Formula 1, 2020

[Andrew P]

I wonder if Toto is planning for Andy Cowell to join him heading Aston Martin in 2022?

https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/56595/cowell-evaluating-many-options-wolff/?fbclid=IwAR3QsisHokCx2ROmrXB934lzaY1B9I6K6KHPo7UiO-OUOIYgdpCJjwLjeLs

Edited September 8, 2020 by Andrew P

[Dunsignalling]

Having re-read the report on the F1 proposal, the reverse-grid start does not relate to the actual race.

 

The (revived) idea is that a "reversed-grid sprint race" should replace the existing qualifying process.

 

That should turn events into something that the uninitiated would recognise as a two-day event.

 

I've always considered the idea of Q1, Q2 and Q3 to lie somewhere on the border between contrived and flogging a dead horse anyhow!

 

John

Edited September 8, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Andrew P]

3 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Having re-read the report on the F1 proposal, the reverse-grid start does not relate to the actual race.

 

The (revived) idea is that a "reversed-grid sprint race" should replace the existing qualifying process.

 

John

That wouldn't be quite so bad, I must admit, I missed that bit as well. But who, or what determines that start order, the Championship, or the previous Race.

All very interesting, whatever is decided someone wont be happy, and if Ferrari or Red Bull get good in 2022 they will get it overturned anyway, haha.

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

One thing worth pointing out to all of those people quoting Sunday's race as an excuse for "reverse grid" that it wasn't a true reverse grid. All that happened is that the mid runners ended up at the front rather than the middle. Had it been a true reverse grid Williams (and if they'd been around) Ferrari would have been at the front and it would have meant that Hammy would have like as not finished even higher due to the delay to the podium finishers who would have had to waste some time getting through to the front, which they didn't have to on Sunday.

 

 

I was brought up with short oval as well, but I don't think it makes a fair comparison to be used as a reason for reverse grids, much shorter races, much smaller track so easier to get to the front, as long as you didn't have some white top with a good car and able to drive in which case it is as boring as heck until the next grading changes when he goes straight to the back! I never saw enough Hot Rods out in one race to make for good racing, though down in the SE I believe grids over 10 were more common! Actually, if anything, the short oval system may work better on the full circuits if they also do regular re-grading during the season to get your starting position on the grid... 

 

 

Or we could go back to the three hour races and see who lasts...

 

 

TBH this constant meddling by the FIA/Liberty is sooo annoying!

Yeah, why don't they just go back to 3-litre normally aspirated motors, knock out all the computer cr4p and radios and do F1 properly.

 

Only half joking; I consider that nobody but the driver has any business adjusting anything on a car other than in the course of a pit stop. 

 

John

Edited September 8, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, Andrew P said:

That wouldn't be quite so bad, I must admit, I missed that bit as well. But who, or what determines that start order, the Championship, or the previous Race.

All very interesting, whatever is decided someone wont be happy, and if Ferrari or Red Bull get good in 2022 they will get it overturned anyway, haha.

It wasn't entirely clear (at least to me), but I think the first Sprint Race of the season would start in reverse order of the previous season's drivers' championship, and subsequent ones in reverse finishing order of the preceding Grand Prix.

 

If so, that suggests that any newcomers would automatically start from the front in Sprint Race One....

 

It might help restore the fortunes of any driver following a DNF, too.

 

John   

[Hobby]

19 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Yeah, why don't they just go back to 3-litre normally aspirated motors, knock out all the computer cr4p and radios and do F1 properly.

 

Why 3 litre? Why not the early 50s regulations... Whilst we are at it, rear wheel/front engine set-up, spindly tyres, etc. 

 

Oh, and no fuel injection, just carbs, that should sort out the men from the boys! 

[Dunsignalling]

3 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Why 3 litre? Why not the early 50s regulations... Whilst we are at it, rear wheel/front engine set-up, spindly tyres, etc. 

 

Oh, and no fuel injection, just carbs, that should sort out the men from the boys! 

The tyres might prove better than the pre-sabotaged efforts they currently use.

 

John

Edited September 8, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[ejstubbs]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

But doesn't giving the best teams/drivers an effective head start really mean the contest is half over before it's begun?

 

The best teams/drivers aren't given what you term "an effective head start": they have to earn their grid position - that's what the qualifying sessions are for.

 

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Maybe the pinnacle of Motor Racing but hardly the pinnacle of competition.

 

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

But it still reinforces advantage for those who (should) least need one.

 

So you want a competition, but best competitors shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their prowess?  I wonder whether you need to stop and think about what you're asking for.  It sounds like you're arguing in favour of spectacle over true competition.

 

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

it's safer these days to prang in F1 at 100mph than in most road cars at 10mph.

 

I'd suggest that there's no justifiable reason to test that rather dubious assertion** simply for the entertainment of that part of the audience which can't appreciate the nuances of the highest reaches of the sport.

 

* I remember watching Nigel Mansell qualifying at Brands in 1986, back when the Honda engines were developing well in excess of 1,000bhp in qualifying trim.  Still makes the hairs on my arms stand on end when I think of the sight of him blasting out of Paddock Hill Bend and away towards Druids, sparks flying from the skid plates as the car bottomed out at the start of Hailwood Hill doing three-figure speeds.  That second place on the grid was definitely earned.  You wouldn't catch me trying something like that, regardless of what you think about F1 cars' crashworthiness these days.

** Jules Bianchi was doing 76mph when his car hit the recovery truck at Suzuka in 2014.  It is still very possible to die in an F1 car.  That so few do these days is only partly due to the improvements in driver safety within the cars.  Arguably a much greater contribution to the improved safety record of F1 is all the peripheral enhancements in circuit safety, race organisation and procedures, medical facilities - even things like having designated safe areas for the recovery of damaged cars - etc etc.  I personally would not have any interest in a motor sport where the main excitement was generated by high-speed crashes; IMO that's an absurdly antiquated viewpoint.  Part of the point of the "pinnacle of motor sport" tag is that the drivers don't crash a vehicle that most members of the public would struggle to even drive in a straight line (and remember also that if a driver's behaviour puts other drivers at risk they can end up having their licence taken away).

Edited September 8, 2020 by ejstubbs

[RJS1977]

Part of the 'problem' of course is that the cars are much more reliable than they used to be. I can (just) remember when F1 used to be a race between "fast and unreliable" and "slow and reliable" which meant you could never be sure the leader wasn't going to break down on the last lap (especially if Murray had just said they were on their way to victory....).

 

In terms of desire for spectacle, I think this has become more of an issue since F1 started being shown on subscription channels. When F1 was on BBC/ITV/C4 and people didn't have to pay to watch it. it didn't matter too much if the races were predictable - most of those who watched kept watching week after week, waiting for a more eventful race in the future, and if some didn't (within reason), it wasn't the end of the world for the broadcaster.

 

Once people had to start paying £30+/month to watch live races, spectacle became more important because there's a limit to how long people will continue to pay to watch something that they're not enjoying. And when people start cancelling their subscriptions, it's an immediate hit in Sky's pocket.

[Dunsignalling]

41 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

The best teams/drivers aren't given what you term "an effective head start": they have to earn their grid position - that's what the qualifying sessions are for.

 

 

 

So you want a competition, but best competitors shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their prowess?  I wonder whether you need to stop and think about what you're asking for.  It sounds like you're arguing in favour of spectacle over true competition.

 

 

I'd suggest that there's no justifiable reason to test that rather dubious assertion** simply for the entertainment of that part of the audience which can't appreciate the nuances of the highest reaches of the sport.

 

* I remember watching Nigel Mansell qualifying at Brands in 1986, back when the Honda engines were developing well in excess of 1,000bhp in qualifying trim.  Still makes the hairs on my arms stand on end when I think of the sight of him blasting out of Paddock Hill Bend and away towards Druids, sparks flying from the skid plates as the car bottomed out at the start of Hailwood Hill doing three-figure speeds.  That second place on the grid was definitely earned.  You wouldn't catch me trying something like that, regardless of what you think about F1 cars' crashworthiness these days.

** Jules Bianchi was doing 76mph when his car hit the recovery truck at Suzuka in 2014.  It is still very possible to die in an F1 car.  That so few do these days is only partly due to the improvements in driver safety within the cars.  Arguably a much greater contribution to the improved safety record of F1 is all the peripheral enhancements in circuit safety, race organisation and procedures, medical facilities - even things like having designated safe areas for the removal of damaged cars - etc etc.  I personally would not have any interest in a motor sport where the main excitement was generated by crashes; IMO that's an absurdly antiquated viewpoint.  Part of the point of the "pinnacle of motor sport" tag is that the drivers don't crash a vehicle that most members of the public would struggle to even drive in a straight line.

To take your points in order:

 

1. Agreed, they do earn their head start, but it's still a head start.

 

2. The best competitors do benefit from their prowess but I don't consider that benefit needs to (or should) include making it easier to overcome their inferiors. I'd favour an arrangement that means the prowess has to be demonstrated in a way that is less mind-numbing than the current qualifying process.

 

F1 has been more spectacle than true competition in the eyes of those who own it for some considerable time. Probably since it ceased to be a blood sport that would reflect badly on its sponsors when it went wrong. It's openly acknowledged that the system is financially rigged to keep one (allegedly) indispensable constructor in the game, even if the advantage conferred is currently proving humiliatingly ineffective on the track.

 

3. I have no wish to return to the days when crashing brought a high likelihood of death or disablement for drivers, but I equally recognise that the current qualifying process reflects those days rather more than it does the present reality. We regularly see F1 crashes these days, but thankfully any damage is almost always confined to the car. Hence my earlier remark, which I acknowledge was perhaps clumsily put.  

 

As for the "reverse-grid sprint race" proposed to replace qualifying, I don't see it as anything more or less than a different way for drivers to assert their prowess. Yes, "qualifying" would become a proper race with overtaking and that will undeniably be riskier than the present "against the clock" way of doing things. The trick will be how it gets implemented - it has (amongst other things) to be long enough for the best to be able to get past the rest without it turning into a banger race. Details are, it appears, to follow, but the crux will be, as it is now, that if you bend it in qualifying, you risk not starting the race.

 

John  

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Hroth]

4 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

And when people start cancelling their subscriptions, it's an immediate hit in Sky's pocket.

 

Probably the best possible thing. Sky don't add any value for the viewer over what we were able to see on the BBC, etc.

 

[ianwales]

17 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Probably the best possible thing. Sky don't add any value for the viewer over what we were able to see on the BBC, etc.

 

 

Apart from having the best commentary team in the business.

[RJS1977]

6 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

Apart from having the best commentary team in the business.

 

Most of whom were on ITV/BBC before Sky took over.

[StuAllen]

26 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Probably the best possible thing. Sky don't add any value for the viewer over what we were able to see on the BBC, etc.

 

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to disagree with that, i have sky F1 on for most of the weekend starting with the practice sessions on Friday, they also have all the F2 and F3  weekend schedule and Ferrari Challenge series. They also have some interesting fillers such as the tribute to Jochen Rindt this weekend. It’s also broadcast in UHD

Edited September 8, 2020 by StuAllen
Correcting typos

[Hobby]

Well at least they don't have that over excitable poseur Steve Jones I suppose... 

 

Re qualifying I feel it does give something extra to the race weekend as it shows who is the fastest overall, not just during the race. 

[Oldddudders]

10 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Most of whom were on ITV/BBC before Sky took over.

Indeed. I spoke to Martin Brundle in 2012 - he was driving at Le Mans that year - and said I was sorry he was moving to Sky. He replied that he believed they were in it for the long haul - and so far he is right!

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Why not just draw lots for the grid positions? They could borrow the lotto machine and put 20 balls in, use the order they come out.

It would certainly be fairer than a reverse grid where there is an opportunity for performance to 'dip a little' should someone be having a not so good day in the previous race or qualifying - whichever is used to decide the grid.  Drawing lots gives everybody exactly the same chance as everybody else of getting pole or starting from the back .  Great idea for Liberty who would no doubt sell the tv rights to watch some 'well known personality' draw the lots for each race.

 

Reverse grid strikes me as really little more than a dumbo way of handicapping so maybe handicapping would be a pretty good idea instead.    Then we could bring back bookies at the event as well and everything - except the cars - would be well on the way back to the 1930s.  all we need then is to mix in lower Formula cars on the grid and have a bit of 1950s excitement as well.  on the other they could just simply go out and race with the fastest car in qualifying taking pole position

[PhilJ W]

A reverse grid? If it favours Ferrari we get a reverse grid, if it doesn't we don't.

[didcot]

1 hour ago, StuAllen said:

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to disagree with that, i have sky F1 on for most of the weekend starting with the practice sessions on Friday, they also have all the F2 and F3  weekend schedule and Ferrari Challenge series. They also have some interesting fillers such as the tribute to Jochen Rindt this weekend. It’s also broadcast in UHD

 

I'm inclined to agree with you. It's a dedicated channel and doesn't have to fight in the schedule against football or corrie! The Rindt tribute was very good and I think there is a history of F1 starting this weekend.

Having watched the C4 coverage whilst on holiday it just doesn't compare. Sky is much better. 

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Probably the best possible thing. Sky don't add any value for the viewer over what we were able to see on the BBC, etc.

 

 

Maybe you do not realise that the BBC dropped it along with most of their other live sports coverage (with the significant exception of Wimbledon). They even cancelled Grandstand. They stopped broadcasting the Lakeside darts world championship (which was their only remaining darts), They used to show every frame of the snooker world championship but now you need Eurosport to see much of it.

They even stopped broadcasting BBC3.

 

Sports fans have been treated badly by the BBC.

Britain was left with the possibility of no live F1 coverage until Sky later secured the broadcast rights.

 

They still continue to put up our licence fee & have re-instated it for the over 75s even though the quality of their programmes is declining.

 

So Sky do add value over the BBC. They bother to broadcast it.

[Andrew P]

8 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Maybe you do not realise that the BBC dropped it along with most of their other live sports coverage (with the significant exception of Wimbledon). They even cancelled Grandstand. They stopped broadcasting the Lakeside darts world championship (which was their only remaining darts), They used to show every frame of the snooker world championship but now you need Eurosport to see much of it.

They even stopped broadcasting BBC3.

 

Sports fans have been treated badly by the BBC.

Britain was left with the possibility of no live F1 coverage until Sky later secured the broadcast rights.

 

They still continue to put up our licence fee & have re-instated it for the over 75s even though the quality of their programmes is declining.

 

So Sky do add value over the BBC. They bother to broadcast it.

At least C4 has the highlights, which although not perfect, are still most enjoyable. I certainly would not pay Sky just to watch one program.

We used to watch Sky News in the mornings over breakfast, and BBC News at 6 at night but both got so biased over Brexit and anti Government that we now don't watch either now. 

In fact we only have the TV on for F1, my Wife likes Holby City, and sometimes we have Channel 7 on of an evening whilst reading with hits of the 70's / 80's etc. I bet our TV sees less than 50 hours of action a week.

If C4 lost the coverage, then I think our interest in F1 would be gone, so as I say, not perfect, but enough to satisfy us. 

Also I do happen to like Steve Jones, I wasn't sure to start with, but he a down to earth human who gets excited and passionate about the Sport and the program.  

Roll on Italy Part 2.

[Dunsignalling]

12 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

A reverse grid? If it favours Ferrari we get a reverse grid, if it doesn't we don't.

It certainly would at present.

[PhilJ W]

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

It certainly would at present.

Not to worry, SV will still manage to crash on the first lap.

[Dunsignalling]

13 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It would certainly be fairer than a reverse grid where there is an opportunity for performance to 'dip a little' should someone be having a not so good day in the previous race or qualifying - whichever is used to decide the grid.  Drawing lots gives everybody exactly the same chance as everybody else of getting pole or starting from the back .  Great idea for Liberty who would no doubt sell the tv rights to watch some 'well known personality' draw the lots for each race.

 

Reverse grid strikes me as really little more than a dumbo way of handicapping so maybe handicapping would be a pretty good idea instead.    Then we could bring back bookies at the event as well and everything - except the cars - would be well on the way back to the 1930s.  all we need then is to mix in lower Formula cars on the grid and have a bit of 1950s excitement as well.  on the other they could just simply go out and race with the fastest car in qualifying taking pole position

So, the idea is that, if you are clearly going to finish out of the points in the race that decides the start order for the next sprint qualifier, it will pay to drop back further, or not finish at all?

 

A bit like the tyre advantage "earned" by qualifying on P11 rather than P10 being arguably more beneficial in the race over starting from P10 rather than P11....

 

I can see how that might happen, but I'd hope the promoters would anticipate the possibility. It could be simply prevented by re-jigging the points system, so that all finishers down to last score, and sticking DNFs to the back of the reverse-grid. 

 

Admittedly, that would mean increasing the points for the first ten finishers, with the top boys probably ending the season with points in four figures. However, previous changes to scoring already prevent comparisons being drawn on a points basis between seasons except where the same system was in force.

 

John 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Hroth]

11 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Maybe you do not realise that the BBC dropped it along with most of their other live sports coverage (with the significant exception of Wimbledon). They even cancelled Grandstand. They stopped broadcasting the Lakeside darts world championship (which was their only remaining darts), They used to show every frame of the snooker world championship but now you need Eurosport to see much of it.

They even stopped broadcasting BBC3.

 

The BBC were divested of all their money-spinning activities because they were "anti-competitive", they were forced to hand large parts of their programme making to independent companies because keeping it in-house was "anti-competitive" and now they don't even get the maximum cash benefit from repeats on Dave, etc, for those programmes.

 

They couldn't compete in the broadcast rights sales for all the major sports, imagine the howls of outrage from the anti-licence fee mob if they had stuck their necks out and paid up for Premier football for example.

 

They were forced by the government to absorb the cost of giving over-75s free licences, and now its the BBC who are getting it in the neck for reducing the free licences to those on pensioner credit, when its the government who are to blame for not funding the BBC properly and heaping toxic liabilities on them.

 

They're cutting back on broadcast channels because they can't afford them, they were denied the ability to have a Plus One channel for BBC 1 because, you've guessed it, it would be "anti-competitive". The BBC website is under attack for being "anti-competitive" too, and there's yet another push to abolish the licence fee.

 

Of course, one of the best reasons for having the BBC broadcast anything is that programmes don't get diced up into segments so that there can be at least 15 minutes of adverts per hour...