Start, Silverstone, 2020

Should Formula 1 trial sprint races during 2021?

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1’s plan to trial three sprint races during its upcoming season – which starts in just 43 days’ time – is moving ahead at pace.

The F1 Commission agreed this week to form a working group to investigate a “new qualifying format”. As RaceFans revealed previously, Formula 1 favours introducing Saturday sprint races at three events – Montreal, Monza and Interlagos – to decide the grid for Sunday’s grand prix. The usual qualifying sessions would be held on Fridays at those rounds, and set the starting order for the sprint races.

Further details of the plan, such as whether points would be awarded and what tyre strategies would be permitted, are yet to be confirmed.

The FIA confirmed the plan this week, stating teams believe introducing an “even more exciting weekend format” is of “major importance [in] engaging fans”. But do fans agree?


Adding sprint races on Saturdays, and moving qualifying sessions forward to Fridays, will ensure each of the three days during an F1 race weekend has a focal point of interest.

The races themselves will add another point of interest to grand prix weekends including the drama of a standing start and the possibility of mixing up the grid ahead of Sunday’s main event. And if they turn out not to be a success, F1 may not continue their use in 2022.


Besides being a needless break with decades of F1 heritage, sprint races would detract from the main event of a race weekend: the grand prix. They would most likely serve to making the starting grid for the grand prix more similar to a race result than a qualifying session, making Sunday’s event more processional.

If points are awarded for sprint races they could serve to increase the advantage of a dominant team and lead to the championship being decided earlier in the year.

I say

The essentials of Formula 1’s race weekend format – fastest lap times decide the grid for a single race – have been virtually unchanged throughout its 72-year history. This proposal would sever that link to the past.

If you’re going to make that kind of break with the sport’s heritage, you should have a good reason for it. This isn’t it. It’s clear the motivation for introducing sprint races is entirely financial – they haven’t decided how they will work, but they have decided they want them.

As I wrote earlier this week, it’s hard to see how sprint races would enhance the competition unless the rule-makers resort to some gimmick like the (thankfully abandoned) reverse grids scheme to mix things up.

As has been pointed out countless times before – including by several drivers – Formula 1’s new technical regulations for next season have been meticulously researched to deliver the improved racing action and better championship competition which is desired by so many. Reading the initial feedback from readers to the sprint races idea earlier this week, I saw the same sentiment expressed many times, and found myself wishing those running the sport had the same patience and confidence in the quality of its product many of its fans do.

You say

Do you want to see Formula 1’s trial of sprint races go ahead this year? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Do you agree Formula 1 should trial sprint races this year?

  • No opinion (0%)
  • Strongly disagree (56%)
  • Slightly disagree (15%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (4%)
  • Slightly agree (12%)
  • Strongly agree (12%)

Total Voters: 285

Loading ... Loading ...

A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

143 comments on “Should Formula 1 trial sprint races during 2021?”

  1. teams believe introducing an “even more exciting weekend format” is of “major importance [in] engaging fans”

    So *THAT’S* why 99% of comments on F1 news outlets by fans are negative. i see.

    1. Exactly, keep everything as is and come 2022 with the new regulations this sprint race bull— will hopefully be forgotten. The simple fact is Mercedes need regular challengers every weekend not just once in a while. More competition at the front is the fix not manufacturing the on track competition by mixing the grid up.

    2. Are they? I dont see 99% at all first commentator pushing your view

      1. 99% correct 33% of the time.

      2. Well i went down the comments section on F1s official instagram under the announcement of this contraption and the engine freeze waaaay further than i feel comfortable admitting too, and it seems to check out roughly

    3. I didn’t realize *fans* was accepted usage as an abbreviation for *sponsors*.

  2. Let’s see what the full proposal actually is. Without reverse grid I don’t really see the point of a sprint race.

    I’m not averse to change – F1 has constantly changed and adapted its offering. Turbos, ground effects, single lap quali, points for fastest lap, points for top 6, DRS, KERS, indy 500, qualifying over two sessions on Fridays and Saturdays… The list goes on.

    Don’t agree that we must keep the status quo just because it’s always been like that.

    1. Do it please. F1 is too pretentious and conservative, give it a try… If it doesnt work, then it doesn’t work. It is about time f1 moved with the times. The best teams and drivers come to the fore in any racing formula, but one thing F1 is down on compared to other racing series is ‘entertainment’ for the casual majority viewers. There is not much competition, so give it a go. Often the most passes are made on lap 1 and turn 1. Twice a race weekend seeing f1 starts will make it instantly more interestesting even if it doesnt change much of the results in the end.

      1. moved with the times

        What times are those exactly?

      2. Coventry Climax
        14th February 2021, 23:34

        “If it doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work.” Can you define ‘work’ please?
        Because that’s the problem with this, the thing is fake, but they want it anyhow, for financial reasons,
        so they’ll say ‘it works wonderfully’ no matter how it ‘works’.
        Same with the Pirelli tyres, same with DRS (‘We still ‘need’ it – Brawn’.), same with the hybrid engines, same with etc. etc.
        I have a distinct feeling the deal’s done and dusted, and we’ll get it crammed through our throats.
        And we haven’t heard or seen the last of reverse grid either.

    2. I’m up for change too but for me the full proposal has to have separate qualifyings for the two races, otherwise Keith’s words will be all too true: “They would most likely serve to making the starting grid for the grand prix more similar to a race result than a qualifying session, making Sunday’s event more processional.”

      Also if the qualy is on Friday people who work won’t see it live.

      1. 2 events, 1 weekend
        Friday practice
        Saturday 1 qualifying 1 race
        Sunday 1 qualifying 1 race

      2. Also if the qualy is on Friday people who work won’t see it live.

        This. People in F1 thinks that Fridays have less attendance due to no competitive sessions being held. But it’s not the reason. The reason is that Friday is a normal work day and people are working. You cannot simply go to your boss and say “Hey tomorrow I’m not working because I’m going to the F1”

    3. I see a difference between tech-regulation and sporting regs.
      Technology shall evolve & change, the more the better.
      But the sport-regs were always quite stable;
      gives orientation, to evaluate the difference in technology.
      If you change the course of a track every year, the track record of the past has ZERO meaning.
      If you want to keep your customers, the fans busy (while their sparetime — seeking for relaxation & entertainment) then you change everything, always.
      Whereby the most successful sports run under quite stable rules: football, tennis etc.
      F1’s seasons were quite disputed, among title contenders, in many eras, and under stable sporting regulation.

  3. It was funny looking through the comments on the official F1 Instagram after they announced the news there – responses ranging from ‘no’ to ‘absolutely no’. I wonder whether F1 will listen to the fans – this is something that none of them want!

    1. How many real racing fans use instagram? I dont

      1. I follow my favorite team and a couple of drivers on Instagram, and I would consider myself a “real” racing fan.

      2. @kpcart I do, and also Twitter.

      3. Ok Boomer

      4. Great sample size

      5. One quick question: What’s your thoughts on the horrible January attacks?

    2. I think the issue here @georgeod is that F1 are not necessarily looking to please their current fans, but want to attract new ones. They have calculated that most current fans will complain but largely keep watching, and that this new format gives a better chance of attracting new audiences.

      The same happens in many sports. The England and Wales Cricket Board, for example, are pressing ahead with a new hundred-ball format for 2021 with all-new franchise teams, even though fans of the existing county teams (and many of the teams themselves) are vehemently opposed. But it’s not about them – it’s about the hordes of potential new fans that the ECB presumes must exist somewhere, but are put off by existing forms of cricket being at least 20 balls too long.

      1. We all know how to get new fans.
        Get F1 back to “free to view” on TV and the internet.

        1. @w-k a thousand times, this.

    3. Well this is why I only slightly disagree</em, because it is supposed to be a trial, I would strongly disagree if it were imposed without trial.

    4. @georgeod I guess ignoring the majority to push a narrative with fake democracy (polling) is called ‘moving with the times’ now..

      1. @balue
        Its about sample size and the actual samples themselves.
        73% of 213 respondents here are against it.
        Over at F1FanVoice, 50% of 1387 respondents feel positive about it.

        1. @balue that means, over at F1Fan Voice 50% feel negative about it.

          1. @chrisr1718
            32%, right now – which is a lot less than 73%.
            20% are undecided/don’t care.

  4. I honestly don’t see the point of sprint races if they aren’t reverse grid or using some other form of balancing or alternate challenge.
    One of the main things that makes F1 dull is that one team is always faster than the rest, and the only way to make them actually race is to put them back into the pack – an extra qualifying race only serves to make that even less likely. They’ll just spend more of the weekend out in front on their own.

    A sprint race in this format will add nothing to F1. I’d rather watch F2 and F3 races than an F1 sprint race.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      13th February 2021, 13:05

      Yeah I agree – on the odd occasion something goes wrong for Mercedes, they now have an extra session to save themselves. 99% of the time, they’ll just cruise around in 1st without having to risk anything.

      On a more selfish note, it being on Friday means I’ll never watch quali anymore and it’ll be another reason to lose a bit of interest in F1.

    2. I dont agree with you. Say If a redbull jumps a mercedes into turn one of a sprint race, mercedes wont be able to undercut them to pass in pits on lap 20, as there wont be pit stops, so the mercedes will have to fight on track. This kind of fighting will go on down the field instead of tyre and fuel preservation.

      1. So it will be procession in a different order?
        Why would they fight on Saturday when they can just undercut them on Sunday? That’s when it actually matters.

      2. @kpcart, Exactly why I have been campaigning to get rid of unessential pit stops since BCE introduced re-fuelling.

        1. I was campaigning, too !
          Can we team up ?
          Because there seems to be room for more improvement, in this sport

    3. I say the same

  5. If no points are awarded, my answer is neither agree nor disagree (I guess there’s no harm really in trying it, but I think it will make the weekend worse, not better). If points are awarded, my answer is strongly disagree, as it would devalue the Grand Prix and would ruin tradition, because it would be a second race per weekend, rather than a different qualifying format (as it would be if no points were awarded). So for now, my answer is slightly disagree, but this will change depending on this later, crucial decision over whether or not championship points are awarded.

    1. Actually, I think I would still have voted slightly disagree even if we knew that no points would be awarded. Keith makes a very good point about patience. There are lots of new rules coming in 2022, and surely we should at least wait until then. The 2022 rules might improve the show anyway, and we won’t need to resort to sprint races. And even if the main Grand Prix was not devalued by the sprint race (if points weren’t awarded), qualifying certainly would be devalued, and I really enjoy qualifying. The sprint race does seem a bit pointless being between qualifying and the race, and I think it would actually make the weekend less exciting, not more; but it is only a trial, and hopefully the F1 bosses would have the sense to get rid of it if it was making the weekend worse (or even if it was making no difference). However, as I said before, my main objection to sprint races is if points were awarded.

      1. If this poll votes overwhelmingly against sprint races:


        1. I don’t trust this poll, @f1frog.
          It’s probably based on dead people voting or suitcases with ballots appearing from under the table.

          Only a few months ago the fanatic fans on this site voted that the most recent sprint race (Monza 2020) was one of the best races ever (69% voted 9 or 10). And if it wasn’t the length of the race after the red flag then it was the unpredictability (similar to a reverse grid race).
          I can’t believe that those same fanatic fans now suddenly voted against a sprint race.

          1. I think the single reason why Monza was so popular was that Pierre Gasly won (it’s why I enjoyed it. It was the unpredictability (as you mentioned) and nothing to do with the short race after the red flag. Now I know this makes it seem like reverse grids are a good idea, but Gasly winning a reverse grid race wouldn’t be special in any way. It would seem fake, and it would mean very little, because it was not done on merit. You could argue that his Monza win was not on merit because it required a lot of luck, but it still meant more than a win from a reverse grid race. Races like Monza are also more special because they are rare, and reverse grids would make it less exciting if this happened again in a real Grand Prix, and would also devalue the win that Gasly got.

            I thought the Italian GP was a brilliant race, because Gasly won, but I would not want that happening every weekend, for reasons mentioned above, so I am against reverse grids. And I think the popularity of Monza was nothing to do with the second half being like a sprint race, as the sprint races next year will be nothing like that.

          2. @coldfly @f1frog To be fair the Italian GP was already shaping up to be a great race even before the red flag – it was not clear who was going to be on the podium, which is more than can be said for most GPs at half-distance in 2020. Hamilton’s penalty (which was earned before the red flag) would have only heightened the drama further even without Leclerc’s crash.

            I am sure the Gasly factor helped, but it was not the only thing that created excitement that weekend.

          3. @coldfly, no matter how the fans voted, the result would be Pastor Maldonado getting Hamilton’s contract.

  6. I voted for slightly disagree. Although I, like most, am generally against the idea, I could still live with having spring races on three weekends should it get the green light.

    1. How about winter races for some weekends?

  7. why not… sounds rather fun.

    More Racing = more action

    in terms of losing a link to the past, Formula 1 has changed the way it’s run loads of times in the past.
    There was a time when a car could be shared over the course of a race.
    There was a time when the Indy 500 counted towards the championship, despite the normal F1 drivers not taking part.
    there was a time when a team could buy it’s car from another team / constructor.
    There was a time when being a racing driver meant literally being on the edge of a nasty and fiery death.

    Change is part of F1’s DNA. I’m sure some fans were upset when the original qualifying format was dropped in favour of what we have now.

    I would never call sprint races a gimmick, it is still just plain racing after all. And other series have sprint races and no one questions those.

    Bring it on, I say.

    1. @napierrailton More racing doesn’t necessarily always equal more action, but otherwise, I agree with you on your points in principle.

    2. @napierrailton – I’m with you on this too.

    3. I do kind of miss drivers sprinting to the paddock to get in the T-car when their car stalled on the formation lap.

  8. Clearly this website has a strong bias against given the amount of articles asking this exact question.

    I voted strongly for. The argument about the history and tradition of F1 and ‘severing the link to the past’ is ridiculous given the points system has changed repeatedly and even in the time I’ve watched I’ve seen at least three different qualifying formats. Greatest points scorer in the sport’s history? How can you fairly compare Hamilton to someone like Senna when the points structure was vastly different? To imply change and evolution hasn’t been a major part of F1’s history is ridiculous and makes me wonder what sport you’ve watched. This sport literally changes year by year.

    Also, this total resistance to change or trying new things baffles me. This sport literally thrives on innovation, evolution and outright change – every season it’s similar but slightly different. Experimentation with the format, with the engines, with the race weekend is something to be encouraged, not disparaged. Reading so many ‘F1 fans’ commenting ‘NO’ to any form of change, adaptation or even just TRYING something new is deeply disappointing. The most bizarre part is none of these changes are ‘final’ – they’re just being trialled, experimented with. We don’t even need to keep them!

    1. @rocketpanda In other words, should F1 introduce ‘fanboost’ or similar you will be all for it since it will be a change, and we should all be for change. Ok got you.

      1. I’m not saying whether they should or shouldn’t, or whether it’s a good idea or not – just that its worth at least trying. None of these changes are permenant or being suggested as such. I’m advocating for trying new things, not dismissing them immediately without even trying.

    2. @rocketpanda your right about things changing, but they’re more about regulating the cars and costs, not about changing the format of a weekend to that degree.

      I’m not overly against the idea of “trialing” some things, but in this case, with just 3, it’s going to be far too easy to skew the “fan” opinions so that we’ll rather rapidly descend into the sort of “keep things short” madness that seems to be taking over a lot of sports.

      I think if they just called it “qualifying” instead of a sprint race, it might get more support, even though it’s the same thing, it has a different connotation in the mind of viewers.

      Me, personally, I really wish they’d show some patience. If the new regulations
      and budget caps work, we should see a whole different (and more interesting) F1 anyway, so why not wait?

    3. Nobody cares about points scorers. Nobody.
      People care about stats like pole positions.
      That’s the difference @rocketpanda.
      Thing is that doesn’t fit with today’s throwaway society. There’s no subtlety to anything, just action and overtakes. Bah humbug.

    4. I see a difference between tech-regulation and sporting regs.
      Technology shall evolve & change, the more the better.
      But the sport-regs were always quite stable;
      gives orientation, to evaluate the difference in technology. (Starting to fiddle qith Q-format was a fault, too.)
      If you change the course of a track every year, the track record of the past has ZERO meaning.
      If you want to keep your customers, the fans busy (while their sparetime — seeking for relaxation & entertainment) then you change everything, always.
      Whereby the most successful sports run under quite stable rules: football, tennis etc.
      And these are simple rules.
      If you want new fans, kids, women, families: keep the rules simple !
      F1’s seasons were quite disputed, among title contenders, in many eras, and under stable sporting regulation.

  9. Oh dear, I find myself in a bit of a dilemma here. On the one hand I like to watch F1 cars racing, on the other I am a bit of a fuddy duddy when it come to change, I don’t like it. I still think that the old single lap qualifying was the best way, one car out on the track driving at max speed with no chance of a qualifying lap being spoilt by a yellow/red flag, another car on the wrong line or a Schumacher. To add yet another factor into the determination of the grid positions for the Sunday seems like a bad idea to a stick in the mud like me. Yet I want to see the cars racing. So, as the initial proposals are for only three races, I am going to say to say that perhaps we should suck it and see and so I have voted for “slightly agree”.

    1. the old Qualifying was even better: just let them run.
      Enough time to shine for the back benchers, in the beginning, and the Superhotshotlaps in the end.
      Today, they cannot featuure ONE entire run, as it is always too busy in the track.
      And to explain it to newbies, including tyre regullation, is not that easy.

  10. I can see the benefits, could get better social media coverage with race highlights on a Saturday and Sunday. Not sure how the Friday qualifying would work though as people generally work on a Friday. May as well scrap it altogether and start the sprint race in championship order.

    1. @emu55 Canada and Brazil QLFs fall into the evening in Europe, so not much difference in this regard. Only Monza’s QLF falls into the afternoon, so this would affect European viewership on Friday.

  11. I went for slightly agree. I am not particularly in favour of sprint races, but compared to many of the other proposals this one is fairly tame.

    Qualifying in its form of a timed lap contest remains intact, which is critical for maintaining the historical link. Reverse grids are nowhere to be found, thankfully. And finally, this is a limited three-race trial being mooted, which is a good way to test the water.

    I am not sure it will add much, but if this idea is ever going to go away it needs to be trialled and proven not to work. A bit like the 2016 elimination qualifying format, except this time it’s actually been thought wise to go for a limited trial rather than a wholesale blind format change.

    Summary: by far the lesser of suggested evils, let’s try it then (probably) can it.

  12. Given the universal desire to combat the larger problem of aero-dependence and it’s effect on racing, which will hopefully be addressed come 2022, I think it’s pretty spurious to claim fans are opposed to all change. And does anyone really compare points tallies? It’s always wins, poles and championships, metrics that people never fail to point out are skewed by era.

    Speaking for myself, I have no problem with concept of changes to the sport, I’m just reluctant when it comes to those that would fundamentally alter the DNA of F1. It’s a case of evolution vs. revolution. By all means tweak engine formulae and aero regulations, that’s always gone on. I was happy they evolved the qualifying format to the current version. I just don’t see how they can reasonably incorporate these trials into the world championship without it diminishing the affair. Try it in a non-championship event, or with young drivers or in lower formulae, just don’t foist it onto the pinnacle of motorsport, claiming it’s for the fans, when that’s patently not true. Hell, on the evidence of the last few years, why not just wait until LH inevitably wraps up his 8th with a few rounds to spare and then give it a go?

    1. Meant as a reply to @rocketpanda

      1. @tomd11 And I don’t see how it diminishes the affair. We’d still have traditional quali on Friday (I’m calling it pre-quali) and hence a more potent day, then a more exciting way to qualify on Saturday, and then the Sunday race as always. I don’t understand what is so upsetting the apple cart. A bit of extra racing?The horror.

        1. Given the current standard of racing that’s hardly anything to write home about and if they do shunt quali to Fridays, that’s not exactly going to drive up viewership or fan engagement. Then we’d essentially start the now 33% longer GP on Saturday, red flag it after quarter distance (with the front-runners getting some bonus points) and restart it on the Sunday. Why? How is that more exciting?

          1. @tomd11 Let’s see what the format for the Saturday session actually turns out to be, but I sure do not think it will work out to be just the first third of the race that will be completed on Sunday. It is a qualifying race for pole position and the rest of the running order, and will likely be run under different circumstances such as low fuel, in my mind only one set of tires and no pit stops. A sprint. Then they will start the race on Sundays as usual with full fuel and a tire strategy and the need to stop at least once.

            Anyway, you want to take the pessimistic side of this, and that’s fine of course and the majority seem with you, but I’m confident they (F1 and teams) will have sussed out fears such as yours of this appearing like a Saturday race interrupted to be continued Sunday. I think they’ll make sure it still feels like Saturday quali and a Sunday race. One small way to do that is not award points for Saturday. I don’t want that and I don’t see the need. The winner wins pole, not points, just as now.

  13. And put cementblocks on the fastest cars too…goodbye F1

    1. Funny thing is they are already doing this with the wind tunnel restrictions @melthom. Total bs.

    2. I’m referring to the situation not your comment just to make absolutely sure!!

  14. I chose slightly disagree. It is a good thing they do a try-out first instead of a n immediate change. Maybe it is good to try something new. But I just don’t get the point of this change. This would result in qualifying to move to a working day (I would deerly miss seeing qualy live). More importantly: why would the main race be much different from the sprint race? I think the sprint race would dilute the value of the “Grand Prix”.
    Why would a casual viewer watch the GP if the sprintrace was a procession?

  15. Can’t wait to see this in Monaco. God, enough with the gimmicks, make F1 more exciting if you can, don’t create something new that’s “more exciting”.

  16. @napierrailton

    More Racing = more action

    Or simply moves action we would usually see during the GP to Saturday therefore making the GP less interesting/exciting.

    For instance if somebody qualifies out of position they will make those places up in the sprint race which has the knock-on effect of taking away that bit of excitement from the main race. And even without anybody been out of position after qualifying your still going to potentially have position changes that would have taken place during the GP take place the day before which may again rob the GP of some action.

    Additionally by deciding the grid for the GP in a race you are deciding the grid based off actual race pace which will then more than likely make the GP more static.

    And in a short sprint race your also lacking most of the elements that actually help make F1 races interesting. Things like strategy, Some level of management & other elements that result in different drivers/cars having different levels of pace at different points during a GP.

    Not to mention how I don’t like the prospect of something been trailed for 3 races potentially deciding the championship. And not simply the top spot but positions further down where let’s not forget you have millions in prize money on the line.

    1. Great points and the point you made about the GP being less exciting on Sunday has been the first and only thing I’ve been thinking about since this idea came up. This may engage newer younger fans that seem to have the need for non stop action but for the loyal hardcore fans who enjoy the weekend process as is and who have supported F1 to where it is today will be getting what they have said not to do.

    2. @stefmeister Imho you continue to peddle only one scenario, that being that any blips on Friday that would have then ‘normally’ meant for a more exciting race start order, will automatically be erased in the sprint qualifying on Saturday. I think that is making an assumption. There are a hundred scenarios, and historically it is more likely that there are few blips in the normal order of things after the existing quali, unless there has been weather. They usually end up starting about where we would expect them to. A sprint quali on Saturday could just as easily alter the starting order as your scenario of ironing it out. It certainly adds another element or chance to perhaps sometimes upset what is usually a pretty predictable starting grid. And I think moreso once the cars are far less inhibited in someone’s dirty air.

      Let’s also imagine the scenarios such as a dry Friday but a wet Saturday, or a wet Friday and then a dry Saturday. It will not be some locked in scenario just because you want to imagine the worst case. And what is the worst case anyway? They qualify in an order as expected on Friday, then we get to watch an exciting sprint race on Saturday and that doesn’t change the order much either, and then they go racing on Sunday as normal. All in the dry. Guess that’s the worst case scenario. The horror.

      1. I agree with you @robbie
        How often do people qualify “out of position” as opposed to finishing out of position – because of a race incident, or something wrong with their car? Or a Vettel spin? The sprint race could alter the normal order more than qualifying I think. Imagine someone qualifying in 5th and finishing the sprint race in 15th because of an incident. Then that person will have to catch up on Sunday.

  17. Just try it first. Don’t hate it without trying.

    1. @barbsandwich – how very dare you have such a reasonable opinion John!

    2. How long should we try it though? You’d need a whole season to judge it fairly, not a few races for example.

      So no it’s not a “reasonable opinion”.

      DRS was also ‘temporary’.

      @barbsandwich @ahxshades

  18. Interesting to see the comments regarding it being sensible, or at least acceptable, to run a trial of this system from some of the same groups that were quite vocal in rejecting trialling reverse grids….
    F1 have just pulled the classic old bargaining trick – ask for one thing and negotiate down to another, when all they really wanted was the thing they are going to end up getting.

  19. For me some of the best action of the weekend is with 2 or 3 minutes to go in Q3 on Saturday, I’ve been looked at like I have a mental problem by my wife when someone puts in a fast lap, she always asks “ what’s so exciting about that? They’re not even racing”. Well, only hardcore F1 fans will get what I’m talking about. Saturday sets up the excitement for Sunday especially if a Red Bull gets in between a Mercedes or a Ferrari grabs the pole. Saturday sprint races I genuinely feel will take away that feeling of looking forward to waking up at 4 or 5AM to watch the GP and the thought of not knowing who has what pace. Saturday may be a quick shot of adrenaline but come Sunday that adrenaline will slowly wear off to the point of not setting the alarm clock to watch on Sunday.

  20. Won’t create excitement; it’s just a short GP.
    Ruins qualifying (fastest in quali =/= pole for the GP.
    Devalues the GP by awarding points/podiums in sprint.
    Tackles a problem that doesn’t exist.
    Might screw up the championship (imagine title wrapped up on Saturday in Sao Paolo)
    Pathetic attempt to increase revenue without realising that much of F1’s value comes from it’s rich history – not gimmicks like this.

  21. I think they should wait to see whether the season is a forgone conclusion first which has a 99% probability of happening.

  22. The contamination of Formula 1 from the export of American problems and values is bad enough already (since last year especially). We do not need anything to artificially spice it up.

  23. Just a gimmick to make top drivers/teams start at back on Saturday, see them overtaking and winning on Sunday and sell it as an “epic win” for Hamilton/Bottas/Whoever. I really see the point on doing this in minor competitions like F2/F3, since they can’t really afford travel 20+ times a year, so condensate several races in a weekend seems a wise solution. But in F1… Just another desperate try to “bring fans action” with (almost) nobody asking for changes on Saturday. So FIA/Liberty Media, if you just want exciting races just rule following the principle of “most money==fastest”, and just drop Friday. Less training equals more impredictable races.

    1. Little erratas here and there:
      Just a gimmick to make top drivers/teams start at back afer Saturday
      following the principle of “most money!=fastest”

  24. Hehe, fans demand more fun, yet dont want any change.

    1. @jureo as has been pointed out in this article though, it’s one thing to say “we should change things”, and another to actually come up with a credible suggestion.

      Right now, what we have is really just a vague suggestion from Liberty Media and a commitment from the FIA to create a committee that is meant to try and turn that vague suggestion into some sort of workable plan – nobody has looked at what circuits this is meant to take place at, whether or not points will be awarded for the sprint race, how long the sprint race is meant to be, what changes would be made to tyre allocations or whether there would be changes to engine allocations.

      The financial side is currently also a major sticking point – Liberty Media are reportedly offering a fairly negligible financial incentive, with some teams arguing the changes are potentially revenue neutral or even likely to cost them more money than they might make from such races.

  25. I’m for this. More racing, more action, more drama, more variety, and sure possibly more money and long term stability for F1. F1 tradition and history is lost on the new viewers – deliver it via other means during the weekend. Change is a constant everywhere and I applaud the owners and teams for being bold in the name of improving competition and the entertainment.

    1. Nicely said Brian.

  26. Mr Michael D Counsell
    13th February 2021, 15:15

    I’d like to see it. Something a bit different. Hopefully they don’t run Q1 then Q2 and then Q3 on Friday. That would be excessive especially considering its during the working week for most of the world. Just a Q1 session after practice then a sprint race on Saturday to replace Q2 and Q3.

  27. Fans complain about the racing. F1 designs new rules to combat this. Now instead of waiting to see whether the new rules have the intended effect and the fans are satisfied, they think what we really want is even more of the generally poor racing we currently have. What’s the rush? If the new rules don’t have the desired effect then I could understand the desire to tinker with the format but maybe just give it a season or two before shoehorning in more gimmickry.

    All I want is a formula where, if someone has a poor qualifying session, skill and strategy allow them to still be in the mix, not a sprint that will essentially represent the first 25% of a normal (if slightly longer), red-flagged grand prix.

    1. @tomd11 Except that this isn’t about whether or not fans are complaining about the racing. This is about F1 asking themselves and fans if there might be a more exciting way to qualify.

      And if you want to keep quali as it is, which may well happen, it won’t matter that the cars will be able to race more closely come 2022, for they will just be doing the usual clean air individual runs, well spaced apart from each other, anyway. The new cars will only really show their closer race ability on Sunday and this is about qualifying on Saturday, so it’s not really a matter of waiting and seeing is it? But of course to me if they were to go ahead with sprint qualifiers it would be better for the teams and drivers if, in a short number of sprint laps, they aren’t held up the whole time in dirty air handcuffed.


    Just a bunch of random thoughts as I’ve already opined so much on this lately.

    Formats have changed before.

    If this is actually strictly for financial reasons I’m fine with that. I want F1 to be healthy, profitable, and sustainable. Making money shouldn’t be made to sound like a negative. It’s not like this has the feel of a BE/CVC run F1. If they can make a better product and enhance F1 and grow the demand for it and make money that only helps us fans. Sounds like normal business to me. Companies tend to try to be profitable and grow.

    Why can’t this just be seen as a more exciting way to qualify?

    F1 wouldn’t be losing the beloved 72 year long history of qualifying as that will still be seen on Fridays. I think of it as pre-qualifying.

    I think one of the better arguments against this is let’s wait and see due to the new cars coming, however, their close racing ability would not be noticed in a traditional quali format anyway. Quali would still be a solo affair, everyone in clean air, no matter the car. But in a sprint race there will be the benefit of much less time with faster cars stuck in dirty air.

    Also, is the current format that exciting? Why is it the be all and end all?

    When one looks at the past formats of qualifying it is clear they simply jumped in and tried things, and sometimes had to quickly jump out, be it after a few races, or after one season. So a three race trial that is being asked for by the owners? Liberty and Brawn deserve this trial. At least they are asking for a fair judgement of a potential better way, and given their massive overhauling of F1 they deserve to play with their entity a bit. This experiment is a big step in democratically determining this.

    I just don’t want points awarded. It’s still qualifying just because it is a sprint race. Friday to me is just pre-qualifying.

    This is not about enhancing the competition for the race, but merely about a more exciting session on Saturday, and Friday gets to be more exciting as a result.

    Whether or not it adds much to the weekend I certainly don’t see what would be taken away.

    The only thing constant in F1 is change. Oh and Sunday races.

  29. Feels like a good time to not be able to watch anymore from the UK. Qualifying and Race is what F1 is and should be in the future, this is a mess.

    1. Same goes for offensive words on the team radio just like in Portugal.

  30. I would prefer it to be done on non-championship events. Don’t do it on official races, this isn’t F2, F3 or Super Formula.

  31. Jose Lopes da Silva
    13th February 2021, 17:27

    I don’t like the current qualifying system, so it’s fine by me. Although I don’t think it’s going to work.

  32. Keith echoes my view here:

    If you’re going to make that kind of break with the sport’s heritage, you should have a good reason for it. This isn’t it. It’s clear the motivation for introducing sprint races is entirely financial – they haven’t decided how they will work, but they have decided they want them

    These changes to the sport should come from the FIA, the teams, or the GPDA, not from the company that owns commercial rights. They want sprint races because they think it will make for better or more marketable TV, not better races.

    1. I voted strongly disagree, and it is good to see that 75% of fans don’t want them either.

  33. So the actual root problems are that the same team/teams is/are always at the front and that these aero-dependent cars have difficulty following each other and racing each other, all of which tends to make the races less exciting, less of a “show” (ugh, what’s that taste in my mouth?). Next year we’ll introduce radical aero changes that could very well shake up the pecking order as the cars need radical redesigns, plus these same new rules are actually meant to tackle the dirty air problem. Shall we wait to see for certain whether these changes have the desired effect? Hell no! While we’re at it, let’s ruin the one part that’s been working well these past few years, the qualifying format. That way, next year, we won’t know if it’s the rules or the qualifying that is improving the show or continues to ruin it. I’ve got it – let’s also increase DRS so we get continuous passing, because that is the definition of good racing: lots of passing. That will draw the casual fan in and that’s what it’s all about.

    So much for this round of “spot the sarcasm”. I sometimes wonder how much of F1 these people running it have been watching or if they care more about the “product” and its shareholder value than the sport.

  34. Has the FIA or F1 addressed the inevitability of accidents and crashes during the sprint races and how that will affect the entire race weekend?

  35. What “it” is this Sprint Race supposed to be a measure of? It isn’t a measure of who is the fastest doing one timed lap of the circuit, because that is what Qualifying measures. It isn’t a test of skill, speed, consistency, endurance, teamwork, design, aerodynamics, and strategy, because that is what the Race measures. So we’re going to have a race that appears to have no reason to exist. The result isn’t a measure of anything distinctive.
    The only thing I can think of is to make the Sprint Race more a measure of driver’s skill and less about how good the car is as well, but how could that work? Maybe the Sprint race would be more meaningful if every car had the same engine in it. But every car is different from the wheel rims up, only the tires are the same. As I think about it, maybe a team should turn up with 4 cars instead of 2, the current one used for Qualifying and the Race and a second car that is lighter, has a smaller fuel tank, no hybrid system, more standardised aerodynamics and with a standard engine, e.g. Cosworth using a synthetic fuel. This would also have the advantage that if the Sprint Race car was seriously damaged in an accident then the mechanics don’t have to rush to fix the car, they can leave repairs until after the Race, and again if the Race car was damaged in Qualifying then having a separate car for the Sprint Race gives the mechanics more time to repair it for the Race. So Qualifying measures the driver’s ability to drive his Race car fast over one lap, the Sprint race would then be more a measure of the drivers’ skills using the standardised Sprint car, and then the Race would be where the drivers, the teams, and their Race cars compete. I’m not sure how whether or not the Sprint result should be used to influence the Race Starting Grid, or whether they should hand out points just like they do for the Race, but I think handing out some points would be better, e.g. half points.

    1. @drycrust I suspect sprint races aren’t really intended to measure anything. I’m not even sure they’re intended to improve the actual GP. What are, currently, the most exciting parts of races? The standing grid start and the first few corners, or laps sometimes, because there’s usually an immediate mixing up of places, overtakes, and maybe a few drivers making dramatic gains or losses. After a few laps, this mixed up order begins to ‘unkink’ as drivers who are faster (them and/or the car) move up the grid, and vice-versa with slower drivers/cars who jumped ahead falling back. At most those ‘out of position’ ahead manage to hang on until the first pit stop. So ideally these sprint races would be just a few laps, as that’s where the excitement and mixed up order is. An hour is way too long, the order will probably be back to ‘normal’. But an hour is what’s mooted because it has to fit the one hour qualifying time slot… But even if they were shorter and the qualifying order a bit more messy than usual, so what? When the actual GP starts, the same logic applies, this time over a two-hour race. All in all, sprint races just seem a compromise on reverse order grids, too unpopular with teams and drivers to be viable. An attempt to generate a similar effect but ‘legitimately.’

  36. Simple solution for the weekend if sprint races are deemed necessary:
    – 1 qualifying (Friday) that determines both Saturday & Sunday grids
    – Saturday grid is reversed according to driver or constructor standings (top 8 score points)
    – Sunday race grid is traditional

    History of qualifying and race will remain fairly in tact this way.

    PS. F1 can also have a mini championship called the Sprint King (and team) where the winner of most sprint races are crowned at the end of the season.

  37. Jose Lopes da Silva
    13th February 2021, 19:26

    Moreover, I think people are caring about form over substance. The commercial rights holder is thinking about money.
    I agree, I think the teams need more money. The presence of Stroll and Mazepin is way more damaging to the sporting truth than having sprint races on Saturday.

    1. Tis true, however there is loads of money in F1. It’s just not distributed fairly enough to allow for healthy competition. If they only made things like the aero and engine simpler.

  38. A few additional thoughts:
    Sprint winners should not be classified as GP winners but GP sprinters, not to muddle with history.
    The Sprint King is detemined by wins & positions, not points (unless there is a draw). Just to further differentiate with the main GP and championship.

    Ps. I’m offering these suggestions hoping some semblance of tradition can be kept while adding “something” to the show as the FIA/F1 seem determined to do.

  39. I’m against because it diminished the value of the race, and knowing the new owners, these Saturday races will soon have points.

    Then they will push hard for reverse grids. Maybe some ‘fanboost’ or whatever.

    My reference for all this ‘fun stuff’ is Indycar with their endless safety car / yellow flag periods / whatever they called it, that in the beginning made the races quite exciting, but after a while I realized I lost interest because it was not genuine.

    I’d rather have something honest and pure than circus, even if it’s more ‘boring’. I still can’t believe F1 won’t look at football and not get the point.

  40. I’m for trialing it. I don’t think the idea has merit but trials are fine.

    As long as it is trialed like a trial should be trialed. With measurable outcomes and performed by an unbiased actor. If it’s just a trial to see how it “feels” to a small group who will say it works even if doesn’t bring anything positive then that will be really disappointing.

    1. As I put above though, how long should this trial be? @skipgamer and what are the criteria for success? Sounds like the DRS trial.
      The qualifying trial comparisons are different because the changes proposed here are huge.

  41. For me, “strongly disagree” only begins to cover it.

    1. 👏 +1

  42. F1 is a sprint race. Anyone who’s been trackside can tell you how amazing formula one cars are (as can fans who haven’t necessarily been to a race). Pandering to the ever decreasing attention spans of the populace seems the wrong way to go for me. More emphasis on how amazing F1 is and promoting the product to convince people it’s worth spending 2 hours on a Sunday afternoon should be the focus I would say.

    1. Pandering to the ever decreasing attention spans of the populace

      Perfectly put @tommy-c

  43. We’re apparently living in the “new normal” so why not? Our lives have been changed forever, why shouldn’t F1 suffer too?

  44. I voted ‘whatever’ (middle option) because it’s just 3 GPs.
    But reallly the idea is completely nonsensical. Do any fans who watch qualifying think qualifying is the problem now? No, most think the GPs (and/or Mercedes dominance) are the problem. So sprint qualifying doesn’t solve that. And if races are the problem, why would you want to double their number (!) before resolving the issues?! At best you’re going to create slightly more ‘exciting’ sprint races that are actually virtually meaningless (no points awarded or just a few token points) and GPs that seem even duller by comparison.
    I actually like most Formula 1 races in general even now but have nothing against shuffling the order or making the racing better – if possible. But as Keith argues, that’s already in the pipeline for next year. This idea just seems like a case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among people with too much time on their hands (i.e. not the actual teams).

    1. @david-br They don’t think qualifying is the problem nor do they think that fans think it is. They are merely exploring for a more exciting way to qualify. This isn’t about races, it is about Saturday qualifying. They have addressed the problem with races with the wholly new regs. The sprint races would not be meaningless. They would set the pole sitter and the rest of the starting order for Sunday. Why is it adhd to seek out a potential more exciting way to qualify, to enhance the amount of action during a GP weekend?

      Personally I am usually enthralled for a few minutes at the end of the one hour qualifying. And not enthralled about anything on Friday. Of course I always watch both and love doing so. That’s what we have and I’m utterly grateful. Can it be more exciting? I think so. The pre-quali on Friday would make me look even more forward to Fridays, and the sprint quali on Saturday would be, to me, more exciting than the hour we have now. Sundays are still going to be Sundays but they have all agreed on massive infrastructure changes to make those much more exciting for 2022 onwards. I’m absolutely fine if they don’t change Friday or Saturday, especially as Sundays will become much better, but that doesn’t mean Fridays and Saturdays can’t be better too. The new close-racing cars won’t show themselves to be such on solo practice day nor solo time trial day, so no this is not about enhancing the competition or the racing. It is merely about a potential more exciting way to qualify. F1 seems to be game to try. I think Liberty have earned at least a trial on this.

      1. @robbie You have two things being tested at any circuit: one lap speed, and racing speed over how many laps. If you introduce a third competition, you’re going to take from one or both. Personally I’d call the sprint races ‘pre-races’, not Friday one-lap qualifiying ‘pre-qualifying’, because I think the focus for qualification should be on one lap speed – and that will at least maintain comparability in terms of qualifying stats over previous decades of Formula 1. If that’s done, I’m a bit easier about making the change. Will sprint races add to the weekend and at least not detract from GPs? Well, let’s find out. The one positive I can think of is that it will increase the chance of weather (rain) affecting the outcome with either Saturday or Sunday catching rain.

        1. @david-br I just don’t see nor get why a sprint quali race has to take away from one or both of regular quali and the race. Why isn’t it just a more exciting way to qualify for Sunday’s race? For me I don’t think it is as accurate to call Saturday’s event a pre-race because indeed it would determine the pole sitter and the rest of the race start order. That makes it qualifying. That’s why I call Friday pre-qualifying, and for those who prefer that, well it’s not being taken away.

          As to your weather comment, yeah that remains a desirable hope…that weather will intervene and add some variety to F1, but not to me as I always prefer dry race weekends. And there should be less need/desire for weather to intervene once the cars will actually be able to race closely and we will see the drivers moreso determine their destiny. At least that’s my hope anyway. People that hope and pray for rain are just saying F1 is too predictable.

          1. @robbie Actually I think the exact opposite, wet weather levels the cars out a bit more and focuses on driver skill, as well as adding more tension in numerous areas (avoiding loss of traction, overbraking and underbraking mistakes, uncertainty over pit stops. I always prefer wet weather races. Undoubtedly some drivers are better than others, and some otherwise fast drivers can become just so-so in the rain, while some usually ‘slower’ drivers like Button, say, can shine more. But I don’t see that as in any sense artificial or adding chaotic uncertainty.

            I explained the point about keeping one lap Friday qualifying as qualifying: it’s a historical thing, a measure of a driver and car’s one lap speed at a circuit, under ideally equal conditions for everyone, and can maintains historical continuity. Sprint races are or would be an entirely different measure. Just call them something else. That’s all. You can think of them how you want, it doesn’t seem important to your proposal for more excitement. It is, however, important to anyone (lots of people, including drivers I’m sure) who want to maintain that one lap measure as a link with Formula 1’s heritage.

          2. @david-br Fair comment. For me I just feel for the drivers that have to trundle along so slowly on the equivalent of black ice (it’s not their fave thing to do even if some don’t mind it as much as others), and while sure it can be a great test to observe the skills of the drivers, it is also much more of a lottery for the cars and tire performance and the variance of that in those conditions, so to me in the wet there is more that is out of the drivers hands as well, and they can become passengers even moreso limited by how predictably their car is performing on the track than the much more predictable dry conditions affords. But hey, it is what it is and it is not like I have a choice in the matter, and I always enjoy a race weekend no matter what. And if the new cars afford more variance on their own, which is a big goal of theirs, rainy weekends will still add the usual mixing up nonetheless.

            Your second paragraph, eloquently said. Just not clear though, are we in agreement then that the traditional one lap measure in keeping with F1’s heritage, that will still be present on Friday, satisfies you then? You’ll take from that as the real qualifier and think of Saturday’s session as a pre-race even though that is actually when the pole sitter will be established? I mean, my understanding is that the grid for the race will be set on Saturday, so I guess if they go ahead with this, just like me not having a choice about a rainy race, you’d have no choice but to wait for the ‘pre-race’ to find out whose on pole. But I guess you’d have maybe a ‘sentimental’ pole sitter from the winner on Friday?

            The bottom line for me is that they don’t want a sprint race on Saturday just for the sake of having another race. So I think it is folly to suggest that they could or would do a one lap measure method on Friday as usual, which sets the grid for Sunday, with a sprint race in between, if I’m to understand your suggestion correctly. I’m not sure what the point of that would be and at no point have they indicated that is the intent…a race on Saturday just for the sake of it. They still want to qualify on Saturday, with a quali for that session taking place on Friday. The kind of quali you like.

          3. @robbie In an answer to the second half, yes, I can agree with trying out sprint races even for a full season if the current qualification format, one lap, stands and counts as qualifying for the purposes of historical continuity. I remain sceptical about the need for sprint races, what the format will be like, and how they’ll effect the main GP on Sunday in terms of spectacle – and maybe feel it will diminish from the latter. My understanding is that the Saturday sprint race determines the grid for Sunday, and I’m basing my response on that. So, for example, I think that if that’s the case, an hour is too long I think, a shorter race will generate more surprises. If the sprint race is entirely separate and has its own points system, or has its own points system but also determines the main GP start order, are other questions. Again, I don’t really mind the ideas being tested if one lap quali is kept and remains relevant. Inevitably it will lose some of the drama it now has in directly determining Sunday’s grid order.

          4. @david-br Good stuff. Yeah it will be interesting to see what the format will be and I’ll be surprised if the race is a full hour but rather the amount of total coverage time will be one hour as usual, and a sprint race should be no longer than an average stint in F1 would be, so they don’t have to consider pitting for tires, and they would be fueled relatively lightly, accordingly. I’d prefer this not be for points, as since I think of this as the true qualifying that determines a pole sitter, pole should be the reward, end of.

          5. @robbie Well, it seems clear from Dieter’s reporting that in fact F1’s primary goal here is for the sake of having another race, and being able to increase the number of revenue-producing races — boosting promoters fees and broadcasters fees — while reducing team travel costs and the number of weekends in the season.

            One way to alleviate the historical continuity concerns that @david-br brings up would be to have pole position for the Sunday grid (or, say, the front row) set by the Friday qualifying session, and every position from 2nd (or 3rd) on down be set by the Saturday sprint race. That would maintain the historical link between pole position and the fastest qualifying lap. (It would be similar to what Nascar does at Daytona, with a traditional qualifying session setting the front row and the Duel qualifying races setting the rest of the grid.)

            Of course, you’d have to have points on offer for the sprint race to give the locked-in drivers an incentive to race. But then again, based on Dieter’s reporting, Saturday points sounds likely to happen anyway, which I think would be necessary in any case to prevent the frontrunners from taking an overly conservative approach.

            I could get on board with that.

            I get your take that a sprint race format without points simply amps up each day’s action — knockout prequaly on Friday in lieu of practice, a sprint race on Saturday in lieu of knockout qualifying. But to me, and apparently to many others, it dilutes those sessions because it reduces the stakes of each format.

            Right now, you have a contest that tests single lap pace and rewards a grand prix pole, and another that rewards 25 (or 26) points. The stakes are clear, with different rewards attached to each skill. But a knockout qualifying session that doesn’t actually determine pole position feels empty — as does a race that pays no points.

            Let me ask you this: Why wouldn’t you want Saturday to pay points? Doesn’t it simply make it more exciting, to have more on the line? If, you argue, it dilutes the stakes of the grand prix, then you can understand why some feel that a non-points sprint qualifying race dilutes the stakes of knockout qualifying and the sprint race itself.

          6. @robbie One crazy idea that crossed my mind was having one lap qualifying on Friday, then two sprint races on Saturday, half-hour or 20 min each, allowing time for a quick turn around, the first in quali order, the second in reverse order. Then combine those results to determine the final grid on Sunday. You get a reverse grid race, but it’s ‘neutralized’ so to speak by the first sprint race. Gimmicky? Totally. But if it’s what they’re after…

    1. But Hateful Sometimes

      1. Only sometimes. The overriding reason why there is often heated debate is because people care about the things they love. For me that’s F1, and seeing it moving ever towards an consumable product hurts my soul. We can see fanboost coming.

        1. @john-h Nothing Liberty and the teams have said or done makes me think fanboost is coming. But cars that will actually finally be able to race more closely? Yeah that’s a massive improvement that should head them indeed away from awful DRS. So they certainly don’t deserve a ‘fan boost is next’ comment when they seem to want F1 to head back towards a more driver vs driver product as we have all wanted after decades of processions.

        2. They often attack people here and I’m not kidding.

  45. I’m interested to see how it works, not sold on the idea as of yet.

    I think the only way it could have any real benifit is by having a major restructure to the points and the whole weekend

    Quali back to the one car on track 1 lap wonder

    Sprint race awards points for all posistions

    Main event reverse grid from sprint race all places awarded points again

    Points changed

    Points change to discourage teams and the back of field trying to come last so they get pole for the “feature” race.

  46. With cars that cannot “race” each other sprint races are a pointless exorcise.

  47. I opted for “slightly” instead of “strongly” disagree because of the word “trial”. Had it said “adopt” I would have gone easily on the strongly disagree option

  48. I propose that they trial it in Monaco!!!!! :D

  49. Americans are incapable of learning anything. e.g. the crazy attempted impeachment, the ratbag president, make america great again – it never was, their attempted ignorance of Covid-19, ridiculous gimicks in F1 among countless others.

    The moment I heard they were getting hold of F1 I knew it was doomed. Good things never last. It all comes down to greed.

    1. Thoughts on the January attacks?

  50. Greed wrecks everything.

    1. Nah warzone does

  51. We all know teams and FOM don’t read the various fan based outlets. So they think it is a good idea.

    Well, let them try, realize it sucks balls and adds nothing and move on. You can’t cure stupid.

    1. We all know teams and FOM don’t read the various fan based outlets.

      Do we?

      1. We all know teams and FOM don’t read the various fan based outlets.

        Do we?

  52. I see a difference between tech-regulation and sporting regs.
    Technology shall evolve & change, the more the better.
    But the sport-regs were always quite stable;
    gives orientation, to evaluate the difference in technology. (Starting to fiddle qith Q-format was a fault, too.)
    If you change the course of a track every year, the track record of the past has ZERO meaning.
    If you want to keep your customers, the fans busy (while their sparetime — seeking for relaxation & entertainment) then you change everything, always.
    Whereby the most successful sports run under quite stable rules: football, tennis etc.
    And these are simple rules.
    If you want new fans, kids, women, families: keep the rules simple !
    F1’s seasons were quite disputed, among title contenders, in many eras, and under stable sporting regulation.
    If you want to address a lack of wheel-to-wheel action, address the underlying issue and don’t invent a pseudo-solution.

Comments are closed.