From rps Fri Oct 18 13:37:14 1996 Subject: Re: The 107% rule Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport.f1 References: <5454pl$20@morgana.mat.uc.pt> Reply-To: rps@mat.uc.pt Distribution: Lines: 67 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Status: OR Tom Haapanen (tomh@metrics.com) wrote: > >> On 16 Oct 1996 14:12:17 +0100, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro said... > >>> I would like that the reserve driver would be allowed in a special 15 > >>> minutes session after the end of qualifying to try to qualify the car > >>> if the normal driver had not succeed. > rps@mat.uc.pt writes: > > [...] the rule would be worded so that in that special session, the > > driver[s] could only qualify for the vacant place[s]. > Right ... anyone qualifying in the "second chance" session should > start from the back of the grid -- you wouldn't be able to affect the > grid established in the conventional qualifying sessions. > Well, Rui, I've got to say that I like it! Now, let me corner Bernie in > Montreal next year ... :) I saw the smile. Nevertheless... If you do that don't forget also to mention my proposal for 2 qualifying sessions (I think many teams would love that for the increase in press coverage which it would give): - qualifying time is the best between the average of the 2 sessions and the saturday time. (Equivalent wording: if the time on Saturday is best, it counts. If the time on Friday is best, the average counts). Example: Friday Saturday Grid time driver A: 1'20"200 1'20"100 1'20"100 (Saturday's) driver B: 1'20"100 1'20"200 1'20"150 (average) To qualify a driver will need 107% or less on at least one session (this reduces the possibility of needing to make an exception if a top driver has a problem). I would prefer 105% of the 6th time to reduce the possibility of an exceptional time by the polesitter removing someone from the grid. Advantages: - drivers have to try hard on Friday, because if conditions get worse on Saturday that time will count. - they also have to try hard on Saturday regardless of conditions because that time always count. This ensures the TV show in both days regardless of rain, or other variations in conditions. Disadvantages of other schemes like adding (or averaging which is equivalent): - if driver A gets on provisional pole on Friday with a time 0.8sec better than the one of driver B (2nd), he knows that on Saturday, driver B will have to, not only beat his time, but beat him by more than 0.8s. So driver A can take it easy. In my scheme that will only happen when conditions get worse and that usually mean rain, and in that case differences might be large. Another proposed scheme is adding positions on the grid. This has the disadvantage that there will be a lot of ties (like 1,2 in Friday versus 2,1 on Saturday) so the criteria for resolving ties will be used a lot of times. So, it is less confusing to just use that criteria. -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/f1/ an ex-tifoso until the end of 1997 .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 From rps Wed Aug 14 13:35:14 1996 Subject: Re: Qualifying rules Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport.f1 References: <4uor6f$b9d@morgana.mat.uc.pt> <3210BC95.67EC@list.it> Reply-To: rps@mat.uc.pt Distribution: Lines: 53 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Status: OR Olaf Bouwmeester (olaf@list.it) wrote: > Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote: > > It is possible that a system can be found to combine the 2 times in > > a way that makes everyone go to the track the 2 days, but avoids > > this problem. > Why not easily take the sum (or average if you prefer the term) of the > classifications of both the sessions to determine the grid, regardless > of lap times. > In case of equal sums the fastest time can be used as second criteria. > In theory it is even possible that all the drivers have the same sum > of their classifications (classification of second session is the reverse > of the first session). That is a very unlikely situation. But the 2 first drivers having the same sum could happen very frequently (Example: Friday: 1-Schumacher 2-Hill, Saturday: 1-Hill 2-Schumacher). I think in this case the criteria should be always the Saturday time. > With this system the man who sets the fastest time on the first day, > would in case of a rainy second day still have to go for the second time > of the day, to be sure of his pole. Exactly. Using the Saturday time to resolve the tie, it would mean that he would have to try for the best time, not just to settle for second. > An equivalent to the 107% rule would be difficult in this system, Not at all. The purpose of the 107% rule is to remove very uncompetitive cars from the grid, not to remove unlucky drivers. So if we get back to 2 sessions the (simple) solution is: > altough you could say a driver has to be within 107% of the fastest > session time, in at least one of the two sessions. And this has the advantage that: > This also gets rid of the "unfortunate session" problem with the 107% > rule now. Although there could be unfortunate situations which would still need the exceptions possible this year. For instance, in the Japan GP last year Mark Blundell didn't have any fast lap during both qualifying days, because of an accident (during free practice or during his first fast lap ?). He couldn't drive during Saturday. He was allowed in the last place of the grid. -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/f1/ an ex-tiffoso until the end of 1997 .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 From rps Tue Aug 13 04:01:38 1996 Subject: Qualifying rules Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport.f1 Reply-To: rps@mat.uc.pt Summary: Keywords: Lines: 113 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Status: OR As you all know this year there is one only qualifying session on Saturday for TV reasons. Last years there were 2 or 3 GPs in which the track was wet on Saturday, the Friday times couold not be beaten and nobody bothered to try a fast lap. At this point everybody has already noticed that this was a BIG mistake. The problem is that Friday is no longer interesting. Some teams bluff a little (qualifying setup, new tyres and little fuel at the end of the season for getting a good lap), while others are working in race setup. After some GPs, the journalists no longer fall for that, so the newspapers don't give much space to Friday results. So F1 doesn't appear on Saturday newspapers (at least in my country the most important newspaper is a weekly published on Saturday). Also, some countries (like Portugal) TVs (and Eurosport) were covering live the Friday session. Since it is no longer important, the Portuguese TV (and no doubt many more) have dropped it. (It seems that Bernie has been propagating rumours to give journalists something to write about on Fridays. The Frentzen to Williams rumour seems to have that source (according to a French magazine).) There are at this time 3 solutions being proposed: 1- drop Friday altogether. This doesn't really solve the problem of less F1 coverage, but I suppose Bernie is pushing this in order to get the teams's agreement for more GPs. I think the teams are against it (Frank Williams is). They say one day is not enough for preparing a GP. I suppose they are afraid that, in case of a problem in one session, they won't have time for finding the right setup. Also, the reduction in costs will probably be smaller than the reduction in exposure. 2- get back to the old system. The problem with that is that in some GPs it won't happen much on Saturday and that will give bad TV. Ironically I don't remember a wet Saturday this year. One of the advantages of this system, is that when someone's times are removed for some reason, there is no need for special decisions by the stewards to put him on the last place of the grid. 3- combine (sum) the times from both sessions (Friday and Saturday), so that everyone will need to use both sessions. The big problem that the FIA is finding with this system is that it will be too confusing for the spectators (what is really depressing is that they are probably right). The problem I see with that is that it can get to even less interesting Saturdays. Suppose the following situation: on Friday, Hill beats Schumacher time by 1 second (it has happened. See Spain for instance). Then on Saturday, Hill knows Schumacher can beat him only if he beats him by more than one second ! Even if Schumacher manages to improve his time by 1.5 sec, Hill only has to equal his time from the previous day to keep the pole. No suspense at all. This is in contrast with the previous system in which, since usually the times are better on Saturday (because of more rubber on the track or better setups), a driver can recover from a bad performance on Friday. It is possible that a system can be found to combine the 2 times in a way that makes everyone go to the track the 2 days, but avoids this problem. I just thought that a possibility would be to sum Saturday's time and the better of Friday's and Saturday's time. So, if a driver managed to improve his time, that would erase Friday's time (the suspense would be kept). But if conditions were worse, the drivers would have to try a good time, nevertheless. This would prevent empty tracks on wet Saturdays. Everybody would have to do their best on Friday, on fear of worst conditions on Saturday. This has the problem that it is even more complicated than a simple sum. My preference goes to the old system. But I fear that the persons who failed to foresee the consequences of the only qualifying session, will fail to see the problems wich a simple sum would bring. By the way, the Hill-Lavaggi incident in Hockenheim (the Minardi team tried to get Hill's time removed in order to make Lavaggi renter the 107% limit), made me think that some improvements could be done to the 107% rule: - the limit should be based on the 6th time, not on the pole time. This would prevent an exceptional performance by one driver (or one team) from taking drivers from the grid (for instance, in Silverstone 1992, the 107% rule would make a 12-car grid !). The choice of 6th time is because that is the last place that has championship points. Of course the percentage should be lower (105% or 106%). (Still in the Silverstone 1992 example 105% of the 6th time would keep everybody.) If you want to check the Silverstone 1992 grid, see: http://www.siii.pt/f1/w3f1/in/1992/09/gre.htm It was a great performance by Mansell (1.919 sec faster than Patrese in the second Williams) and by the Williams team (Patrese was .822 than Senna). - and the rule that would get rid of talentless paying drivers: in the case that a team had not been able to qualify its 2 drivers, the reserve driver would be allowed in a 15-minute session just after the qualifying session to try to get one of the remaining places at the back of the grid. In the Hockenheim case, after Lavaggi failed to qualify, Fisichella would probably been able to enter the 107% time. Of course the paying driver would not be happy and would probably complain loudly that the team was sabotaging him in order to get the other driver on the race. -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/f1/ an ex-tiffoso until the end of 1997 .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94