Saturday sprint races

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Isn't the "Race of Champions" supposed to be the best drivers in the world? Why isn't that event that one we all pay attention to? I say it's not just about saying you are the best, it is about being able to attract and maintain the best. Which requires money. Which leads to...

F1 can't exist in a vacuum as a "pure sport" because it needs commercial funding to exist and survive at it's high level. So like it or not, it needs to be entertaining. The eminence of F1 is it's perception of importance which is driven by the quality of it's participants (plus built upon a history of the same). And as much as we like to think it's the drivers, its the quality and competitiveness of the teams that brings the quality of the drivers (which is why ROC is not superior to F1 IMHO).

I make my next comments with the acknowledgement I know next to nothing about cricket. So I may get this very wrong. Apologies for that.

Does test cricket not exist within the larger context of modern cricket that includes multiple play styles (limited play) to maintain/serve a larger overall audience? That it's likely (significantly stretching my knowledge here) that without limited play cricket (if everything was first class multi-day cricket), that larger audience would shrink, there would be less money and in the end, potential for the overall quality of the only thing left (test cricket) would eventually suffer.

Taking it a step further... Might F1 be more like T20 and LeMan's more like Test cricket? (Heresy in a F1 forum!) Or is it more likely that both Test and T20 are both top of the line cricket just like both LeMan's and F1 are both top of four wheel motorsports racing. Just slightly different rulesets with durations being a significant differentiator?

Lastly, is not the Saturday sprint races even more "F1" than current F1. Shorter sprint vs. a longer sprint. In the end, it's just sprint racing. Same cars, same drivers.

I think it's worth a try. I expect they added the points to just ensure teams/drivers knew there was significant incentive for trying their hardest (i.e. why try a risky a pass for 1st place in the Sat sprint race if I am still on the front row on the main event... because of extra WCC/WDC points!)

Richard

Good analysis. I agree with some of it and disagree with some. Yes, the Race of Champions sounds like it should be the best drivers in the world, but really it is just used as a bit of fun, generally. And with the possible exception of rally drivers, who aren't really comparable as it is a totally different type of racing, I think the Formula 1 drivers are the best in the world. Not the perfect 'top 20,' as there are several in there who shouldn't be, but still overall the top motorsport series and close to the top 20 drivers. But the 10 teams are almost certainly the best teams in the world, and when I say F1 is the highest form of motorsport, I mean the teams as well as the drivers.

You also said that F1 cannot exist in a vacuum as a pure sport. This, sadly, is true, although I wish it wasn't. There are plenty of series that prioritise good racing, most notably the BTCC, which is why I think it is the second-best motorsport, but I would prefer for there to be one motorsport, made up of the absolute elite, which is completely pure and simple, and that is Formula 1. Once upon a time, this was enough for the fans, but unfortunately it has become less popular in the last few decades, and for F1 to remain popular it has to change to suit the needs of the new wave of younger fans. I would prefer for these fans to watch the likes of the BTCC instead and for F1 to be left pure, but then F1 would eventually run out of money, so this could never work.

As for Le Mans, that used to be similar to F1 in terms of the absolute top of motorsport, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I would like for it to become more like it used to be, with the absolute best drivers in the world competing.

I am not a fan of Sprint Qualifying, but I prefer that it is more of an extension of qualifying than an extra race. Under no circumstances can F1 ever become a series with two races per weekend. I don't like the fact that it scores points, because qualifying doesn't score points, but 3-2-1 isn't too bad. I was concerned that it would be like the F2 sprint race where points start at 15 for 1st place.

[crmalcolm]

Compared to some of the situations in the past, the current set up and points system (including a sprint race with points) is much more 'pure' than it has been.

1950-1959, points for fastest lap regardless of whether you finished the race?
1967-1980, some points dropped from different parts of the season?

Is it better to have a race with no points, or two races in the same weekend with points?

BRDC International Trophy until 1978 - F1 race with no points.
Race of Champions - F1 race being held over two heats.
1970 and 71 International Trophy - F1 race with heats.
1967 Race of Champions - three F1 races in a day.
1950-1957 - drivers sharing points if they shared a car, but not getting points if they didn't complete enough laps.

Yes, times were different then. They'll be different again in the future.
The amount of races, the format of a weekend, the awarding of points - none of these have remained consistent in the history of F1. But surely we are in the right position now - where every time an F1 car goes onto a track to race, it has the chance to earn points for the WDC and WCC?

IMO - it's an F1 championship, not an exhibition. The races are already sprints, so why not have two sprint races in a weekend?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

As for Le Mans, that used to be similar to F1 in terms of the absolute top of motorsport, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I would like for it to become more like it used to be, with the absolute best drivers in the world competing.

Regarding LeMans as the top. Especially from an engineering perspective. I agree. I was mostly ignoring recent history when trying to make my point.

I walked away from following prototype racing when the most recent golden age of endurance racing ended (2017)

Richard

[darcym]

a simple 'no'

you qualify, you race.

[S griffin]

Let’s see what happens. The problem is F1 hasn’t sorted more important things yet, so it would have been better of they made sure the bigger problems were sorted first

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see the article on F1.com says it’s like Twenty20 cricket. I prefer test cricket.

I prefer 20/20 to test cricket. I would like 1/1 even more.

I'm looking forward to the sprint race GP format.

[crmalcolm]

If we are really going to compare F1 with cricket - then F1's Sunday Race is the equivalent of an ODI compared to Test Cricket.

It's already a shortened version of the sport, so why not throw in a super over to decide who bats first?

[BTCC frog]

So, two sprints in, how do you feel about the format now? Personally, I'm still not keen. I find it pointless and feel it makes qualifying seem very anti-climatic. I definitely think it should not set the grid for the GP next year, but don't really want it as a stand-alone event either as then more points would be awarded, which would devalue the Grand Prix. The normal race weekend format is perfect, in my opinion, and F1 should leave it as it is. There are more pressing issues to solve, like the aero making it difficult to follow other cars that is being discussed in the 'how to fix F1' thread.

[steve_r]

Agree with you entirely. I can see why they are giving it a go, but we have had 2 dull sprint races out of 2, and I personally dont like it.

[Aysedasi]

Completely pointless.... (I realise it wasn't of course) but it adds nothing other than giving the spectators a third of a race to watch... No strategy, no nothing really. Hopefully the idea will be binned for next season.

[Adam43]

Yeah, I’m not keen.

I’d be up for a random non championship weekend of sprint races with comedy mixed up grids, joker laps, sprinklers etc., but not for the proper Grand Prix.

[GT6]

Well i liked it, made a change from the usual quali on saturday and change is something we need to see, agreed this might not last long but F1 needs to change and provide what fans want and i am sure it will increase the gates on saturday and viewing figures.

[Compromised]

The cars can't follow/overtake.

This makes sprint qualy boring. Most races boring.

If the new regs don't work, there is no format change that will fix F1s mess.

Races cars that can't race each other...

[bjohnsonsmith]

The first one at Silverstone was ok but this was problematic from the outset, with drivers trying to complete flying laps in Q1, while avoiding a plethora of slower cars. As for the sprint race itself, it was a non-event. The highlights were Hamilton's bad start, from which he never recovered and Gasly going off and bringing out an FCY.

It will be interesting to see what the 3rd one throws out but as a format, I don't like it.

[gert]

This one was even worse than the first one.

At least the first one was new and some unexpected things happened (e.g, Alonso on soft tires)

[chillibowl]

by design the q3 session is designed to generate excitement at the end. Actually the 3 sessions during quali are all designed to create these moments of excitement as the clock winds down....So it was always going to be hard to do something more exciting.

Personally im willing to give the sprint race more chances to work/see strategies evolve.

Probably futile but dont think we are giving up much in order to keep the experiment going imo.

[E.B]

Dreadful. I miss the proper qualifying for a standard 300k race start. Qualy on Friday is just a nothing event now. I wont bother to watch it next time.
And dont talk to me about the revised times for those of us in eastern time zones.

"If it aint broke dont fix it" comes to mind.

[Pandamasque]

Luckily, Monza being so fast, the sprint, however uneventful, flew by so fast that Sky/F1 commentators almost missed the finish.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

https://twitter.com/thejamesbeckett/...616614409?s=19

This would be a far far better use of time and money than what we do now.

[Tourer]

I'm OK with the sprints - not in love with them but on balance am more on the positive than the negative with them.

There was actually a fair bit going on in the Sprint at Monza - just not that much up the front after the first couple of corners (kinda sounds like some regular GPs in the "Mercedes" era).

There are down sides and up sides but so far, on balance and not by much, I'm personally leaning more towards the up side.

[bathurst77]

seems people justt come on here to moan and *****
Its never as good as it was back in the day
Of course when Back in the day was, depends on how old you are.
Generally speaking F1s best years just happens to coincide with when you first got interested. Mostly as a kid or teen.. funny that

Back on topic.. saturday sprint
for me 2 "ahem" races, vs 3 hours of free practice is a no brainer. I want to see them race. However I think the balance now is about right.. Save the sprints for a few weekends,,, 3 or 4 is plenty. Mixes thing up a bit, adds some unpredictability

[Teretonga]

I've just been to the F1 site to catch the coverage of the sprint race and quite frankly I'm rather disappointed.
It seems the sprint format is showing up the cracks in F1 that we also saw at Spa on race day.
What I mean is that we saw at Spa how a set of circumstances revealed some underlying fundamental problems that haven't been addressed over the years and led to a situation that resulted in a farce that while 'legal' under the rules made F1 look like a very disorganized and amateurish show lacking in reasonable professional forethought and behavior that was poor or treated the sport's fans rather badly.

The sprint race format is supposed to be an 'exciting' way to determine the grid for the grand prix to follow but really?
Bottas wins 'pole' in Q3. Normally if he's broken rules about engines and parts replacements etcetera he would be put to the back of the grid.
But for the qualifying race he is put on the pole and drives superbly for 100km, a third of the distance of a regular GP and wins the 'preliminary race'.
He wins three points for this, between what an eighth and ninth finisher in the full 300km GP would get.
In effect he has worked his tail off to get to start on the 'real pole' but is denied that and sent to the back as though the last hour never happened at all.

Its garbage. In effect 'sprint qualifying' creates a 400km GP including a 100km preliminary race. It stops after a 100km sprint and the field lines up again and restarts for the final 300km the next day.... Weird...

But imagine a 400km one day race where the race is red flagged after the first 100km and the leader of the race is told they have to go to the rear of the field for the restart because of engine penalties....
I know its what the rules are but the whole thing is just BS.
If this is what 'motor sport' has become its no wonder the younger generation is losing interest. The people writing the rules have lost their way and can't see the forest for the trees.

There is nothing 'sporting' with equity and justice in the way the 'sporting' regulations are being written and applied.
If penalties are to be served they should be applied at the beginning of the 'sprint race' because that is effectively a full part of the Grand Prix (because the finishing order is supposedly the restarting order and therefore is effectively a part of the 'Grand Prix' and not a separate event.)
If it is a separate event then cancel it because it means nothing if the winner is still sent to the back of the 'Grand Prix'.
That is iniquitous.

The points applied are fully established as a part of the drivers points applied to the WDC and therefore the 'sprint race is effectively a part of the WDC, little or no different to the NASCAR format application of breaking a race down into sections with repeated rolling starts
to avoid the races from becoming too 'boring'.

Like so many things in F1 things are not thought through and what we end up with is something 'half-assed' that becomes a farce.

If we're going to have 400km races with a 100km preliminary the day before then accept that for what it is.
If you want to award half points for the preliminary do that. It would be better than what we had at Spa.
Or don't award points on the result at all. The reward is simply the grid position that you take from the preliminary into the overnight interval.
Awards grid points for the first 2 rows of qualifying for the preliminary on a 3,2,1,1
basis if you want to award points for qualifying and then normal points for the final result at the end of the next day.
Or run both parts of the race on the race day, preliminary at midday and the the rest of the GP later in the afternoon.
Engine penalties, if you're going to have them, should be applied at the beginning of the sprint race.
None of this Bs sending the winner of the sprint race to the back of the GP.
And if you get into the first four fastest in Q3 you take your points with you to the back row or the pit lane or wherever you start on the grid after the engine penalties are applied. The application of the points would be on the result of Q3, not the grid for the sprint race.

Then the grid for the main GP is based entirely on the result of the sprint race without exception which is EXACTLY as it should be.

[Teretonga]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/b...oying/6665424/

More rule stupidity.
When you are a winner but you're not a winner....
Bottas gets fastest lap in Q3. Pole for the sprint race.
Wins the sprint race.
Loses pole for the 'Grand Prix' because he had an engine change before qualifying Friday evening.
So the winner of the qualifying sprint race gets three points. Bottas gets three.
So the winner of the qualifying sprint race gets a medal. Bottas gets a medal 1st.
So the winner of the qualifying sprint race is recognized as the winner of the pole.
Verstappen.
Why? Because the person who gets pole is the winner of the sprint race....

But hold on. He is reported to have got the three points? He got the medal? He finished first? Yes.
Ok so he got sent to the back of the grid not because he was cheating but because
of the regulatory fourth engine change. But he still won the race, got the points, and the medal.
But he's not regarded as the winner of the pole when he obviously was the winner of the pole.
Even if a technical rule relegated him to start from the back in the 'Grand Prix'.
WTF is wrong with this 'sport'.
Is it so woke in its denial of reality that it still tries to sell itself as the ultimate in motor sporting prowess yet is completely out of touch with its own reality?
Why don't they just recognize the winner of the qualifying race as the pole winner EVEN if he has to start at the back of the grid.
This is a complete joke and its why the qualifying 'race' isn't a qualifying race....

Is F1 'Grand Prix' motor racing?
Or is it motorsport governed by Grand Pricks....

Perez says its boring.....
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/p...thing/6665367/

[steve_r]

It certainly needs "Tweaking"...

They could try out something different to bring variety - maybe see some kind of series of race of champions type match races, with 2 cars time trialling against each other on the track, in a knock out format? I think that would improve Monaco for example.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

seems people justt come on here to moan and *****
Its never as good as it was back in the day
Of course when Back in the day was, depends on how old you are.
Generally speaking F1s best years just happens to coincide with when you first got interested. Mostly as a kid or teen.. funny that

This is not the same as complaining that it was better 'back in the day.' That is only a pointless activity when there is no way that F1 can ever return to what it was like back in the day. We could never revert to 70s/80s cars because they would be unsafe, therefore there is no point in complaining that it was better then. But it is very easy for F1 to just scrap the sprint races, so calling for them to be scrapped is not useless. If it becomes so obvious that the majority of fans want to get rid of sprint races (I've only seen a few polls, but they have all been around 70% anti-sprints even before Monza) that even Ross Brawn and Stefano Domencali can't pretend otherwise, they will have no option but to get rid of them. If we just accept every change that comes our way, including the bad ones, that's called 'happy clapping' and leads to the sport declining in quality.
But if you are in favour of sprint races, that is fine, because the improvement of a sport also requires people to be vocal about it when they like a change. But in cases like this, the leadership of a sport should listen to the majority of its fans, and so after Brazil they should put a poll on the official F1 website. If the majority of fans vote against sprint races, they should be scrapped, and if the majority vote in favour, they should be kept for 2022. It's the only logical way to decide if the 'trial' has been a success.