Posts 
Atom ...and what to do about it
Yesterday, we saw Force India choose to not run in Q3 at Singapore. This is the second time this season they have taken this option. In DRStrategy, this was recommended as the solution for a team which cannot seriously compete for pole in Q3. There was no possibility of Force India managing a much higher position if it ran than if it didn't, so it was sensible to save a set of tyres to preserve strategy and perhaps pass the more profligate Mercedes team through strategy.
This may seem a rather mercenary attitude, but remember Force India is in a battle between Renault and Sauber over 5th place in the championship. Sauber is very close behind Force India, so it needs points. In addition, Renault is having a lousy weekend in Singapore, making this the best opportunity Force India is likely to have to close the gap between the two. Logically, Force India has to prioritise racing well to qualifying well.
So all is well? Not to judge from the large number of disappointed fans. The best I've seen of their reaction came from @LewisBarthaud:
something needs to be done, this 3 phase format came about to improve the show, you can't call it the "top 10 shootout" with only 7
You can't argue with that logic. Also, there's an emotional argument which presumably wouldn't condense into the remaining characters.
There is a massive visceral pleasure in seeing a racing car on track. When there are many racing cars doing likewise and competing powerfully with one another, the pleasure is multiplied. So to take it in reverse, removing 30% of the expected competitors will take out an average of well over 30% of the excitement (exact percentage depending on exactly who "forfeited" the session and who's watching).
This is an example of perverse incentives - the regulations, designed to provide excitement and happiness to the multitudes who watch F1 racing, create the exact opposite effect in qualifying if played out to their logical conclusion.
The first thought might be to penalise those who do not run in Q3 on purpose through a grid penalty. However, this ends up creating perverse incentives of its own. One of the main ways people have been able to overcome the zero-sum passing engendered by DRS is by having more sets of unused soft tyres. What this means is that everyone will, barring unforeseen punctures or crashes, everyone will have the same number of sets of soft tyres remaining. By insisting everyone must have the same number of unused sets of soft tyres, the racing will become even more predictable and samey - under the rippled surface of inconsequential passes. Only someone setting their fastest time with hard tyres will be able to break the cycle.
So that method of making a more exciting qualifying would make a rather dull race. However, this is not an insoluable equation. Changing the way tyre allocations work may help.
My proposal works thus:
- 3 "hard" sets given out on Friday. This will encourage race set-up and endurance work, shift tyre comparison work to Saturday, possibly encourage more teams to use unproven drivers. More importantly for the specific problem under discussion, it means a "soft" set can be awarded later in the weekend without making Pirelli bring any extra tyres. You've got to adapt to cost-cutting...
- 1 "soft" and 1 "hard" tyre set given out at the start of Saturday
- 1 "soft" and 1 "hard" tyre given out at the start of Q1. Any of the three sets of softs given out thus far may be used in qualifying.
- 1 "soft" given out at the start of Q2 - but only to drivers who set a time on the soft given out in Q1.
- 1 "soft" given out at the start of Q3 - but only to drivers who set a time on the soft given out in Q2.
- 2 "soft" and 1 "hard" set given out on Sunday - but only to drivers who set a time on the soft given out in Q3 (or Q1/2 if they were eliminated there). Q3 runners will be permitted to use this instead of the tyre they did their time on, should they be eligible to receive such tyres. Teams will hand back 3 "hard" and 2 "soft" sets of their choice, leaving them with the same number of tyres for the race as they have now.
Stewards' discretion will be used for anyone who makes a genuine attempt to qualify but has a technical issue on-track, crashes on their "sighter" Q1 run on hard tyres or during their soft-tyre run. The idea being that genuine accidents would be treated the same as people who were knocked out at the same stage but completed the soft-tyre run. Anyone of whom foul play is suspected (or had such serious problems that they wouldn't have used up much/any of the soft tyre's longevity) will receive no such privileges and be treated the same as those who never attempted the run.
This would mean qualifying would influence how many tyres on has available in a more sensible way.
- Someone who didn't run in Q1 on soft tyres would have no unused "soft" tyres.
- Someone who chose not to run in Q2 or Q3 on soft tyres would have 1 set of unused "soft" tyres (the one they got for running in Q1 on softs).
- Someone who chose to run soft tyres in all sessions for which they were eligible would get 2 sets of unused "soft" tyres (for running in Q3).
This should re-align incentives for the race in favour of having both an exciting qualifying and an exciting race.
The one thing this doesn't prevent is a team not running because they don't think they will lose anything, despite the disincentives in place. This is the frustrating position I am in with my other favourite team, AF Corse. It is in Portugul for the Le Mans Series race but due to some terrible luck involving a lorry accident, a broken tail-lift and an hastily-completed new car presenting problems, is apparently comtemplating a deliberate non-finish for its hitherto most competitive and popular car (the #51 driven by Giancarlo Fisichella and Gianmaria Bruni). It's already team champion, with the #51's drivers also confirmed as individual champions, so they not particularly worried about points. The car is in one piece and is very fast when it works, but could break at any moment and the staff all need to be in America as soon as possible because Petit Le Mans, part of an Intercontinental Le Mans Championship that the team hasn't fully secured yet, is next week and everyone on the the team needs to be there for early scrutineering. I can see the logic but am still upset with the idea a team might forefeit a race where it has somehow managed to qualify 2nd. Much as the people watching the logical withdrawal of the Force Indias from Q3 were upset about them "forfeiting" the last bit of qualifying when they were good enough to at least set representative times.
Intellectually logical, emotionally tough to accept...
A well thought out plan, but at the end, you end up with the same result as though you forced FIF1 to run. Everyone has the same number of good sets. I think FIF1 made the race more interesting by having an extra set of options that the others didn't. I really don't care about qualifying that much. I would rather have an interesting race. Having a team on a radically different strategy throws a wild card into the mix and I like that. What a lot of people have missed is FIF1 had figured out that the difference between options and primes would be less in the race than most teams suspected. The first stint on primes set Di Resta up to maximize his result, not just having the extra set of options.
Wish they'd start by stopping calling them prime and option. Quite clearly, with the Pirelli tyres, the softer compound is the prime tyre and the hard tyre is the optional (well, actually, the not-optional).
Anyway, I don't have a problem with it - would TV have even shown the Force Indias if they'd been on track? only if they picked a gap where the front runners were not out and it's a bit much to expect that. It's their strategy choice.
Lonny, having spent quite a while thinking about it (hence the delay in responding)... ...I can see where you're coming from. I hadn't intended for everyone to come out with the same number of soft tyres but taken to logical conclusion that is what would happen. I'm also having trouble thinking of a solution that doesn't fall into one sort of major trap or another. Maybe that's why the problem hasn't been solved yet?
Force India noting the narrow gap between tyres at Singapore is a useful thing to note for the future. I didn't think it had any particular bearing on the specific question I was wondering but it demonstrates Force India's tactical prowess even better. other teams have skipped Q3 before (though Force India were the first to do so for tactics), but never before has someone in Q3 started on the hard tyres on the belief that it would be faster than softs at that point.
Mav, you're right on softs and hards. Pirelli will be switching the nonemclature around for the Indian Grand Prix in order that the softer tyre has more sets allocated to it than the harder one, which surely seals the argument about whether "prime/option" has any purpose other than to avoid confusion over the radio (itself a simple task to achieve).
TV probably wouldn't have shown Force India had they run, but that's not really what regulations are framed to achieve. Regulations should be framed to achieve quality sport that delights onlookers and fulfils competitors alike. My complaint isn't against Force India in any case, but against the regulations for framing a needless win-lose situation for all concerned. I'm sure Force India would have preferred to have run if the consequences of doing so in that situation were not so deletrious to its own prospects. Vijay's companies probably didn't mind being seen in all those garage shots with none of that distracting blurriness preventing their messages from being displayed non-optimally...