F1 Race length

First of all, let me say i'm a newbie and i'm a f1-fan - or was, because despite the championship being truly exciting, i find the races terribly boring sometimes. So, what i wanted to suggest, why not change the current race system in f1? I mean, in Champcar the race lasts for 105 minutes, which makes for guaranteed long time racing for fans, plus strategies would be a real mind-breaker for the teams. Take this situation: a driver comes in to refuel until 10 minutes before the race end, but then the safety-car comes on track so he could go all the way to the finish without having to pit again! It could make for some surprising results! What do you think? Intresting to talk about it with the shortest race coming soon; i expect Monza to last for 75 minutes or something, which i find way too short. So what's your opinion?

The more boring a race the sooner I want it to finish, not to the longer hoping for something to happen.

same as Gav. nowadays it seems the days in between the races, and the whole buildup to a race (practices, qualli, news etc.) are more exciting than the main event on a sunday afternoon.

i don't care much for complicated strategy, i just want close racing. i don't want 58 overtaking moves every single lap, but would like the cars to at least be able to follow each other closely so you get the impression that something interesting might happen, someone may just be able to make a pass out of nowhere.

you watch a few laps and you just know that no-one will even get within a second of the car in front, so there's no chance he's gonna overtake, so why bother watching.

don't get me wrong, i love F1, i love the cars and the drama and stories that happen, but when the week in between races is more interesting than the race itself, then we've got a problem.

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

I agree with Gav and Muks, but think the races should at least be 90mins.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

You're true about that Muks, the pit incident between the McLarens was the only intresting thing about the Hungarian weekend. And every week praying for rain is also quite sad...

So what do you prefer, an exciting championship but boring races, or always the same man winning and therefor a boring championship but intresting racing?

i suppose you can look at it both ways.

if we have very exciting races but the same man winning every race, then that is interesting because we are getting entertainment every 2 weeks or whenever the race is on. for those 2 or 3 hours on a sunday, we are thoroughly entertained, even if at the end the same man wins.

(this didn't happen with Schumacher though, the same guy won and they were boring races).

if we have boring races everytime, but with different drivers winning from pole position each time, then we are not really being entertained on a sunday afternoon while watching (it could be a boring procession), but at the end of the season it's interesting because we can say "8 different drivers won races and it was a close championship".

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

2002 is a good example, the racing that season was pretty good stuff, but the championship battle was shite lol.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

And the reverse can also be said for 2003...some races were complete walkovers and processions (Montoya @ Hockenheim and Kimi @ Nurburg (until his engine blew) spring to mind) yet plenty of different drivers won and it was a close championship . The only races these days that are genuinely exciting are ones where another factor comes into play and mixes up the order, whether it be rain or a safety car (i.e. Canada + Nurburg this year). Something needs to be done to mix up the order of the field come race day, without taking away from the skill and importance of qualifying. Often the suggestion of reverse grids comes up...but what would the point of qualifying be when you know that pole position would actually be last place? You'd intentionally go slow and destroy the essence of qualifying.

Maybe it could be random sprinkler systems on the track, might even be a ballast system based on Q2 times? For example, the faster you are in Q2 (since thats the only session where all cars are on minimum fuel and soft tyres) then the more ballast you have in the race. Cars that failed to make Q2 would have zero ballast. This would level the field in a way, but not actually reverse it. You would obviously still want to get as high as possible on the grid as you can get to give yourself a better chance in the race, but you would also suffer a marginal weight penalty. Coupled with these new aero rules coming into play, I think that frequently exciting races could be a definite possibility.

---

Circuit Thermalito

Liverpool Waterfront Circuit (WIP)




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2007 01:36AM by Fincent.

But that would really just give us the fast cars passing the slow cars. You aren't really shaking things up. What we need is Ferrari passing McLarens and Vice-Versa. You just don't see it anymore, unless one of the them makes a serious mistake.

Alonso disagrees...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]

I for one wouldn't mind seeing it go COMPLETELY the other way, having a really short qualy session, a 45-minute race on Saturday, and then another one on Sunday

Of course I know it would never happen, but I think it'd make for far better viewing that the current 8-month-long-consistency-oriented Endurance race.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

@ Fincent, i think just by changing the cars would give us better racing. from the thousands of threads we have on the subject of what changes we'd like to make to the cars to give closer racing, we have learnt that over-the-top aero advances will only dull the racing, but less aero influence with more mechanical grip will allow drivers to slide the cars more and give them more confidence to have a go at overtaking.

if the cars were sorted out, we wouldn't need artificial, contrived methods such as water sprinklers, ballast or reversed grids to give us entertainment.

the answer is so obvious (change the cars) but the FIA constantly look for pie-in-the-sky ideas when the best and easiest solution is right under their noses.

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

I'm also a fan of MotoGP and why I like that is the racing is close (not as much with Stoner this season) but you get the feeling that around 4/5 people could win each race. And with the race only being around 45 mins long the last lap overtaking is amazing.

If F1 cars could follow each other then maybe there more of a chance of some exciting racing

If you search in the history, the 1950s races are longer than the 1970s races, for example: In 1957, the German GP was a 22 lap race in Nordschleife. But the 1975 race, in the same circuit, was only a 14 or 15 lap race. 200km difference

Didn't they usedto be 3+ hours?

I like the length how it is right now. Not too long but not too short either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]

But don't you think Monza is way too short?

flat tyre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't they usedto be 3+ hours?


i saw a programme called Speed Machines on one of the Discovery channels the other day, and the commentator in the black and white F1 footage said something like "and so-and-so is the winner of this races, which ran over 450 miles".

nowadays it's under 200 miles.

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

Today a F1 normal race is 300 km long, in the 1950s a normal race was 500km long. Maybe today are shorter for a safety question.