The F1 season 2006

Is it only me that finds the new qualifying format confusing? Ok I get the 2 knock out sessions, that's a good idea, but what is the third bit all about, do 10 laps on race fuel, come in, fill up again, change tyres and do one last knock out, all seems a bit ott to me, why not just have 3 straight knock outs? Another "design by committee" is what it looks like to me.
 
It's pretty straightforward. Two knockout sessions decide the bottom half of the grid and then the remaining 10 guys have 20 minutes in which to set their fastest lap with as many laps as they like (AFAIK) just like the good old days.

The only differences between the last session and the first two are mostly fuel related, except for the first:

- In the last session, any lap started before the clock hits 0:00 can count as a fast lap (just like in the old days). In the knockout sessions you have to complete a lap before the clock runs out in order for it to count.

- You are allowed (but not obliged) to refuel before the last session. For all the laps you complete in the last session you'll get an FIA calculated fuel 'credit' in order to effectively refuel your car back to where it was when the session started.

- Runners in the last session can't refuel before the race beyond the credit mentioned above so effectively they should start the last session with what they would like to start the race with. Runners in the earlier sessions can refuel as much as they like before the race.

- All laps in the last session must be within 110% of your own personal best time from that session in order to qualify for a fuel credit. If this rule wasn't around people would start the last session on low fuel, switch into a super-economy mode on the engine and just stroll around for a few laps to collect the fuel credits (for more fuel than they're using) and then get a great time with low fuel. As it stands all laps have to be reasonably fast but obviously, since they're using up fuel all the time the last couple of laps will be the fastest.

The fuel factor makes it a bit complicated but it had to be that way if they wanted to keep the "no refuelling before the race" rule. You could argue that they should have binned that but the fuel equation does shuffle up the grid a bit as the fastest car is not necessarily on pole. It also throws up interesting possibilities for the people just outside the top 10 who can re-fuel as much as they like to be, say, on a one-stopper when everyone ahead of them is two-stopping. That could give them a significant advantage if their performance deficit to P10 is not that great.

Whatever you think though the current system is waaaay better than the single lap variations we've had over the last few years.

Michael.
 
Ya Michael I agree it is a lot better than the old format, certainly makes the qually more enjoyable to watch. What confused me about the qually was watching the top 10, what seemed like, coast around the track for 10 laps, come in, fuel and change tyres then do they're flying laps, or did I just mis-understand was was going on, cos that totally confused me, I couldn't see the reason for doing the 10 laps. But thanks for going through it, the fuel credit thingy is a bit confusing.
 
GAZZ said:
I've enjoyed the first 2 races, disapointed with the Cosworth engines letting go.
Click to expand...
Oh ya, when those things let go they certainly let you know about it, the fireball following you ! :)
 
Hi Michael,

"I'm not saying Ferrari would have been up there with Renault in '05 had they had Mi tyres but they would have been much, much better. The car can't have been that bad to manage 3rd in both titles!"

The main reasons they were able to come third was consistency, MSC in the car, and the fact that at Indy Michelin failed to deliver a raceable tyre gifting them 1st and 2nd and no points points for their competitors!

The Michelin tryes were better in 2005 but the Ferrari was a very poor car when compared to their previous 4 or 5 years offerings. The fact that they didn't work this out well into their season was a big part of their problem.

Also if Ferari had Michelins for 2005 I don't think it would have changed things that much. You have already observed that they wouldn't have been up with Renault (I will add McLaren) with Mi tyres then they would still have come 3rd!! A closer 3rd but 3rd nonetheless.

Ian
 
Hi Michael,

"I found Malaysia disappointing. Rosberg out with an engine failure and Schumacher getting beaten fair and square by Massa who started from further behind! OK, different strategies and all that but it's not what you expect from MSC. Hope it was just a one off."

The underlying performances of MSC and MAS show that MAS is quicker in both races so far. In Bahrain MAS spun so messed his race up but in Sepang he should not have been able to beat MSC from the back of the grid, even on a different strategy.

"And WTF is up with Barrichello??"

We need to resolve this quickly. He is struggling with our car as it doesn't drive like a Ferrari.

"Great to see Fisi getting the win though - it's time he deserved a bit of luck."

Indeed.

Just need BUT to get a little bit of luck and get that first win!!

Ian
 
Button looked really strong in Qualli but what happened to him in the race? And like you say Ian, Barrichello needs to sort his act out, didn't he do any testing over the winter, I know it takes a while to setup a car to your liking and he was in the 3rd car but surely he should have adapted by now. He admitted on ITV that his driving style doesn't suit the Honda, maybe that's cos he's driving it like a Play Station? :p
 
michaelab said:
Schumacher getting beaten fair and square by Massa who started from further behind! OK, different strategies and all that but it's not what you expect from MSC. Hope it was just a one off.

And WTF is up with Barrichello??
Michael.
Click to expand...


Well, Schumacher was quite fast in the 1st GP - he might well have won. In the 2nd GP I was very disapointed myself. However, it is a fact that Massa, on a one-stop strategy, had primarily to overtake slow cars, whereas Schumacher, on a two-stop, had to measure himself with faster cars.

That said, how on earth could he not beat Heidfeld? The years of his his Hungaroring superfast stint seem over and done. However, he may well surprise us still. Remember Fangio 57.

Barrichello is a mystery to me. He was quite fast at Ferrari and even during the winter months. So what is happening? It is very disturbing that the man that sometimes challenged Schumacher seems a slow driver. Button is, I think, not that fast - he is regular and drives very well, but I would not call him an inspired driver. So ... what is wrong with Barrichello AND Schumacher?

The next few races will tell.
 
Ian Wright said:
The Michelin tryes were better in 2005 but the Ferrari was a very poor car when compared to their previous 4 or 5 years offerings. The fact that they didn't work this out well into their season was a big part of their problem.
Click to expand...
A German magazine quotes a source inside Ferrari as saying they have tracked down one of the main sources of their inability to understand their problems in 2005. Apparently, Ferrari were the last of the big teams to still do their wind tunnel testing with metal mockups of the tires. In race conditions, the tires deformed when the car was not driving in a straight line and wreaked havoc with the aerodynamics. Aero elements which worked well in the tunnel didn't work on the race track.

For a long time, Ferrari blamed the tires, and BS were ready to shoulder the blame, because Ferrari seemed to be able to produce the tunnel data that said they had done their homework on the car. The lack of a second competitive team on BS was clearly a major factor in that.
 
Hi Lee,

"Button looked really strong in Qualli but what happened to him in the race?"

We are still slightly faster in qualifying than in the race!

" And like you say Ian, Barrichello needs to sort his act out, didn't he do any testing over the winter, I know it takes a while to setup a car to your liking and he was in the 3rd car but surely he should have adapted by now."

We thought he had as over the winter he could be faster than BUT at times.

"He admitted on ITV that his driving style doesn't suit the Honda, maybe that's cos he's driving it like a Play Station? "

Eddie Irvine had the same problem when he left Ferrari!

Ian
 
Would it be fair to say that the Schumacher/Ferrari era is now well and truly over? It had to happen sooner or later, but it was a surprisingly precipitate decline - one win last season and in dubious circumstances - and the Oz race was one Ferrari will certainly want to forget ASAP.
 
I agree that Ferrari are no longer dominant. Renault seem to be. Their cunning strategy of giving Alonso a perfect car and letting Fisichella have all the mishaps seems to be paying off.

Anybody got a comment on the overtaking manoeuvre that Alonso did on Button after the first Safety Car period? On the screen, it looked as if Button waited too long before giving it full throttle again so that Alonso was able to pass him on the straight. If this was indeed what it looked like, I have to say I no longer think it is just a series of unfortunate events that Honda are still waiting for their first win.

A few days ago, there was a column on autosport.com suggesting that Honda should have taken some of the money they are paying Barichello and got one of the top race tacticians, specifically Symonds. I'm not sure I agree but I, too, can't help but think that Melbourne was another race where Honda did not make the most of their opportunities.

I see the point of their decision not to let Button go over the finishing line, though.

But I remember the last two seasons where any number of F1 technicians said they knew how Renault managed to have such a startling starting performance and would be able to close the gap soon. Honda really seem to have improved theirs substantially. But Renault still sem to start better than almost anybody else, and certainly seem to have the most consistent starting performance.

On the driver side, I was impressed by Ralf Schumacher today. Not only did he get a good result, he managed to stay humble afterwards - possibly a personal first - and admit that even without the drive-through penalty, he would not have finished higher. He also sems to have the measure of Trulli currently yet does not single out his personal performance. On this showing, he may mature into a fine driver yet.
 
I really hope that Ferrari can sort things out by Imola and at least be mixing it with Renault, McLaren and Honda for the rest of the season. Don't know what really happened this weekend but going on the RTL commentary they seemed to have made a huge mistake in choosing the hard compound tyres when all other BS runners were on soft.

I wouldn't write Ferrari off for this season yet. Bahrain showed they have the potential - I'm hoping the last two races were just cock-ups that can be fixed quickly.

Button was really caught napping on the first SC restart and the second restart was completely buggered up for everyone apart from Alonso by the two Midland cars. Those two restarts put paid to any chances Button might have had had his engine not exploded.

Michael.
 
Button has the talent. Anyone who thinks he cannot race should recall his first season with Williams. I wouldn't be surprised if he has pulled off more overtaking manoevres in the past three years than Raikonen or Alonso. He is quick, smooth and agressive.

All Honda have to do is give him a race car.
 
I think Button will win races this season if Honda can match Renault for pace and reliability. He did however completely balls up the first SC restart yesterday. Given that he left it waaaaaayyyyy too late to accelerate and that he had Alonso right beside him coming up to the start/finish line all he needed to do was ease off just a touch and Alonso would have sailed past him before the s/f line and been penalised.

Michael.
 
Hi Markus,

"Anybody got a comment on the overtaking manoeuvre that Alonso did on Button after the first Safety Car period? On the screen, it looked as if Button waited too long before giving it full throttle again so that Alonso was able to pass him on the straight. If this was indeed what it looked like, I have to say I no longer think it is just a series of unfortunate events that Honda are still waiting for their first win."

A bit of both perhaps as our car struggles when the tyres are not at the required operating temperature.

Interesting to see Jenson saying that we don't know what is going on and won't solve it for some time. Suffice to say that he is wrong but I can understand that he is very frustrated with what happened.

"A few days ago, there was a column on autosport.com suggesting that Honda should have taken some of the money they are paying Barichello and got one of the top race tacticians, specifically Symonds. I'm not sure I agree but I, too, can't help but think that Melbourne was another race where Honda did not make the most of their opportunities."

Renault make more strategy mistakes than any of the top teams. That is why they recruited a race strategy simulation development engineer at the end of the 2005 season.

Incidentally Ferrari have made quite a few mistakes but got away with them as when you have the fastest car with the fastest driver strategy is very easy.

Symonds and Brawn are not the strategy experts that the press portray!

Whereas McLaren have shown on many occasions that clever strategy will win you races. And you are very unlikely to have heard the name of the person responsible for strategy recommendations.

Ian
 
"All Honda have to do is give him a race car." StereoMic

He has a race car that was fast enough to win in Bahrain (clutch problems messed up his start) and come a close 3rd in Sepang. Had the blue flags got SPE to get out of the way on BUT's in lap then he would have got second. However, ALO would have won had they not messed up his fuel load for qualifying.

But we do need to put some developments on the car to make it much easier to win races. We are close but....

Ian
 

Latest posts

Back
Top