Iowa qualifying format: One-shot runs plus three 50-lap heats
21st January 2013, 22:58 at 10:58 pm #132625
IndyCar have explained how their new heat-based qualifying system will work for the race at the 1.4km (0.875 mile) Iowa race this year.
I’m not a fan of over-complicated formats and that exactly what we’ve got here. In short:
1. Every driver does a single qualifying lap. They have the track to themselves and their running order is chosen at random.
2. The top six advance directly to the final heat and start in positions one to six respectively.
3. The first 50-lap heat involves the drivers who finished 8th, 10th, 12th, etc… The top two finishers in this start eighth and tenth in the final heat. The rest take positions 12, 14, 16 etc… on the final grid.
4. The second 50-lap heat involves the drivers who finished 7th, 9th, 11th, etc… The top two finishers in this start seventh and ninth in the final heat. The rest take positions 11, 13, 15 etc… on the final grid.
5. The final 50-lap heat involves the ten drivers selected above and decides the top ten places on the grid.
6. The top 12 on the final grid are awarded points as follows: 9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-1
(I think I’ve got that all right. Have a look here and tell me if you think otherwise!)
Obviously this is nothing like as bad as picking the starting positions out of a hat as they did at Texas two years ago. But does it really have to be this complicated?
Still if it gives fans better value for money from their tickets and puts more bums on seats then it’s a good thing.21st January 2013, 23:15 at 11:15 pm #224212
One hour. Fastest speed/time wins. End of. My mind boggles just reading all that!21st January 2013, 23:23 at 11:23 pm #224213
Yeah, that’s complicated! Although it’s nice to see that if you’re fast, but blow it in flat-out qualifying, you can redeem your position somewhat during the appropriate heat. This should eliminate fast cars starting at the back.
I guess IndyCar officials missed Sebastian Vettel’s race at Yas Marina. ;-)21st January 2013, 23:24 at 11:24 pm #224214
Me too. Why complicate things?21st January 2013, 23:39 at 11:39 pm #224215
My brain was melting by the time I got to the end of 3.21st January 2013, 23:43 at 11:43 pm #224216
Why complicate things?
Because Indycar officials evidently feel that the fans need gimmicks to make them interested in the racing.21st January 2013, 23:57 at 11:57 pm #224217
Now that I’ve thought about it a bit more I do like it better than some of the terrible systems F1 used in the mid-2000s. Like ‘race-fuel qualifying’ and the dreadful aggregate timing they used for the first half of 2005 before realising what a horrible mistake they’d made.22nd January 2013, 5:33 at 5:33 am #224218
Gotta say it’s still better than any qualifying session that had ‘fuel-burn’
What a pointless waste of time that was.
V8 Supercars often try convoluted Quali systems, often so as to involve a second driver. Can’t say it detracts from the overall event, but it doesn’t particularly engage me.22nd January 2013, 6:35 at 6:35 am #224219
V8 Supercars often try convoluted Quali systems, often so as to involve a second driver
See, that’s a time when aggregate qualifying actually would be a good idea. Both drivers will use the car in the race, so the grid should be made up by adding the regular driver’s time to the co-driver’s time.22nd January 2013, 6:41 at 6:41 am #224220
This is ridiculous. I lost it by 3.
OK. I feel stupid now. :-/
Why not just have a simple qualifying shoot-out session. One hour, fastest time gets pole position? Why does it have to be so god darn complicated? I can honestly see a lot of IndyCar fans losing interest losing interest in Iowa Qualifying, because they have no idea what the hell’s going on.22nd January 2013, 7:19 at 7:19 am #224221
A race in qualifying? Seems like the idea F1 had a few years ago, having everyone drive a race with the driver in the last position at the end of each lap being eliminated.22nd January 2013, 7:40 at 7:40 am #224222
Why not just have a simple qualifying shoot-out session. One hour, fastest time gets pole position? Why does it have to be so god darn complicated?
Because individual events want something to distinguish themselves from the rest of the calendar. They want to attract as many fans on Saturday as they do on Sunday, and a one-hour session with the fastest time getting pole only attracts the puritans. People want something that is measureable; they don’t want to be sitting in grandstands unable to follow who is in which position until they get a timing sheet after leaving the venue or hearing an announcer call it out.22nd January 2013, 8:09 at 8:09 am #224223
V8 Supercars often try convoluted Quali systems, often so as to involve a second driver.
See, that’s a time when aggregate qualifying actually would be a good idea. Both drivers will use the car in the race, so the grid should be made up by adding the regular driver’s time to the co-driver’s time.
Yeah I like the idea of aggregate qualifying a bit better for races where multiple drivers are sharing the same car. It adds the dimension of “team X would have qualified better if driver Y hadn’t done a poor lap”.22nd January 2013, 8:27 at 8:27 am #224224
I think there is good logic behind this because the last time Indy car raced on a short track, Dan Wheldon tragically passed away in a stupid accident that should never have happened in the first place, that might be the reason why22nd January 2013, 8:35 at 8:35 am #224225
@roblo97 This oval is shorter than the Las Vegas oval and IndyCar has already raced on an oval of that length since the Wheldon crash.
And I don’t think the qualifying format had anything to do with what happened then:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.