Scrap fuel-corrected qualifying?

[V12]

I've just finished watching Nick Heidfeld and Fernando Alonso play dodgems on the final qualifying lap. Allen and Brundle are suggesting some sort of minimum speed that drivers who elect to save fuel must keep in order to avoid any unsafe speed differentials, which is a very 21st century F1 way of overcomplicating things IMO.

Isn't it time to ditch this whole idea of qualifying with your race fuel and getting qualifying back to the essence of how it used to be - a hot lap on minimal fuel?

Yes, in 2003 it seemed like a fairly innovative idea to shake up the grids and add an extra strategic dimension to the race weekend, but these days everyone seems to run fairly similar strategies and they rarely add to the excitement in the race - so why not just ditch the whole idea?

Anyone else agree?

[ShiftingGears]

The 3 periods of qualifying are good, but its time to ditch the fuel load bull****. People want to see the cars at their very fastest in qualifying, not teams playing a strategy game.

[gloomyDAY]

I agree.

How about giving each team a few laps to complete a time? The IRL has a pretty good system that makes their qualifying exciting to watch.

http://www.indycar.com/tech/101/qualifying.php

[AJP]

I've just finished watching Nick Heidfeld and Fernando Alonso play dodgems on the final qualifying lap. Allen and Brundle are suggesting some sort of minimum speed that drivers who elect to save fuel must keep in order to avoid any unsafe speed differentials, which is a very 21st century F1 way of overcomplicating things IMO.

Isn't it time to ditch this whole idea of qualifying with your race fuel and getting qualifying back to the essence of how it used to be - a hot lap on minimal fuel?

Yes, in 2003 it seemed like a fairly innovative idea to shake up the grids and add an extra strategic dimension to the race weekend, but these days everyone seems to run fairly similar strategies and they rarely add to the excitement in the race - so why not just ditch the whole idea?

Anyone else agree?

I'm all for it. I would be very happy if it went back to low fuel runs for everyone.

Then you can fill up as much fuel as you want for the race..

It will still sort the faster cars out from the rest anyway.

[Tazio]

The only problem I really have with the current quali is the way these guiys limp in on their in laps. very dangerous today. They need to get way off line.
They cost Fred some time on his final flyer!

[Valve Bounce]

I've been advocating this for like forever. What more can I say?

[inimitablestoo]

Isn't it time to ditch this whole idea of qualifying with your race fuel and getting qualifying back to the essence of how it used to be - a hot lap on minimal fuel?No - but only because it was actually time to do it some time ago. Has the spectacle really been enhanced in any way by carrying race fuel through qualifying ever?

[BDunnell]

It has to go. As I said in the thread about qualifying following the Australian GP, any system that requires the amount of explanation required to describe the system used at present is too complicated.

[maxu05]

I agree 100%, get rid of this stupid fuel rule. Start the race with the fuel load that you want IMO. Lets get Qualifying rocking.

[cosmicpanda]

if we go back to the old system people will complain that it's boring, since the cars only go out for a little bit and there's the big gap at the start.

What's to guarantee that letting them refuel before the race will improve the race, though? As far as I can see, that would just encourage everyone to lap on the soft tyre until the pitlane opened (not sure how long that takes in F1), at which point they would pit, put on hard tyres, fill the car to the brim and go to the end of the race on that. Certainly, the first season in A1GP showed that that was quicker than refueling in the middle of the race.

It might encourage passing on the track, but it also eliminates the only source of overtaking possible on tracks like Monaco and Hungary, and let's face it, the rest of the tracks are usually processional as well (and it's not like drivers wouldn't pass if given the chance).

[Daika]

if we go back to the old system people will complain that it's boring, since the cars only go out for a little bit and there's the big gap at the start.



In essence isn't it all the same? only the last 2 minutes of qualifying matters. Only a accident/big screw up/car failure from the topdrivers can prevent them from competing in the 3nd round of qualifying. I woke up this morning only to watch the last 10 minutes.

[Marbles]

The original hope for some with these qualifying regs was that some mid-packers might be able to grab a front row and\or maybe incorporate some fiendishly diabolical fuel strategy that would win the day for them but it just doesn't happen.

It's the usual suspects at the front and they'd be there regardless of the fuel regulations.

I've never seen teams give up a final lap of qualy as they did today! Is this the new way? Giving up final qualifying laps to accomodate fuel strategy? These rules, which were intended to entertain, have truly backfired when teams start doing that!

And never mind the potential for disaster when you have some F1 cars puttering along the circuit at school zone speeds when qualifying is yet to finish.

[VkmSpouge]

They should make the last session a low fuel, ten minutes of frantic action. Having the cars on race fuel makes little sense to me and certainly adds nothing to the spectacle.

[Robinho]

given that its only 10 minutes and nmost drivers want to have a couple of runs we'd lose nothing of the spectacle by dropping the race fuel, and certainly lose the dangerous lottery that the last lap was. i don't understand, however, why only McLaren were punished for the blocking, when there was clearly a concentration of cars in one area of track and i'd argue all were distracting, blocking and/or dangerous

[wedge]

The original hope for some with these qualifying regs was that some mid-packers might be able to grab a front row and\or maybe incorporate some fiendishly diabolical fuel strategy that would win the day for them but it just doesn't happen.

That used to be the case, but it just doesn't work because it compromises your race slightly. Renault tried it in 2003/04, BAR Honda did it in 2005 and were caught with their pants down and went backwards in the race.

With the old system the fastest cars were at the front and then fuelled their cars to the brim and not necessarily a recipe for a good race when everyone was on a similar strategy. Arguably that system could work now because there's more emphasis on driver skill.

Personally I'm happy as it is. There's unknown variables and therefore a less predictable race - did a driver carry more fuel of did he genuinely make a mistake?

I'm not too fussed over qualy - as long as I watch a good race. I follow NASCAR, IRL, BTCC, ALMS and many other series and there isn't a huge fuss over qualifying.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be. Refuelling has increased the need for pit passing, but if it we ban it then it would be like the late 80s/early 90s when cars coasted to the finish.

Perhaps 1hr 45min races? Regulation fuel tank capacity?

[maximilian]

The fuel rule is nonsense. I also think that the sessions should be either equal time, or Q1 should be the shortest, followed by Q2 longer, and Q3 longest.

That way, there may be a few more surprise OUTS by some of the midfield runners, instead of the same backmarker guys always getting the squeeze a few seconds from the end.

Then, when it comes time for the top guys to battle for the pole, I'd like to see more than just 10 minutes of it - after all, that's the most interesting part, so why make it the shortest?

[BDunnell]

That used to be the case, but it just doesn't work because it compromises your race slightly. Renault tried it in 2003/04, BAR Honda did it in 2005 and were caught with their pants down and went backwards in the race.

And that only worked for them because Renault and BAR Honda were, then, closer to the pace of Ferrari and McLaren than the chasing pack (with the possible exception of BMW) are at the moment. The gap has increased and there's now little scope for the grid order to be shaken up all that much.



Personally I'm happy as it is. There's unknown variables and therefore a less predictable race - did a driver carry more fuel of did he genuinely make a mistake?

I know there are lots of different views on this matter, but the current system and its implications are just so hard to explain to the casual viewer (and even a fair few enthusiasts).

[truefan72]

yep, scrap the fuel rule
1.it does nothing but cause problems in Q3
2. it gives the rest of the grid (11-22) an unfair advantage over the top 10 who earned those postions and could simply lose it on pit strategy because of the fuel rule. The simplest safety car incident throws the whole system off for a whole host of reasons. Simply put the biggest winners of the Q3 fuel load system are cars 11-17 IMO
3. Adds no drama to the quali session. I would like to see the fastest laps turned in Q3 not Q2 with real duels of speed on the track rather than aggregated plotting and scheming due to the fuel load situation

[Marbles]

With the old system the fastest cars were at the front and then fuelled their cars to the brim and not necessarily a recipe for a good race when everyone was on a similar strategy. Arguably that system could work now because there's more emphasis on driver skill.

The big issue with F1 qualifying started a few years back when the only team that appeared on the track for the first forty minutes was Minardi and then there was a mad scramble by the entire grid in the last ten minutes.

I think the segmented way they do it now defeats that problem so there is no reason to have fuel strategy involved in qualifying especially with the final segment. These gents all use computers that are equally smart so they pretty much have all the same options. There is still fuel strategy for the race.

Having said that, since F1 has become more fan oriented entertainment wise and introduced silly, NASCAR like rules of weeding all the lap cars out of the way after a caution then why not offer a point for the pole position if you want see some gambling with fuel strategy?

[wedge]

And that only worked for them because Renault and BAR Honda were, then, closer to the pace of Ferrari and McLaren than the chasing pack (with the possible exception of BMW) are at the moment. The gap has increased and there's now little scope for the grid order to be shaken up all that much.

Over time we now have a pattern. Everyone has realised that Saturday headlines rewards little for the race, when its best to do a final short stint. Another example is that when race fuel qualy was introduced drivers were willing to have enough fuel for about 15 lap first stint (over a 60 lap race), whereas now they can easily do 20 lap first stint.

[BDunnell]

Having said that, since F1 has become more fan oriented entertainment wise and introduced silly, NASCAR like rules of weeding all the lap cars out of the way after a caution then why not offer a point for the pole position if you want see some gambling with fuel strategy?

Or, indeed, a point for each driver who leads a lap. There is, of course, nothing new in awarding extra points for such things — after all, a point was awarded for setting the fastest lap in F1's early days, and this cost Stirling Moss the 1958 title.

The trouble is that the differential in pace between front-running cars and those behind is that going for a 'daring' strategy probably still wouldn't vault many cars up to pole position or the race lead.

[Marbles]

The trouble is that the differential in pace between front-running cars and those behind is that going for a 'daring' strategy probably still wouldn't vault many cars up to pole position or the race lead.


I agree but if you want to make a "show" of qualifying then a single point might make a gamble for BMW in Germany, Renault in France or Honda in Japan worthwhile. Imagine the risk taking at the end of the season in a tight point race?

[Tazio]

F1 doesn't need gimicks!

[Easy Drifter]

How about really shaking things up and going back in time to 250 or 300 mile races? So they take more than 2 hrs. So what? So does baseball and football etc.
New fuel stratagies and not as important because of the lenghth of the race. More stops or biggger tanks? Tires to last longer and no articficial running of different compounds. Sure have 2 compounds (and only 2) but run which you want.
At the rate were going we are going to be getting phantom debris safety car periods.

[GP-M3]

Don't miss the point regards the fuel load, it's not for qually it's for the race. I think it makes the race more interesting, for instance... does Kimi have more fuel than Massa... if so, when Massa pits, Kimi may get by, if he isn't already by him at the start.

So qually on race fuel seems OK to me, as it adds an element IN THE RACE.

Right now, I think they have it mostly right. The added 5 minutes to q1 and took off 5 mins on q3. I think they should add back 2 minutes to q3, as they seem just a bit tight, and they are the most exciting bit, thus making the sessions:

q1-18mins
q2-15mins
q3-12mins

Then for safety sake there should be a minimun lap time in q3, like there was in the fuel burn days, something like within 10% of your qually lap, and that's it.

PS: The reason Mac was affected and the others nearby were not, is the Mac drivers were cruising on the racing line, while the others were off the line, as you would be when limping back to the pits.

[wedge]

How about really shaking things up and going back in time to 250 or 300 mile races? So they take more than 2 hrs. So what? So does baseball and football etc.
New fuel stratagies and not as important because of the lenghth of the race. More stops or biggger tanks?

That's what I had in mind when I proposed 1hr 45min races (as previously seen in CCWS) or limited size fuel tanks - it didn't particularly help in the late 90s that McLaren had the fastest car and the biggest fuel tank.

200 miles is too long for F1, let alone 300. The leader could easily lap the whole field and that won't be good for the spectacle.

[Valve Bounce]

Split Q3 into two 15 minute sessions on low fuel. Aggregate the fastest two times in both sessions. That will solve the nobody on the track syndrome.

[ShiftingGears]

That's what I had in mind when I proposed 1hr 45min races (as previously seen in CCWS) or limited size fuel tanks - it didn't particularly help in the late 90s that McLaren had the fastest car and the biggest fuel tank.

200 miles is too long for F1, let alone 300. The leader could easily lap the whole field and that won't be good for the spectacle.

If the cars are 10 seconds apart and have no chance to pass anyway it makes no difference. Only that one lead looks more imposing.

My main argument against 200/300 mile F1 races is driver fitness. They're flatout trying to handle the g-forces for 2 hours now.

[Ranger]

How about really shaking things up and going back in time to 250 or 300 mile races? So they take more than 2 hrs. So what? So does baseball and football etc.

But do baseball players don't experience up to 4G on their bodies for more than 2 hours?

Neither did Grand Prix drivers of old.

The 2 hour limit is perfectly fine and does not need fixing.

[Hawkmoon]

Yes it's got to go. Not only for the fact that it's stupid and adds nothing to the race weekend at all but also for the safety issues that it has caused this weekend.

Having Heidfeld and Alonso zipping through a gaggle of cars like a courier through peak hour was always going to raise a red flag with people. Hopefully the FIA will take note of the safety issue. I'm not holding my breath however.

I would go further than just getting rid of race fuel in qualy. I'd ban refuelling alltogether. Give the drivers tyres that won't even come close to lasting a race distance and the strategy shifts from the pit wall to the cockpit.

The driver has a make a choice of either going balls out for 15 laps to get a healthy gap before stopping for new rubber or pulling them in a bit and going 20 laps before stopping. The driver who best balances speed and tyre wear wins. Not the engineer with the computer simulation.

[BDunnell]

Having Heidfeld and Alonso zipping through a gaggle of cars like a courier through peak hour was always going to raise a red flag with people. Hopefully the FIA will take note of the safety issue. I'm not holding my breath however.

While I'm in favour of scrapping the current qualifying system, it seems to me that that bit of blocking on the part of the two McLaren drivers was only really notable because blocking in qualifying is now so rare. If I remember rightly, there used to be far worse examples during the old one-hour session. It was never (OK, rarely!) malicious, and it was accepted as a fact of F1 life.



I would go further than just getting rid of race fuel in qualy. I'd ban refuelling alltogether. Give the drivers tyres that won't even come close to lasting a race distance and the strategy shifts from the pit wall to the cockpit.

I agree, but I would go further. Make it practical via the technical regulations (don't ask me how — I'm no engineer!) to allow teams the choice of going non-stop. That would shake things up!

[markabilly]

[quote="Tazio"]F1 doesn't need gimicks![/quote

True.

But that ain't what some folks who want the money and revenue think.....

[Marbles]

I agree, but I would go further. Make it practical via the technical regulations (don't ask me how — I'm no engineer!) to allow teams the choice of going non-stop. That would shake things up!

I remember when refueling was first allowed one of the back markers (Tyrell?Footwork?) made it up to the front at Monaco by virtue of not refuelling until it finally had to pit with about 10 to 15 laps to go. I don't know if pitting for fuel was mandatory back then but if not a slightly larger gas tank would have been worth a million dollars.

[BDunnell]

I remember when refueling was first allowed one of the back markers (Tyrell?Footwork?) made it up to the front at Monaco by virtue of not refuelling until it finally had to pit with about 10 to 15 laps to go. I don't know if pitting for fuel was mandatory back then but if not a slightly larger gas tank would have been worth a million dollars.

In 1998, Mika Salo's Tyrrell did the whole of the Monaco GP without stopping and got some good points as a result.

[V12]

I agree, but I would go further. Make it practical via the technical regulations (don't ask me how — I'm no engineer!) to allow teams the choice of going non-stop. That would shake things up!

This would be quite easy to accomplish, in a number of ways. The teams must use FIA-controlled refuelling rigs, so reducing the flow rate of these (so that topping up takes a very long time) would make going non-stop more desirable. You could specify in the rules that a cars fuel tank must be able to hold x amount of litres of fuel (roughly the amount it takes to run non-stop), so that building smaller fuel tanks that are impossible to run non-stop would be out.

Ultimately though, it wouldn't make much difference long term in shaking up the strategies of the teams. Their race operations are all run by clever people, with advanced software and simulations to back them up, and ultimately all teams will zero in on the "optimal" strategy given time. When refuelling was first allowed back in 1994 we saw a mix of 1, 2 and 3 stop strategies employed, whereas now teams' pit strategies often only vary by a few laps.

[Valve Bounce]

Can't go non stop. Pit stops are mandatory by way of the rule that both types of tyres must be used - another idiotic Max rule.

[maxu05]

The maximum fuel capacity would not see a car go full distance anyway, would it ? Unless they allow diesels, then Audi would be in the fray, and kicking some butt :D

[Tazio]

Honda Racing team principal Ross Brawn backed called for a change to be looked at, especially because there is a safety aspect to what happened.

"It didn't look very nice, did it?" he stated. "Maybe we do need to have a think about the format and see if there is something we can do to prevent those issues in the future.

"People are in a difficult position here. They know they should run fairly quickly but also know that they should save fuel. Where is that balance?

"We almost need to take that decision away from them and say 'you have to do this'. There is now a maximum lap time to go to the grid, so if we are applying it then (before the race), then maybe we can apply it in qualifying as well."

Williams technical director Sam Michael added: "I think the guys that were there in that situation handled themselves very well. They all stayed out of the way as much as they could, but I am sure it will come up in the team managers' meeting, because it was a bit too close. The speed differential was massive.

"I think something will probably happen in time for Bahrain."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66028
I agree!!

[maxu05]

Perhaps, they could allot a certain amount of fuel for qualifying, say 20 litres,(just an example), then start the race with the fuel load you want ?

[pino]

This rule will be modified already from next GP, ital TV have just reported ;)

[harsha]

what about all teams starting a race with some predetermined fuel by FIA after doing a hotlap qualifying run with as much fuel as they want...

the predetermined fuel level should be decided to allow drivers to do both the 2 pits and the 3 pits strategy.....

[ClarkFan]

No - but only because it was actually time to do it some time ago. Has the spectacle really been enhanced in any way by carrying race fuel through qualifying ever?

Only if you consider near-crashes due to speed differential "spectacle." :rolleyes:

What is lost is the spectacle you got when Senna got rolling, cracking off a series of hot laps, culminating with a final one that left everyone agog. Even with Schumacher retired, there a couple of drivers like Raikkonen who could put on that sort of a show.

Imagine that - making greatness central to the "show." :eek:

ClarkFan

[markabilly]

Honda Racing team principal Ross Brawn backed called for a change to be looked at, especially because there is a safety aspect to what happened.

"It didn't look very nice, did it?" he stated. "Maybe we do need to have a think about the format and see if there is something we can do to prevent those issues in the future.

"People are in a difficult position here. They know they should run fairly quickly but also know that they should save fuel. Where is that balance?

"We almost need to take that decision away from them and say 'you have to do this'. There is now a maximum lap time to go to the grid, so if we are applying it then (before the race), then maybe we can apply it in qualifying as well."

Williams technical director Sam Michael added: "I think the guys that were there in that situation handled themselves very well. They all stayed out of the way as much as they could, but I am sure it will come up in the team managers' meeting, because it was a bit too close. The speed differential was massive.

"I think something will probably happen in time for Bahrain."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66028
I agree!!
Well duuuh............I can not imagine why make a change when there has yet to be a massive crash..................

Seriously, the only change needs to be eliminate it completely.......go back to tires and fuel can be added, but nothing else changed, and any "slow laps" for whatever reason (mechaniical or otherwise) gets the driver the black flag and automatic 10 grid penalty

[jso1985]

still without race-fuel we could still see drivers driving really slow while others are on their flying lap, the reason being that they did their flying lap with so little fuel they need to save now and go slow to be able to reach the pitlane, that happened really often during the old 12-lap qualy didn't it?

I still advocate for a single lap qualy without race fuel as the best qualy system

[Roamy]

Well duuuh............I can not imagine why make a change when there has yet to be a massive crash..................

Seriously, the only change needs to be eliminate it completely.......go back to tires and fuel can be added, but nothing else changed, and any "slow laps" for whatever reason (mechaniical or otherwise) gets the driver the black flag and automatic 10 grid penalty

yea like when jochen maas was in the fast lane going 40 mph and GV rounded the corner at 140 with full g-load? get a clue!!