategy. Which is wrong. Race is race. Qualifying is qualifying. If you also think the strategic alternatives for the race are no different under either system then I have the same opionon of you. You have not thought about it. Heh, my days of me caring about who thinks what about me on Usenet is well past. :-) If you can explain how both are identical I will retract. So you will hang on that word of "identical" and act as if you didn't know what the poster meant.. Is that the big battle plan again ? AMOF, i don't recall "identical" being mentioned. I think he said "it's the same". Of course, if you want to ride on those words without even trying to evaluate what he meant, then you are absolutely right. - It is not identical, nor the same, just as crossing the street at any two different points is not the same. However, the requirement for "a" strategy *is* the same. The factors which decide on what strategy to use in the various formats what may differ. Surely you don't think that there was no strategy involved in qualifying even in the old days ? Don't upset the children, Frank. |
Dave
"I wish that this were not our problem."
- Australian Prime Minister John Howard showing
compassion for refugees... an "Australian Value"
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 19 May 2007 08:17:51 GMT, "Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: Qualifying was all about determining who deserves to be and where on the grid, based on their outright speed. Period. Nothing to do with the race. My point exactly. As I have been saying I like it that qualifying is now related to the race. The qualifying is simply a required thing, because we can't line up 22 cars side by side at the start of the "race". I hate the idea that (with refuelling allowed) someone could have the fastest qualifying setup then, for example load up on fuel and lead a procession for umpteen laps and that cars behind must set their strategy based entirely on what the cars in front may do. If that was possible in the past when cars could pass one another more easily think what it would be like now. Its been done already and it is even more possible to do now then it was back in the qualy-setup days. Toyotas ring a bell ? Now qualifying is part of the race strategy. Which is wrong. Race is race. Qualifying is qualifying. If you also think the strategic alternatives for the race are no different under either system then I have the same opionon of you. You have not thought about it. Heh, my days of me caring about who thinks what about me on Usenet is well past. :-) If you can explain how both are identical I will retract. So you will hang on that word of "identical" and act as if you didn't know what the poster meant.. Is that the big battle plan again ? AMOF, i don't recall "identical" being mentioned. I think he said "it's the same". Of course, if you want to ride on those words without even trying to evaluate what he meant, then you are absolutely right. - It is not identical, nor the same, just as crossing the street at any two different points is not the same. However, the requirement for "a" strategy *is* the same. The factors which decide on what strategy to use in the various formats what may differ. Surely you don't think that there was no strategy involved in qualifying even in the old days ? |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.