Can I subscribe to information on new tests?
Qualifying rules 2005
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Formula-1 > Qualifying rules 2005 5 March 2005 23:21:48

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Qualifying rules 2005

Guest 5 March 2005 09:21:29
 Todays qualifying shows that changes are still required to the qualifying
rules.

I still think two sessions of multiple laps each lasting one hour (as used
a few years back ) each should be held instead of these boring one lap
affairs which put way too much luck into the event. This will also give much
better spectator appeal.
As it stands using the aggreagate of two runs means that if it is dry
tommorow Michael will probably save his engine rather than bothering to try
for a fast lap.
A better solution would be to average their position in the two qualifying
sessions so that a good result in both is required which will allow for the
differences in weather than can occur and offer incentive to all drivers to
try hard.

ie a driver coming 16 in session one and second in session two would average
ninth and his grid position would be based on this.

The engine rule has been shown to have totally ruined the event from the
paying publics point of view with practice being not worth watching as every
one is saving their engines.

I do not believe it saves the teams any money and whether it is successful
in controlling speeds is very highly debatable. I expect any one not
expecting to get into the points will drop out as early as this becomes
obvious.

Just accept that F1 is expensive and control speeds by more sensible means
such as reducing capacities or limiting fuel (which will carry good
environmental benefits).


Add comment
Drp535 5 March 2005 13:19:49 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:21:29 +1100, <s> wrote:

I still think two sessions of multiple laps each lasting one hour (as used>a few years back ) each should be held instead of these boring one lap>affairs which put way too much luck into the event. This will also give much>better spectator appeal.

Yep. Classic case of fixing something that wasn't broken to begin with. The
most exciting and thrilling qualifying sessions were held throughout the
80's and early 90's when all the cars were on track and each had 12 laps or
so to find as clear a run as they could to post the fastest time. When
Ayrton Senna was around, these sessions were very frequently the most
exciting thing of the whole GP weekend. Saturday was often *the* day not to
miss.
As it stands using the aggreagate of two runs means that if it is dry>tommorow Michael will probably save his engine rather than bothering to try>for a fast lap.

If it looks like being a completely dry final qualifier session tomorrow I
wouldn't even bother putting my race suit on if I was MS.
A better solution would be to average their position in the two qualifying>sessions­ so that a good result in both is required which will allow for the>differences in weather than can occur and offer incentive to all drivers to>try hard.>
Just accept that F1 is expensive and control speeds by more sensible means>such as reducing capacities or limiting fuel (which will carry good>environmental benefits).

I like the fuel limiting option myself. I find the will/won't he run out of
fuel in the closing laps of a race quite entertaining actually. It was
great in the 80's with the turbos, no refuelling and limited tank sizes.

As you say, a very simple and effective way of controlling speed and has
the beneficial side effect of actually adding strategy and drama to the
race itself.

They don't even have to get all technical about it either. Just let the
teams/engine suppliers use what they want to use within reason but you just
say to them... this is how much fuel you've got to use. Use it how you
want, but once you've used it all, you don't get anymore. Simple.
Add comment
Guest 5 March 2005 16:58:56 permanent link ]
 I would really open up the rules to allow any size engine. IC
,Diesels,turbos, superchargers, gas turbines or hybrid or flywheels but have
a total fuel limit . Refuelling could be allowed but you dont get any more
fuel after it has run out.
Should also be useful for trying out new technologies for the car
manufacturers and keep the sport interesting like it was in the early 80's.


Add comment
F2004: 15 of 17* 5 March 2005 23:21:48 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 23:58:56 +1100, <s> wrote:>I would really open up the rules to allow any size engine. IC>,Diesels,turbos,­ superchargers, gas turbines or hybrid or flywheels but have>a total fuel limit . Refuelling could be allowed but you dont get any more>fuel after it has run out.>Should also be useful for trying out new technologies for the car>manufacturers and keep the sport interesting like it was in the early 80's.

Get with the program: "We" don't want interesting sport, "we" want a
British champion.

Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Formula-1 > Qualifying rules 2005 5 March 2005 23:21:48

see also:
FRENAULT: UK 2.0: Jeremy Metcalfe…
IRL: Indy Racing League News and Notes…
GP2: Trident Racing forms new…
pass tests:
see also:
VW Passat, 2006
brakes
Need code or removal instructions for…

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .