F1 Fanatic

I think most of the forum visiters now know about my new-found NASCAR obsession and maybe are a bit annoyed by it, but I think it has an element (well, a few, but this one in particular) which would be of good use in F1 as well.

AFAIK, a NASCAR weekend format (expect for the Daytona 500) is practice-qualifying-practice-practice-race. I catched a line from the commentators in one of the 2012 races that some drivers starting from the back of the pack are surging through the field due to the huge setup improvement they found during P2 and P3. It made sense. The drivers had precious little time to find a base setup for qualifying, then nailed it for the race. Some succeeded, some went in the wrong direction in P2 and P3 after having a reasonably good foundation for Q.

I think a weekend format change similar to that could have the potential to spice up F1 weekends as well. Now F1 drivers do all the preparation work before qualifying and they basically drive the race with the same setup. I am not saying we should revert to the Q-setup/race setup mode, but rather drivers should be given (1) a bit too little time to prepare for qualifying for a more varied grid, and (2) a chance to improve their setup for the race, thus changing the pecking order from qualifying to race.

One can argue that there are still differences between relative qualifying and race paces, see Red Bull and Ferrari, but I think this would magnify these slight differences. Of course, the difference between the Q- and race pace of Ferrari is not slight, it is around .6-7 seconds, but even Gary Anderson admitted in a column that it is unusual these days. Smaller differences are normal.

One huge pro for the system, I think, is that there are fewer overtakes in F1 still and thus the grid conserves positions more. Consequently, I think F1 needs the system more than NASCAR. Once again, one can say Vettel proved me wrong in Abu Dhabi, but that was unusual once again.

What do you think?

Yep, that’s a problem – it is on Friday in NASCAR and it is difficult to imagine a qualifying and two practice sessions on Saturday. A practice-practice-qualifying-practice-race would still work, but that would leave too much time to nail the setup for qualifying.

Or P1 on Friday morning/afternoon, Q on Saturday morning, P2 on Saturday afternoon, P3 on Sunday morning and race on Sunday afternoon.

I agree with you Atticus, it would be a decent weekend programme!

@benchuiii Similar in format, not in purpose. I believe warm-ups were only 30 mins long and were there just to ensure everything is working OK on the cars. It was scrapped as a few pit out laps for the grid are sufficient for that. I’m not entirely sure on the topic, but that’s what makes sense. The purpose of decidedly longer practice sessions between qualifying and race would be to tweak and nail setups not BEFORE, but AFTER qualifying, to make pecking order in the race more different from qualifying then nowadays.

On the other hand, similar in format, because – after all – it’d still re-insert practice session(s) between qualifying and race.

I’m glad I found an idea, which seemingly enjoys quite a bit initial support. If only this would be considered by the decision makers as well.

@atticus-2
There is a pretty big problem with that idea (at least in my opinion it is a problem).
We are talking about Formula 1 here, this sport has the most flexible engineer in the world they can adopt to any rule in less than a season.

So while you would expect them to scratch a base setup for qualy, and then improve it to the race, I think the teams would learn to set the cars up for qualy in an hour, and have a completely different setup for the race. As they wouldnt have to think about parcferme, the teams could run lower ride height (lower fuel, lighter car), stiffer suspensions (lower ride height), higher gearing (DRS is allowed everywhere), they could exploit their cars true qualy potential which is good, but here comes the sad part. As the teams know the results of qualifying before the race, they could plan their race and use the FP/FPs to set the car up for exactly that plan. For example if someone starts from the front row, in optimal conditions he couldnt use DRS in the race, so he wouldnt need that high topspeed (usual RBR strategy), or someone starts from the back of the pack, so they could set the car up for the highest possible speed on the straights, because he would have to gain most of his positions on track. So we would end up with a grid full of different setups, different strategies, and the whole race would be about who lucked into the best strategy. Yes, lucked, because the teams wouldnt know the other teams strategies, so they could mess up each others races badly.

Of course, different setups and strategies are not bad, but on a 24 car grid I think it would be a mess, not racing.

@mads Your A) point is a legitimate issue, I think. B) – not so much. I already touched on it, the format would only magnify the differences for it to have a larger effect. But A) is definitely a concern.

As for @bag0, this could be an issue as well, I think one has to re-watch races where teams only had one dry FP session to set up the car for qualifying to sort of assess the risk of this scenario of increased adaptation.