|
|
Post by jasehutch on May 15, 2020 15:11:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:17:46 GMT
I can't see that somehow, that's why I think it's a gamble, he will not seed to LeClerc, he still thinks he can do it, he's not a Coulthard or a Bottas, at least I don't think he is. I can see them both taking the challenge to Hamilton, sharing the points between them whilst he hovers up the rest, even if Ferrari get their act together & produce a better car, which I doubt.
I think that while both team mates still have a chance of a championship win any team should be forced to allow their drivers to go for it, but after a driver drops out of the championship running and only then, the team has an option to apply team orders if they wish. I suspect that that would be extremely difficult to enforce as some teams would do their utmost to covertly overcome such restrictions.
It seems to me that F1 is full of internal politics with a rigid pecking order and wage structure within teams that would be difficult to adjust.
Some F1 teams and perhaps even some of their sponsors seem to require that to remain the situation so I don't think it could happen. Of course you would have to be an insider to really know and as I am not I could very well be totally wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by widge on May 15, 2020 21:00:13 GMT
I think that while both team mates still have a chance of a championship win any team should be forced to allow their drivers to go for it, but after a driver drops out of the championship running and only then, the team has an option to apply team orders if they wish. I suspect that that would be extremely difficult to enforce as some teams would do their utmost to covertly overcome such restrictions.
It seems to me that F1 is full of internal politics with a rigid pecking order and wage structure within teams that would be difficult to adjust.
Some F1 teams and perhaps even some of their sponsors seem to require that to remain the situation so I don't think it could happen. Of course you would have to be an insider to really know and as I am not I could very well be totally wrong.
Oh I agree, there is too much politics, but if teams like Mercedes can work this way (or at least they appear to) why cannot some of the other teams.
Just to throw another idea into the ring, I often wondered rather than just the first 10 scoring points what would happen if you reversed the scoring totally, give everyone whatever finishing position they have, the person with the lowest score is at the top, I wondered if it would even it out a bit especially with some of the lesser teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoovie on May 16, 2020 12:54:15 GMT
... Oh I agree, there is too much politics, but if teams like Mercedes can work this way (or at least they appear to) why cannot some of the other teams. Just to throw another idea into the ring, I often wondered rather than just the first 10 scoring points what would happen if you reversed the scoring totally, give everyone whatever finishing position they have, the person with the lowest score is at the top, I wondered if it would even it out a bit especially with some of the lesser teams.
I have read the last bit and I would like to understand what you mean as it sounds intriguing but I just don't understand what you are meaning? the person with the lowest score is at the top? |
|
|
|
Post by widge on May 16, 2020 13:14:38 GMT
... Oh I agree, there is too much politics, but if teams like Mercedes can work this way (or at least they appear to) why cannot some of the other teams. Just to throw another idea into the ring, I often wondered rather than just the first 10 scoring points what would happen if you reversed the scoring totally, give everyone whatever finishing position they have, the person with the lowest score is at the top, I wondered if it would even it out a bit especially with some of the lesser teams.
I have read the last bit and I would like to understand what you mean as it sounds intriguing but I just don't understand what you are meaning? the person with the lowest score is at the top? Treat the score as penalty points, if you come fifth you get five points, if you come first one point, if you brake down and come 18th amongst the other non finishers you get 18 points the person with the lowest points comes first in the championship. this probably wouldn't affect the leaders so much but would create more of a battle amongst the lower teams, at the moment if they are unlikely to get to tenth place there is more insentive to save the car for the next race. i have never tried to calculate it out to see if it would change things much, it is really a what if that i had wondered about. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoovie on May 16, 2020 18:21:10 GMT
Oh, ok.
TBH, I don't think that would work as the reward for gaining one position is very little so drivers won't be inclined to take risks at the latter stages of a race - why risk a tricky overtake just to drop one penalty point when if it goes wrong you could end up with anywhere between 15 to 20 added?
The same would actually be the same in the lower orders.
What I think might work is something that happens in some championship series where there are different regs in the same race - typically tin tip racing where you get very different cars racing so have multiple classes competing, but only really against cars in the same class.
So in F1 you could have the 2nd Tier cars also getting 'secondary' points based on their position once the 1st Tier cars are "removed" and used in a Tier 2 supplementary table - so say it is Mercedes 1st, Ferrari 2nd, Williams 3rd, Red Bull 4th and Sauber 5th?
Tier 1 Points
Mercedes - 25
Ferrari - 18
Williams -15
Red Bull - 12
Sauber - 10
But in Tier 2, you have
Williams - 25
Sauber - 18
etc.
I've thought that would be a good idea for quite a while, but I don't know a team like Williams for example would want to be known as a "Tier 2" team, even though they clearly are right now. I guess you could have the bottom 5 or 6 teams from a championship season competing also in the Tier 2 side-championship the following year and give them something to fight over as, as you say, it will go from no points after 10th place to some points down to 14th or 15th and also bigger jumps as instead of getting maybe 1 or 2 more for overtaking another Tier 2, they may get an extra 7, which IS something to fight for!
That has been my thought on this as something like this does work in series like Le Mans, and the WEC as well I believe?
|
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on May 17, 2020 15:09:49 GMT
No team orders have been tried before but it failed, simply because all the teams are so competitive & are happy to cheat to win, all they did was send a coded message, set switch C to 69, means let Driver 1 through, set switch D to 69, means Driver 2 is on a different strategy & will let you through next time etc.
I sort of like the idea 1 to 20 points, so that the first car that DNF's gets 20 points, only problem is if you are the innocent party of a risky braking move & get t-boned off the track, not only are you not able to finish the race to gain less points you've been given a huge penalty. It also means the champion could be somebody who never finished about about 4/5th but finished in every race as a 20 point for a DNF would be hard to get back. IF the cars were easier to pass I like the reverse grid idea, but as they currently are it wouldn't work, the championship wouldn't start till after Monaco as nobody would want to be out in the lead before then.
|
|
|
|
Post by three5 on May 17, 2020 16:25:40 GMT
No team orders have been tried before but it failed, simply because all the teams are so competitive & are happy to cheat to win, all they did was send a coded message, set switch C to 69, means let Driver 1 through, set switch D to 69, means Driver 2 is on a different strategy & will let you through next time etc.
I sort of like the idea 1 to 20 points, so that the first car that DNF's gets 20 points, only problem is if you are the innocent party of a risky braking move & get t-boned off the track, not only are you not able to finish the race to gain less points you've been given a huge penalty. It also means the champion could be somebody who never finished about about 4/5th but finished in every race as a 20 point for a DNF would be hard to get back. IF the cars were easier to pass I like the reverse grid idea, but as they currently are it wouldn't work, the championship wouldn't start till after Monaco as nobody would want to be out in the lead before then.
I do worry about a reverse grid being a recipe for carnage. We have seen some of the more competitive cars start at the back of the grid when they have had excess component changes. Generally they soon filtered through to a point in the field more realistic to their performance, but starting them all at the back behind cars that are generally slower to get away could cause serious problems. The thought of MV and CL fighting one another whilst passing slower drivers makes my blood run cold. How would you prevent fast cars sandbagging to get a better grid position? Maybe do away with qualifying and just base the grid on the results of the last race? A problem would be a DNF caused by poor driving would be rewarded with an advantage in the next race.
If you want to introduce more competition to the series limit the number of key component changes and say "when you've used them, your season is finished". That would shift the emphasis to a balance between reliability and power output which would be a very interesting calculation for the team strategists and managers. If a car needs replacements because they have been damaged in a crash that was ANOTHER DRIVERS FAULT, only the one at fault would be subject to the penalty. It would reduce the temptation to recklessness on the part of agressive drivers and it would ensure that the stewards actually sorted out problems with reckless drivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoovie on May 17, 2020 17:05:22 GMT
.... If you want to introduce more competition to the series limit the number of key component changes and say "when you've used them, your season is finished". That would shift the emphasis to a balance between reliability and power output which would be a very interesting calculation for the team strategists and managers. If a car needs replacements because they have been damaged in a crash that was ANOTHER DRIVERS FAULT, only the one at fault would be subject to the penalty. It would reduce the temptation to recklessness on the part of agressive drivers and it would ensure that the stewards actually sorted out problems with reckless drivers.
This is an interesting thought. I am not sure if I would go so far as to stop a drivers season if they ran out of allocation rather than incur penalties (I think that would not be popular at all with fans or teams), but I like the idea that if a driver causes damage to another car and say causes their gearbox to be wrecked, the driver at fault uses up one of HIS allocated gearbox rather than the innocent victim, who gets a replacement at no cost to his own allocation. |
|
|
|
Post by clarki on May 18, 2020 12:39:56 GMT
Sprucing up F1 is simple if you ask me.
There are 20 drivers, 20 cars, 20 tracks - each has a turn in each.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 23:01:52 GMT
|
|
