planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:30 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Rows of three cars on the starting grid - good or bad?
Good 19%  19%  [ 10 ]
Could be good 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
It's dangerous but good 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
Doubtful that it is good 17%  17%  [ 9 ]
Not looking good 6%  6%  [ 3 ]
Bad 28%  28%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 53
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4515
https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/16193

Liberty Media is looking at having alternating rows of three and two cars.... in a bid to shake-up the order on the opening lap.

Image
Source: Motorsportweek.com
------------------

My personal opinion: It kills the value of pole position.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:33 pm 
Hmm, not sure if I like that. Completely de-values pole position and if that is to scale it would have starting in 4th/5th place the same as starting in 2nd place currently. You would also get regularly cars going 4-5 wide into turn 1 which would be mayhem.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 675
Not sure how that would work at somewhere like Monaco, the first corner would be carnage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4851
Yeah, add me to the devalues pole brigade.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
I do not see how this devalues pole position. The driver still starts up front and with the same gap back to second as presently practiced. What this system does is allow a third car a much better opportunity to run amok up front.

Pole position just means the driver starts up front, there's nothing sacred or holy about it.

But I do not like this system. It will bunch the cars up even more at the start, and since many of today's Formula One drivers sometimes seem incapable of handling intense traffic, a lot more accidents will happen.

Looking at the larger picture, Liberty are slowly realizing that Formula One has a long ways to go before it's truly exciting racing and constant action. Trust me, with Liberty the days of mind-numbing processions are history. What you guys should be agonizing over is whether Liberty get the FIA to use cautions and the safety car with the frequency of Indycar, or worse yet, NASCAR. Three laps to go, a spotter saw a haze, or maybe something on the track, throw the caution, bunch the field up for an exciting finish.

Personally, I would not be concerned that any changes will devalue or tarnish Formula One. It is already very tarnished by the politics and questionable conduct by many at times. It is just a race, it is just one of many races held each Sunday. Formula One has already sunk to the status of being the WWE of the motorsports world. This is an artificial construct, with bespoke cars running on bespoke tracks adorned by advertising, driven by young men also festooned with advertising.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Didn't F1 cars used to start 3 wide back in the late 60's and earlier? Also, werent the cars 3 wide and also even (not staggered)? When did they drop the old configuration?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4851
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
I do not see how this devalues pole position. The driver still starts up front and with the same gap back to second as presently practiced. What this system does is allow a third car a much better opportunity to run amok up front.

Pole position just means the driver starts up front, there's nothing sacred or holy about it.

But I do not like this system. It will bunch the cars up even more at the start, and since many of today's Formula One drivers sometimes seem incapable of handling intense traffic, a lot more accidents will happen.

Looking at the larger picture, Liberty are slowly realizing that Formula One has a long ways to go before it's truly exciting racing and constant action. Trust me, with Liberty the days of mind-numbing processions are history. What you guys should be agonizing over is whether Liberty get the FIA to use cautions and the safety car with the frequency of Indycar, or worse yet, NASCAR. Three laps to go, a spotter saw a haze, or maybe something on the track, throw the caution, bunch the field up for an exciting finish.

Personally, I would not be concerned that any changes will devalue or tarnish Formula One. It is already very tarnished by the politics and questionable conduct by many at times. It is just a race, it is just one of many races held each Sunday. Formula One has already sunk to the status of being the WWE of the motorsports world. This is an artificial construct, with bespoke cars running on bespoke tracks adorned by advertising, driven by young men also festooned with advertising.


BIB-I was going by the picture where it looks like the guy in 2nd is just behind Pole's front wing. That's not like it is currently at all but maybe I shouldn't have judged it by the pic?.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
Lotus49 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
I do not see how this devalues pole position. The driver still starts up front and with the same gap back to second as presently practiced. What this system does is allow a third car a much better opportunity to run amok up front.

Pole position just means the driver starts up front, there's nothing sacred or holy about it.

But I do not like this system. It will bunch the cars up even more at the start, and since many of today's Formula One drivers sometimes seem incapable of handling intense traffic, a lot more accidents will happen.

Looking at the larger picture, Liberty are slowly realizing that Formula One has a long ways to go before it's truly exciting racing and constant action. Trust me, with Liberty the days of mind-numbing processions are history. What you guys should be agonizing over is whether Liberty get the FIA to use cautions and the safety car with the frequency of Indycar, or worse yet, NASCAR. Three laps to go, a spotter saw a haze, or maybe something on the track, throw the caution, bunch the field up for an exciting finish.

Personally, I would not be concerned that any changes will devalue or tarnish Formula One. It is already very tarnished by the politics and questionable conduct by many at times. It is just a race, it is just one of many races held each Sunday. Formula One has already sunk to the status of being the WWE of the motorsports world. This is an artificial construct, with bespoke cars running on bespoke tracks adorned by advertising, driven by young men also festooned with advertising.


BIB-I was going by the picture where it looks like the guy in 2nd is just behind Pole's front wing. That's not like it is currently at all but maybe I shouldn't have judged it by the pic?.


I was the one in the wrong. The current grid has each car almost an entire car's length behind the next.

Image
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/2009_Malaysian_Grand_Prix_start_%28cropped%29.jpg

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8057
Fine on the grid. Its at the first corner that concerns me. These cars are ridiculously wide anyway, and there is so much sticking out waiting to be knocked off the pits will be full on lap 2. Other than that, a fast starter from behind is going to have little chance of getting through without a pile up.

Bad plan


Also, Blinkey, those are the narrow old cars too, they are 2mtr wide now. Plus tyres up from 325 wide to 405 (this will be times 3 cars wide)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Didn't F1 cars used to start 3 wide back in the late 60's and earlier? Also, werent the cars 3 wide and also even (not staggered)? When did they drop the old configuration?

I believe when someone got killed but I could be wrong.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
Looks like carnage to me but carnage is good for the show I guess?

Maybe that's why they are looking to have more cars on the grid?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8057
pokerman wrote:
Looks like carnage to me but carnage is good for the show I guess?

Maybe that's why they are looking to have more cars on the grid?


What? so when they loose 9 at the first corner there are still enough to run the race restart? :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
moby wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Looks like carnage to me but carnage is good for the show I guess?

Maybe that's why they are looking to have more cars on the grid?


What? so when they loose 9 at the first corner there are still enough to run the race restart? :twisted:

Yep it's all about the thrills and spills yeeha!

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8057
pokerman wrote:
moby wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Looks like carnage to me but carnage is good for the show I guess?

Maybe that's why they are looking to have more cars on the grid?


What? so when they loose 9 at the first corner there are still enough to run the race restart? :twisted:

Yep it's all about the thrills and spills yeeha!



They could have 4 separate mini races with 15 min between each (more time for adverts) and a rush to get the cars fixed and back out for the next part. Scantily clad maidens could walk the track collecting shards and phone in vote for the best retreval action, and a prise for the most shards of the same colour, sorry color.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
sandman1347 wrote:
The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
I'm not sure it devalues pole. It's still an advantage to start up front. But we often complain about drivers leading from pole to finish so if it does allow more competition at the start then how is that a bad thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1884
Lotus49 wrote:
Yeah, add me to the devalues pole brigade.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.



More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
Invade wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Yeah, add me to the devalues pole brigade.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.



More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?

Why not trial it in F2, why does F1 have to be the guinea pig, also the majority of us knew that the new qualifying system they tried last year would be rubbish, it made F1 look stupid, I was hoping that LM would be a step up from Bernie.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
I like it. If it makes things more exciting I'm not fussed about "devaluing pole".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 841
Location: UK
Wouldn't this just maintain the general grid order from the start. There would be no room for the fast starter on row 3 hitting the front. In addition a bad start would leave no room to avoid the slow moving car in front of it resulting in a "Tour de France" style pile up.

No real benefit from such a change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Gateshead
Bad idea - They don’t dare even try this on Mario Kart 🤔

_________________
25/05/2005


"It’s lights out and away we go”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Good! They should never have abandoned it. The main difficulty is that it shows just how few cars there are on the grid.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.


Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.


Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

So you are expecting the drivers just to be less aggressive, good luck with that.

Then you compare with Indy car which is a controlled by a 2 by 2 rolling start on a much wider track going into a near flat out corner, as opposed to standing starts which can be much varied with cars starting 3 wide on a much narrower track and then having to brake sharply.

F1 drivers shouldering responsibility and accountability, good luck with that one too.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 1027
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Yeah, add me to the devalues pole brigade.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.


More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?

Why not trial it in F2, why does F1 have to be the guinea pig, also the majority of us knew that the new qualifying system they tried last year would be rubbish, it made F1 look stupid, I was hoping that LM would be a step up from Bernie.


From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27907
Mayhem wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Yeah, add me to the devalues pole brigade.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.


More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?

Why not trial it in F2, why does F1 have to be the guinea pig, also the majority of us knew that the new qualifying system they tried last year would be rubbish, it made F1 look stupid, I was hoping that LM would be a step up from Bernie.


From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

I actually think it might have wiped out half the grid if not more with the cars being so tightly compacted.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2794
Location: Perth, Australia
I like it. Anything that makes the sport potentially more entertaining is good. We'll never know if it works if it isn't given a chance.

lamo wrote:
Completely de-values pole position and if that is to scale it would have starting in 4th/5th place the same as starting in 2nd place currently.


Currently being the important word. It doesn't completely de-value pole position, because the guy who qualified first still starts at the front. Relatively they may be slightly closer together, and 4th and 5th may be the same as starting 2nd currently, but there is still a ranking and an advantage based on speed on Saturday.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 1027
Xink wrote:
Bad idea - They don’t dare even try this on Mario Kart 🤔



Well we all know how much vettel loves mario kart :lol:


Source; https://youtu.be/ogDSwHAOUcw;

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.


Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

So you are expecting the drivers just to be less aggressive, good luck with that.

Then you compare with Indy car which is a controlled by a 2 by 2 rolling start on a much wider track going into a near flat out corner, as opposed to standing starts which can be much varied with cars starting 3 wide on a much narrower track and then having to brake sharply.

F1 drivers shouldering responsibility and accountability, good luck with that one too.


The Indy 500 starts 3 wide.

I guess it's folly for me to expect Formula One drivers to act more responsible and respectful. As a product of their behavior, I have very little respect for most drivers.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 425
11 rows of 3

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 174
I think it’s a bad idea simply because there’s not enough cars to make it worthwhile. The proposed drawing in the OP would mean there’s 8 rows.

Ramp up the field to 30 cars, then we’ll talk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 25
Adding whacky stuff like this just to cause some accidents and mix up the order on the first lap is not how you improve the F1 "show".

Spending time and resources on developing a rule set less reliant on sensitive aerodynamics is.


Last edited by BackwardsInFlames on Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
bradtheboywonder wrote:
I think it’s a bad idea simply because there’s not enough cars to make it worthwhile. The proposed drawing in the OP would mean there’s 8 rows.

Ramp up the field to 30 cars, then we’ll talk
There are two solutions available straight off the shelf! At one point, Formula 2 cars and drivers joined Formula 1. What is to stop the FIA from allowing this now? If the difference between lap times is deemed too great, then cut down on the F1 downforce again - we have all clearly seen it isn't worth allowing all this downforce, as the drivers still can't keep it on the black stuff.
And if the FIA don't want to allow F2 to join F1, then they could allow the reserve drivers into the race in older F1 cars. My point about this year's cars would make the 2017 cars an exception, with 2018 now probably an issue too.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8057
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.


Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

So you are expecting the drivers just to be less aggressive, good luck with that.

Then you compare with Indy car which is a controlled by a 2 by 2 rolling start on a much wider track going into a near flat out corner, as opposed to standing starts which can be much varied with cars starting 3 wide on a much narrower track and then having to brake sharply.

F1 drivers shouldering responsibility and accountability, good luck with that one too.


The Indy 500 starts 3 wide.


I guess it's folly for me to expect Formula One drivers to act more responsible and respectful. As a product of their behavior, I have very little respect for most drivers.


But it's not exactly a corner they approach though is it? Its a constant radius constant width curve with at least 3 lanes usable around it and a full low lane to escape into. And No I do not want to see corners like that in F1 :]

The other part I agree with. They would soon be sorted out if they drove like that on the road.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
The Indy 500 starts 3 wide.

I guess it's folly for me to expect Formula One drivers to act more responsible and respectful. As a product of their behavior, I have very little respect for most drivers.


The Indy 500 does not have a 0-stupidspeed start leading into a bottleneck sharp T1 though.

edit: moby beat me to it...

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Toby. wrote:
I like it. Anything that makes the sport potentially more entertaining is good. We'll never know if it works if it isn't given a chance.


I don't agree with this. I don't think we should try just about anything just because it could potentially make the sport more entertaining. Look at the new qualifying format introduced last year. It could potentially have brought more entertainment but the reality of it was that it was a poorly conceived idea that wasn't well thought through - and as a result it was an absolute disaster and got canned after two races.

I mean, what are you going to say if this results in a huge pile-up with multiple drivers injured? "Well, it's good that we tried"?

No, things should be well thought through, the chance on improvement must be deemed very high and the added risk factor must be acceptable. This idea doesn't look like it passes both criteria.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
Mayhem wrote:
From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.


I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2605
Ennis wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.


I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.
There's a thought. Less width between the cars reduces the opportunity (gap) for someone further back making a brilliant launch sweeping between the cars to overtake. That may offset the perceived benefit of this system.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
tootsie323 wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.


I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.
There's a thought. Less width between the cars reduces the opportunity (gap) for someone further back making a brilliant launch sweeping between the cars to overtake. That may offset the perceived benefit of this system.


Agreed, I had the same thought. Even if you get a decent launch, you'll have nowhere to launch in to. We'll get some nice jossling between the front 3, but other than that I think this will actually prevent some of the braver starts.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tootsie323 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group