...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...

The next race of the ILMC (Intercontinental Le Mans Cup) and LMS (Le Mans Series) championships is in Silverstone. The ILMC championship has three rounds to go and there's everything to play for, but in the LMS there are only two races left. As a result, some of the class championships in LMS are close to a resolution.

In this blog entry, I will attempt to summarise the championship situation in each class. This will serve the dual purposes of explaining what is needed for given competitors to win their class championships and giving a summary that will enable a newcomer to pick up what's where. 

LMP1

It's a tight championship at the moment:

Tinseau/Collard/Jousse (#16 Pescarolo) lead on 28 points (other points in this list relative)

Belicchi/Boullion (13 Rebellion) -3 points

Jani/Prost (#12 Rebellion) -3 points

Piccini/Cortes (#23 MIK Corse) -26 points 

In theory, everyone entered for the LMS can still win because there are more points on the table (30) than the leading drivers possess (28). However, some teams have withdrawn from Silverstone. These teams' drivers (Hope's and Quifel's Pla/Amarel) are too far away to catch up the gap in a single race and therefore are not included in the above list.

Incidentally, all of these cars are petrol entries - Hope was the sole hybrid entry and all the diesel entries are ILMC-only (they'll be in the race for ILMC things and can deny points to LMS entries by finishing ahead of them, but they don't compete for the LMS themselves). 

It is theoretically possible for Tinseau, Collard and Jousse (the Pescarolo trio) to take the title at Silverstone. However, if they win and get pole, they still need both Rebellions to finish in 9th place or below for that to happen. This is in a class with only 10 cars total, so really that's saying the Rebellion drivers need to retire or have a total disaster of a race if the title is to be settled in Silverstone. Tinseau, Collard and Jousse look good to get the title because they've been consistently slightly better than the Rebellions, but in Imola the tables were turned, so it would be foolish to bet on any of the three driver combinations taking the trophy. Better to enjoy the fight unfold and, most likely, continue into Portugal.

Silverstone is likely to be a low-scoring round for all 4 because the big points are likely to be taken by the diesel cars. This is bad news for Piccini and Cortes, who need to win in order to stay in the title hunt. It would take a bizarre set of circumstances for that to happen.   

Teams 

Rebellion has two cars in their team while the other contenders have only one. This puts Rebellion in a strong position for the team title because it is matching Pescarolo for points. All they need is to have one of their cars ahead of Pescarolo in both races. If it's #12 in one race and #13 in the other, the Rebellion will take the team title but Tinseau, Collard and Jousse will have the driver title. 

LMP2 

Drivers

The LMP2 class has been riven with conflict all year due to a cost-cutting formula running alongside the previous unrestricted spending regime. Hopefully the fact that 2012 will make the cost-cut method mandatory will reduce the arguing that has overshadowed a tightly-fought season.

Ojjeh/Kimber-Smith (#41 Greaves Motorsport) 35 points (other points relative)

Watts/Kane/Leventis (#42 Strakka Racing) -5

Kraihamer/Crem (#45 Boutsen Energy Racing) -10

Firth/Beche/Thriet (#46 TDS Racing) -12

Companc/Russo/Kaffer (#39 Pecom Racing) -13

Gates/Garoffel/Phillips (#43 RLR Motorsport) -18

Lombard (#41 Greaves Motorsport) -20 

Rosier/Basso (#44 Extreme Limite) -21

Frey/Meichtry (#40 Race Performance) -22 

Collins/Newton/Erdos (#36 RML) -27 

Half of the LMP2 field is likely to be out of the running for the title at the end of Silverstone. Collins, Newton and Erdos require 3rd to keep their chances going, while Frey and Meichtry "merely" need 7th and pole or 6th without pole to stay in. Silverstone is likely to be a low-scoring round due to the presence of the ILMC LMP2 entrants Signatech and OAK, even if the problem is not as pronounced for the LMP1s.

Rosier and Lombard need  8th place (or 7th and pole) to stay in. Gates, Garoffel and Phillips merely need to finish because there are only 11 cars and 11th yields 2 points.

It would take a pretty remarkable set of circumstances for Ojjeh and Kimber-Smith to win the title here. Even if they won and got pole, they'd need OAK and Signatech to share the podium with them and for Watts, Leventis and Kane to finish 8th or worse in class.

Lombard is a special case. He joined the #41 Greaves car in Imola, so short of his longer-standing team-mates getting injured before the race without making the car unraceable (which is virtually impossible), he cannot gain the title due to Ojjeh and Kimber-Smith scoring many points before his arrival. He'll definitely be able to contribute to the team title though.

Teams 

All the teams have only one car in LMP2, so the team fight is as above.

GTE-Pro 

Drivers

This is arguably the most complicated of the five championships to explain. There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, this is one of the series for which there are bonus points for making an engine last 15 or more hours. The 15 hours do not all need to be in a race but they do need to be in ACO-sanctioned events (which in practise means Sebring and Le Mans count towards engine timings). The other classes have them, but in LMP1 hardly anyone runs an engine long enough to get the bonus point, LMP2 has only had 2 cars get the bonus points so far and in GTE-Am, virtually everyone is going to get the same points at the same race because the cars are nearly all synchronised in terms of engine hours. The GTE-Pro drivers will all get an engine point barring mechanical failures, but some are due to get it in Silverstone and others in Portugal. The effect on the title fight is subtle. 

Secondly, GTE-Pro, and only GTE-Pro, has a "dropped score" system for this year. Originally, all scores were meant to count, but at the start of the first race at Paul Ricard, a "Safety" Car caused a crash that took out nearly all the Porsches... and affected hardly anyone else. In an attempt to make up for this huge mistake, the "dropped-score" rule was put in. For championship purposes, the Porsches could pretend Paul Ricard was just a bad dream. 

Currently, the GTE-Pro title chase stands thus:

Fisichella/Bruni (AF Corse #51) have 44 points (other points given are relative to this)
Melo/Vilander (AF Corse #71) -16 points
Simonsen/Farnbacher (Hankook #89) -17 points
Walker/Bell (JMW #66) -22 points
Lieb/Lietz (Farnbacher #77) -26 points
Goosens/Holzer (Prospeed #75) -27 points
Hancock/Dolan (JOTA #79) -30 points 

Granted, some of the gaps are larger than in either prototype class. However, the "dropped score" system means that there is still plenty of opportunity for a fightback, even without relying on retirements.

Fisichella and Bruni are due to get an engine point in Portugal and currently would drop their second-place-with-pole at Le Castellet - a rather hefty 14 points. The latter is why the championship is nowhere near a done deal. Had all scores counted, scoring more points than Melo and Vilander would have almost been sufficient to take the title (other people would also have needed to be not too far ahead) - and only once so far this season has that happened. For Silverstone to be guaranteed to count towards their score it would be necessary for Fisichella and Bruni to win. Sealing the title in Silverstone would take some major misfortune for their competitors.

Vilander, Melo, Simonsen and Farnbacher are their closest rivals. They are due to get their engine point in Portugal. Vilander and Melo would currently drop 1 point from Spa and Simonsen and Farnbacher would drop a non-score. To guarantee staying in the title chase, they all need seventh with pole or sixth without. For each race which any of the four has finished, they have been at least fourth.

Walker and Bell are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop a non-finish at Imola. They need third place to guarantee staying in the title chase.  They've been quite unlucky this year but also fast, so it is possible for this to happen.

Lieb and Lietz, the defending champions, are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop the non-finish in Le Castellet.  To guarantee staying in the title fight, they need to score second with pole and not need an engine change, which is a pretty tall order.

Goosens and Holzer are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop the non-score at Le Castellet. To guarantee remaining in the title chase, they need to come second, get pole and hope Fisichella and Bruni don't win.

Hancock and Dolan cling to the title chase by the skins of their teeth on account of getting their engine point at Silverstone. They also drop a non-finish at Le Castellet. They need to either get second and pole, or win and hope Fisichella and Bruni do not get pole, in order to stay in the title fight. 

Teams   

AF Corse 46 points - to drop 14 points at Le Castellet (other teams' points relative)

Hankook -21 points - to drop 0 points at Imola

JMW -24 points - to drop 0 points at Imola

Felbermayr -30 points -  to drop 0 points at Le Castellet

AF Corse are likely to win this one, simply because they have two cars in the LMS (compared to everyone else's one) as well as a points lead of which Red Bull in F1 would be jealous, proportionally speaking. Given that an AF Corse car has only retired once out of 6 LMS entries, it would be asking a lot for anyone to take the team title off them at this point.

GTE-Am

Drivers

Armindo/Narac (#67 IMSA) 41 points (other points relative) 

Cioci/Perrazini/Lemeret (#61 AF Corse) -2 points

Felbermayr Jr (#88 Felbermayr) -17 points

Christodolou/Quaife (#82 CRS) -23 points

This is the tightest class battle in the series. Unless Armindo and Narac win their class and get very lucky with opponents' results, the battle will go to Portugal. Felbermayr Jr needs to finish the race or get class pole to stay in the title fight in Portugal, while Christodolou and Quaife must get seventh with pole or sixth stay in the title fight.

Teams

All four teams have one car apiece, so the team battle is in the same state as the driver one.

Testing has been enjoyable so far in F1, particularly because of the innovation already on show. The prospect of a mid-grid team - Renault - having come up with a new innovation in F1 is exciting. They've got exhausts coming out of the sidepods instead of the back of the car. This should increase the amount of pressure underneath the car.

Sending exhaust fumes out using the Renault way should become increasingly useful in future seasons because the energy coming from the engine could be used to help power KERS. According to the rules, KERS has to be positioned between the cockpit and the front of the engine, so the movement of the fumes would be a viable means of kinetic energy recovery. Without the need for long-distance transmission of the energy before release, it would be possible to use a much greater proportion of the energy using this source than from the brakes. Energy harvesting would occur under acceleration (when there is generally little demand on the driver), which makes for much better handling than the brake-harvesting version (which ends up altering the behaviour of the car at the point where it is already at its least predictable).

Given that the Le Mans Series primary prototype class now allows any form of energy recovery rather than just the kinetic variety, it's conceivable that an enlightened FIA might permit heat recovery - another mechanism which would make the sidepod-exhausts more useful. Airbox kinetic/heat energy harvesting would be even more useful, but maybe that's hoping for too much innovation from a governing body which stands to gain from regulating as much as possible using as many rules as possible.

I don't agree with KERS in top-level racing, but if we must have KERS, it should be a sensible version. Hopefully, Renault's discovery will encourage the FIA to permit the best of a bad job to be made.