Sprint races approved and happening in 2021. Balls.

[MonteCristo]

Bottom post of the previous page:

"If we'd take away the pit stops/DRS/tyre rules etc. the races would be even more processional" yada yada yada yada. I've heard it so often, I can't believe people are still buying this Bull Shit. The pit stops are the original cause for processional races, there were none before F1 pit stops became the norm in the eighties, and they were here to stay once races without pit stops were all but banned in the nineties. You don't get a better product by fixing over and over again what isn't broken. "Oh, the races have become processional, we need more pit stops to spice them up" - "Oh, they're even more processional now, we need a stronger dose: even more pit stops, different tyre compounds, how about artificial overtaking..." Once you've got your head buried deep enough in shit, you can't see clear anymore. And it won't help burying it even deeper!

So let's watch one...

(Thanks Fastlane database)
Seems very processional to me.

Processional? Hmm. Five cars running nose to tail for the entire distance, with the order turned upside down at the finish; no pit stops or DRS, REAL overtakes instead. Not the greatest of all time, but surely better than anything that happened in F1 the last twenty years, no?

I agree, I thought that was pretty interesting.

The mid 70s did have a lot of what I would call dull races. I watched a few of the 1970s races at Paul Ricard and it really was just cars going round in circles and the odd one stopping because of a breakdown. 1979 Dijon was also dull as dishwater until GV and Arnoux started battling. The very late-70s / early-80s were far better in general though.

I wonder how much of that was also terrible TV directing though. Without seeing lap charts (and with gaps shown as well), hard to say what the real story was.

[XcraigX]

"If we'd take away the pit stops/DRS/tyre rules etc. the races would be even more processional" yada yada yada yada. I've heard it so often, I can't believe people are still buying this Bull Shit. The pit stops are the original cause for processional races, there were none before F1 pit stops became the norm in the eighties, and they were here to stay once races without pit stops were all but banned in the nineties. You don't get a better product by fixing over and over again what isn't broken. "Oh, the races have become processional, we need more pit stops to spice them up" - "Oh, they're even more processional now, we need a stronger dose: even more pit stops, different tyre compounds, how about artificial overtaking..." Once you've got your head buried deep enough in shit, you can't see clear anymore. And it won't help burying it even deeper!

So let's watch one...

(Thanks Fastlane database)
Seems very processional to me.

Processional? Hmm. Five cars running nose to tail for the entire distance, with the order turned upside down at the finish; no pit stops or DRS, REAL overtakes instead. Not the greatest of all time, but surely better than anything that happened in F1 the last twenty years, no?

I agree, I thought that was pretty interesting.

The mid 70s did have a lot of what I would call dull races. I watched a few of the 1970s races at Paul Ricard and it really was just cars going round in circles and the odd one stopping because of a breakdown. 1979 Dijon was also dull as dishwater until GV and Arnoux started battling. The very late-70s / early-80s were far better in general though.

I wonder how much of that was also terrible TV directing though. Without seeing lap charts (and with gaps shown as well), hard to say what the real story was.

Ma point is still valid that there was no "action" until the cars started breaking down. The excitement being that at the time we knew the cars could not continue like that for the full distance. So we tuned in until it changed and didn't complain about the dull parts. In todays races they just keep going, preserving tires, and maintaining a gap and we know it's not going to change any time soon.

[Michael Ferner]

Well, except for Fittipaldi none of the frontrunners broke down. I never watched a race expecting or hoping for the cars to break down, and in this race they didn't except for one (of those that 'counted'). No action? What 'action' do you want, crashes? The excitement for me is watching cars driven visibly at the edge of their road holding capabilities, watching world class drivers trying to wear down the other guy, watching Hulme diving low and Stewart defending high. Where were those 'dull parts' you were speaking of, I didn't notice any. Even if there's not a single overtake a race can be gripping (and usually was in those days) because there were always those who looked after their tyres and would have a car that ran fast in the closing stages, when the 'hares' were paying the price for pushing too early on full tanks and asking too much of the rubber. I'm not interested in changing positions for the sake of change, I want to see them race for position, not dive into the pits and then come out in front, or opening the DRS and sail past effortlessly. We wuz robbed by modern F1!

[erwin greven]

In think most of the excitement in the 50s till the 90s were caused by engine failures, suspension failures, weather conditions and driver errors. And these were also caused by the length of the races, inferior materials for racing, which is an extreme way of using cars. And don't forget the lack of fit drivers. There were not many drivers who worked on their physical and mental state.
Now look at these factors and think 2020s.
Length of the races are not 2,5 hours or even longer. Monza's 1962 race was almost 500 km. The flimsiness of the Lotus don't need explanation. Nowadays, any DNF because of material or engine failures are very rare. Attrition is very low. And most drivers are very fit.

[PTRACER]

Ma point is still valid that there was no "action" until the cars started breaking down. The excitement being that at the time we knew the cars could not continue like that for the full distance. So we tuned in until it changed and didn't complain about the dull parts. In todays races they just keep going, preserving tires, and maintaining a gap and we know it's not going to change any time soon.

Yep half of the enjoyment was our own anticipation. That's one reason why watching old races isn't as fun as watching live.

It was like that still into the early-2000s. Is he going to spin off? Is he going to break down? Is he going to pit again? Then when someone retires or hits another driver and breaks his suspension, we had to wait 15 laps for them to get back to the pits so we could find out what happened.

Now there are very few unknowns.

[MonteCristo]

Ma point is still valid that there was no "action" until the cars started breaking down. The excitement being that at the time we knew the cars could not continue like that for the full distance. So we tuned in until it changed and didn't complain about the dull parts. In todays races they just keep going, preserving tires, and maintaining a gap and we know it's not going to change any time soon.

Yep half of the enjoyment was our own anticipation. That's one reason why watching old races isn't as fun as watching live.

It was like that still into the early-2000s. Is he going to spin off? Is he going to break down? Is he going to pit again? Then when someone retires or hits another driver and breaks his suspension, we had to wait 15 laps for them to get back to the pits so we could find out what happened.

Now there are very few unknowns.

"Will there or won't there be a red flag for a leaf on the track that screws up a legitimate running order? Will David Croft declare an official grandstand finish™? Tune in for the next thrilling 90 minutes to find out!"

[XcraigX]

Well, except for Fittipaldi none of the frontrunners broke down. I never watched a race expecting or hoping for the cars to break down, and in this race they didn't except for one (of those that 'counted'). No action? What 'action' do you want, crashes? The excitement for me is watching cars driven visibly at the edge of their road holding capabilities, watching world class drivers trying to wear down the other guy, watching Hulme diving low and Stewart defending high. Where were those 'dull parts' you were speaking of, I didn't notice any. Even if there's not a single overtake a race can be gripping (and usually was in those days) because there were always those who looked after their tyres and would have a car that ran fast in the closing stages, when the 'hares' were paying the price for pushing too early on full tanks and asking too much of the rubber. I'm not interested in changing positions for the sake of change, I want to see them race for position, not dive into the pits and then come out in front, or opening the DRS and sail past effortlessly. We wuz robbed by modern F1!

I should not have used the word "break down". How about "wear out"?. Deflating tires, worn tires, oil leaks, reduced engine power, failed brakes, and failed suspension. The things that used to happen in the older races that no longer happen. Semantics.

The "action" would be someone passing for a points position. Again, it was not really on until the end of the race in the example.
But the races were interesting because, right up until the early 2000, we knew any driver in a close battle would eventually get past the guy in front or take himself out in some way. I did not say the 70s races were not interesting. But some of the stuff you were complaining about were also present in the old races, but we had a different view/opinion of it.
We sometimes get a close battle today, but it rarely results in a pass (not counting DRS). The driver in front just waits a few laps for the tires to wear down a bit and then the order is set.

[Michkov]

In think most of the excitement in the 50s till the 90s were caused by engine failures, suspension failures, weather conditions and driver errors. And these were also caused by the length of the races, inferior materials for racing, which is an extreme way of using cars. And don't forget the lack of fit drivers. There were not many drivers who worked on their physical and mental state.
Now look at these factors and think 2020s.
Length of the races are not 2,5 hours or even longer. Monza's 1962 race was almost 500 km. The flimsiness of the Lotus don't need explanation. Nowadays, any DNF because of material or engine failures are very rare. Attrition is very low. And most drivers are very fit.

I recently tallied all the engine related DNFs over the years and there is a decent drop in the DNFs when they limited the engines per X back in the late 10s. Sure material science and testing made strides in the intervening years, but if you don't allow the engines to be maxed out you don't expect them to blow up all that often.

I'll leave you with the graph to ponder over.

[PTRACER]

In think most of the excitement in the 50s till the 90s were caused by engine failures, suspension failures, weather conditions and driver errors. And these were also caused by the length of the races, inferior materials for racing, which is an extreme way of using cars. And don't forget the lack of fit drivers. There were not many drivers who worked on their physical and mental state.
Now look at these factors and think 2020s.
Length of the races are not 2,5 hours or even longer. Monza's 1962 race was almost 500 km. The flimsiness of the Lotus don't need explanation. Nowadays, any DNF because of material or engine failures are very rare. Attrition is very low. And most drivers are very fit.

I recently tallied all the engine related DNFs over the years and there is a decent drop in the DNFs when they limited the engines per X back in the late 10s. Sure material science and testing made strides in the intervening years, but if you don't allow the engines to be maxed out you don't expect them to blow up all that often.

I'll leave you with the graph to ponder over.

That's incredibly revealing. Although I could have sworn the early-2000s cars were far less reliable than this graph is showing. Where did you get it?

[Michkov]

Data is taken from StatsF1 race results. It is only the retirements listed with engine, or engine related (valve, conrod, etc) reasons. So gearbox, hydraulics, crashes related DNFs are not in that graph, that maybe where the mismatch in the early 2000s reliability comes from. Because usually you have 1/4-1/5 of the field retiring, but only one or two of them are engine related.

Edit: And it excludes the F2 cars when they ran together with the F1 cars at the German GPs in the 60s, but not the seasons the WC run under F2 regs in the 50s.

[Everso Biggyballies]

F1 sprint race weekend format set for reshuffle in 2024

We have heard the rumours and most of us have shown a dislike for the way the teams last year had to qualify for the main race on a Friday night after just one practice, and the fact cars went into parc ferme on a Friday night for a Sunday race was all a bit of a cock up... . we had cases of drivers having to sacrifice their earned grid positions for Sunday's race by breaking parc ferme, following the discovery of an incorrect set-up decisions over the sprint qualifying and race.

Well, the rumours of change were true.

So what happens now with the reshuffle?

In a nutshell the most welcome change is that the grand prix qualifying to be moved to Saturdays Sprint qualifying will take place on the Friday with the Sprint race now Saturday before GP qualy.

All I hope is that they allow enough time between the Sprint race end and GP qualy start to put right damage to cars or replace any broken bits like engines and gearboxes. We dont want to see cars unable to get out in Q1 for the GP because it was not able to be readied in time for something that happened in an irrelevant Sprint race

As for Parc Ferme the shuffling of the sessions across the sprint race weekend will ensure that parc ferme can be reopened between the sprint race and grand prix qualifying, allowing for any necessary set-up tweaks. Yay for that.

The commission has agreed all that and all that remains now for it to be set in concrete is the formal ratification and sign off by the WMSC.... purely a rubber stamp exercise which will happen just before the Bahrain GP.

For once F1 and the relevant parties have come up with something positive and an improvement.



Good time to confirm the Sprint rounds for 2024.


In 2024, the Chinese, Miami, Austrian, United States, Sao Paulo, and Qatar grands prix will be run to a sprint weekend format...... China and Miami will replace the Azerbaijan and Belgium sprint weekends run last season.

[MonteCristo]

Polishing a turd.