Start, Silverstone, 2020

F1 poised to confirm ‘Sprint Qualifying’ races as teams agree financial terms

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1’s plan to hold three ‘Sprint Qualifying’ races this year is expected to go ahead after the sport agreed financial terms with teams.

The first of the three extra Saturday races, which will award world championship points, is to take place during the British Grand Prix weekend at Silverstone. The Italian and Brazilian rounds have also been selected feature Sprint Qualifying races.

RaceFans revealed two months ago F1’s latest attempt to change the qualifying format, at selected rounds of this year’s championship. However discussions over its introduction dragged past the start of the new season without resolution.

F1 teams expressed concerns the extra races would increase wear and tear on their cars and create further risk of damage. They sought additional payments from F1 and coverage in the event of a major crash.

“What we can’t ignore is that to run and operate these cars is extremely expensive,” said Red Bull team principal Christian Horner in Bahrain. “We need to find a solution how to combat that, in particular in a season where the budget cap is having a significant impact on how we operate.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The financial terms have now been agreed, leaving only sporting details left to work out. These include what restrictions may be imposed on the use of tyres during the Sprint Qualifying races and whether the Drag Reduction System will be altered to enable easier overtaking.

F1 weekends featuring Sprint Qualifying sessions could therefore feature two different race winners. However F1 does not want the new format to detract from the significance of Sunday’s grand prix.

“It’s almost like a pre-final,” said Horner, “this concept that you’re winning a qualifying race; effectively you’re not a grand prix winner.”

“We need to protect the DNA of the sport, the history of the sport,” he added. “A grand prix winner should only be a guy that prevails on a Sunday afternoon. A pre-final on a Saturday is not a grand prix.”

Proposed Sprint Qualifying race weekend format

FridayMorningFirst practice
FridayAfternoonQualifyingDecides the grid for Sprint Qualifying
SaturdayMorningSecond practice
SaturdayAfternoonSprint QualifyingAwards points to the top three and decides the grid for the grand prix
SundayAfternoonGrand PrixAwards points to the top 10

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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.

72 comments on “F1 poised to confirm ‘Sprint Qualifying’ races as teams agree financial terms”

  1. I’m looking forward to seeing a full explanation to this sprint qualifying because it baffles me. I am concerned that newcomers to the sport may be put off by the complexity of having complex qualifying procedures that change from race-to-race. It just seems bonkers to have race weekends that run to different rules.

    It seems poorly timed as well, just as performance seems to have converged and teams are closer than they have been for a few years, and with changes happening next year to keep racing closer between teams/cars so that novelties such as double qualifying isn’t needed to add spice to the show.

    1. With changes happening next year, this is the ideal time to be trying things.
      Next wouldn’t be ideal, would it?

      Still, the appeal of a sprint race is somewhat undermined when it is – for all intents and purposes – just a mini GP with no other changes.
      And then the same thing again tomorrow, but longer…

      1. My point is that the changes next year and the spring qualifying are both solutions to the same problem – to make races more entertaining. But the changes next year enable the sport to remain “pure” in terms of quali and the race and not require the additional gimmick of sprint qualifying because the changes by their very nature will mean cars can race closer to each other.

        1. Changing the qualifying method doesn’t alter the ‘purity’ of F1, it just changes how the final order is achieved.
          Fastest car still starts at the front no matter which way it works, in this case.

          Unless they used a reverse grid or random draw – which would be a far more entertainment-based approach.

          And there’s that word again – ‘gimmick.’ The go-to word for every self-confessed F1 fan who dislikes an aspect of ‘their sport.’

          1. Why have qualifying twice then? I agree the fastest car starts at the front.

            And yes, I am a “self-confessed F1 fan”, I see no issue in that. But I don’t see F1 as “my sport” at all. I’m also not saying that additional pre-race races/double qualifying is wrong – only that I have concerns and confess that I don’t understand it fully. Perhaps when the details are fully released I’ll have no concerns at all and wonder why we’ve not has it for decades already.

          2. I dislike the idea of Sprint Qualifying, but I agree with you that this particular argument should be avoided in the discussion. It is definitely not a gimmick, and it does not alter F1’s purity.

          3. Well what if the fastest car has to part with its rear suspension in an ‘starting lap incident’ during the sprint race? No more pole for the fastest car in the grand prix.

    2. @geekzilla9000 I think you may be overthinking it, and perhaps what might help is just a reminder that they are simply trying to answer the question ’Is there potentially a more exciting way to qualify for the race than the current format?’ F1 has now agreed to try a Sprint Qualifying format instead of the flying lap format, which they will still use to qualify for the Sprint Qualifying. Let’s just see how it plays out beyond that, as that is the very reason this has been agreed as a trial.

  2. So what are the financial terms that have been agreed?
    If they’ve been finalised, there’s no reason to keep them secret any more, is there?

    Unless it truly blows the concept of the budget cap entirely, of course…

    1. Teams will receive an extra $500,000 in prize money & the budget cap will also be raised by $500,000.

      Any team who’s car suffers damage during a sprint race will also be able to apply to receive additional payments & if damage is big enough they will also be able to request a penalty free chance of power unit/gearbox.

      1. Any team who’s car suffers damage during a sprint race will also be able to apply to receive additional payments

        So we’ll see Maldonado back in F1 then? @gt-racer

      2. Apart from making a joke of the budget cap, that does seem to open up the possibility of some teams playing it to create a certain situation in order to get free parts…

        Imagine if either Red Bull or Mercedes get a free engine and gearbox while in the championship fight…
        I hope it happens – I love a good controversy.

        1. It would have to be a crash after finishing or they would start at the rear.

      3. Jockey Ewing
        7th April 2021, 18:19

        Refund for the damages, it not sounds like an idea coming from a racing environment like F1.
        Actually to me this part feels to be legit only for this season’s sprint races, while they are testing the format. Makeing this refund permanent after the testing period is over would feel quite strange.
        Again an example, or a sign of it is not being an usual competition, where the competitors are used to accept the rules or decide to leave the competition.

      4. Thanks for those significant details there @gt-racer!

      5. Maybe a good way for Haas to add some cash to the team thanks to Mazespin.

  3. We need to protect the DNA of the sport, the history of the sport,” he added. “A grand prix winner should only be a guy that prevails on a Sunday afternoon. A pre-final on a Saturday is not a grand prix.

    That’s going to be difficult as the sponsors are going to want more exposure and will Liberty want to promote it to attract more fans, that’s the whole point. So stopping the sprint race from competing with the main race is going near impossible.

    1. Jockey Ewing
      7th April 2021, 17:10

      If the rewards of the sprint race are negligible, it might becomes something like a “league cup” at the football of many countries, with teams not really giveing their best (weak lineups playing, likely not that hard as well) because of the low return of investment. I would let it “compete”, as understanding fans will have no problem with distinguishing it’s stats, and importance from the GP’s stats and importance. They use the word “compete” there because of the fear of loosing market value. And due to their fear they are creating a race where only very few finishers will be awarded with points, which will further cement the top runners’ standings at the points, and will likely not stir the starting order of the GP’s grid too much, I would say it will further converge to the pecking order (if the trends of the recent at about 2 decades will continue, so very high reliability requirements, and rarely changing tech rules (*), and quite distinct performance levels of the teams + DRS only for the driver who tries to overtake).
      So they could have an amazing sprint race, if they do it well, for example via offering a real reward with points for more finishers, and with an amazingly contrived format, instead of applying a filter to the qualification results to converge its output towards the pecking order. Because reliable cars and DRS will reliably deliver that, and if there is not much reward, likely not much more than that.

      If they would make the sprint race format too amazing although, that might would be dangerous for F1, might undermine the popularity of the GP’s and so. Although seeing this plan, I would not be too worried about that. I’m pretty sure this sprint race will be no-pitstop race, on relatively hard tyres as well :) Interestingly there are no words about what is their plan about pit stops and tyres.

      Imo there is something stinky with these tyres, as being functional tyres for racing. I understand, that maybe a a new tyre supplier would be in a significant disadvantage, so probably would come up with worse tyres at least for a while. But imo hards are too hard, and too everlasting, while softs are barely considered for stints or elements of 2 stop strategies, because they not provide enough pace difference to make up for their much lower durability. So probably softs should be faster, and more durable at the same time, or hards should be much softer, or this chamical grip and heat degradation, narrow operation window concept should be changed, but somehow the softer compounds should be much more faster and more viable for a decent race stint. Although when there is about 1stop vs 2 stop, the time spent in the pits mostly make 2stop strats not viable if there are so durable hard tyres, and the softer ones can not make up for their lower durability with their pace. I am pretty sure that at the pace of F2 these hards could last an entire GP distance, if the downforce is reduced to be enough for that pace. There is further problems with the blowing punctures, and some inconsistency, these are hard to use tyres.

      Imo they have no bravery to ruin F1 as a product, so they will not try to contrive an amazing format for sprint races in the close future, while this, after some testing might be sinked. Although, I am pretty sure that now they want to have more TV screen time for the sponsor logos on the cars, so it is very likely to have sprint qualis at every race weekend in the close future.

      (*) I would like to see them frequently changing between seasons to provide engineering challenge, to provide often changing pecking orders – in the long run the best drivers most often still would end up at the top, and the best teams would win a lot of constructors championship. So instead of having the a largely unchanged formula for 5-10 years, and optimizing the car built against that formula a lot, I would like at least partially changing specifications per year. Specifications comeing and going, some are returning, what is wrong with that? That would ensure non-artifical randomness, that would ensure the inability for most of the teams to copy almost everything from their rivals, because many times they would just be happy if the package is working, quite reliable, and quite fast.
      As the pecking order would change quite often, and quite gradually thanks to this, many talented drivers and teams would not be deprived from acheving good results, but they would be provided with honesty and fairness. Until the never-breaking-down F1 car will be invented (Seeing the route towards that: do we need that?), reliability might decide championships, and we are very far from that.

      Road relevancy is the beloved buzzword of the factory teams. Sometimes of course road going cars, and their technology profit from the developments at F1, but testing and manufacturing methodologies are so fine today, so :
      – Road going cars would be evolve very quickly even without F1.
      – F1 teams’ complaints about low amounts of testing and free practice sessions are somewhat valid, but quite invalid if we considering that reliability before 2000 were much worse, still racing was quite amazing, and many wanted to participate at F1. Why not to develop cheaper (actually it would be better to invent them, instead of this also popular term), less durable car parts at F1, for substantially less money, and experiment with reliability for their road going counterparts, instead of providing more and more corporate talk to fans?
      – There are road going cars with active suspensions and wings, sometimes F1 teams are using existing technology from “outside”, if they can make it compliant with the actual set of rules.

      And of course Mr. John, this post is not an insult against you, you are one of my favourite commenters here, with good understanding of the sport, I just typed here today :)

      1. Actually i hear on the bussines radio short things (like previews/summaries) are more things of the future as the youth would pay for those instead of paying for long live events (like the whole race) They settle with a epic 5-10 minutes then a 2 hour boring race.

        So the sprintrace would be more attractive as you have a qualiflier, sprintrace and a race 3 things instead of 2…

        1. Jockey Ewing
          8th April 2021, 14:21

          I am between 35 to 40 years old, with lot of involvement in the hardcore gaming and nerd scene. Based on this, yes it is somewhat true, although as I see, today’s games (the competitve ones) are often slower paced, and more passive, with lower individual skill ceiling and less steeper learning curve than their famous precedessors. Today business decisions are most often based on analysis of statistics and polls, and this can be caught (seen) in the gaming indistry as well. Sadly the precedessors were often better (just like in the case of many films and their sequels), more raw or more geniune, while only sticking to stat based averages, often brings an average taste, without too much genuineness. Many of such sequels would have a hard time without their famous precedessors. But with the famous precedessors they can make money out of money.

  4. Sergey Martyn
    7th April 2021, 14:32

    Please kick the hyperactive clowns with hebephrenic schizophrenia with such crazy ideas out of the sport!

  5. So they don’t want it to detract from the Sunday.

    Yet the top three of the race, sorry, qualifying sprint will get points. So, the news headlines will lead with “the winner of Saturday’s race was XXX with YYY in second position”, instantly diluting the appeal of Sunday’s action.

    1. The biggest detraction from the appeal of the GP is the quality of the GP – and that has little to do with any sprint ‘races’ or points for qualifying.

  6. Oh, are we still acting like the Brazil round will take place then? Just the record 4,200 daily deaths and 86,000 new cases would tell me otherwise. To be honest, I can’t see a number of the planned races taking place this year, so the idea of these additional sprint races doesn’t bother me at all.

    1. @tom Tell me about it. Everyone seems to ignore the likelihood of Brazilian GP not taking place this year either. In this case, the third sprint race event would probably be the US or Mexican GP unless these two couldn’t happen as scheduled because of COVID.

      1. No Brazil or Mexico races this year and United States still looking iffy? Exactly what I said some weeks ago.

        Also, there will be no more than 20 races this year, even with substitutes

        1. @Simon For now, the only one I’m genuinely skeptical about this far in advance is Brazil, not yet Mexico or the US.
          I wonder why people are hugely skeptical about Mexico at this point, despite being only 14th in infection figures. France, Russia, UK, Italy, and Spain are higher on the list. Yet no one seems to question the viability of holding a race in these places, and they’re scheduled earlier in the year. Brazil is still #2 and US #1, so they should be at higher risk than Mexico.

          1. The US is only iffy if F1 cancels because of some woke agenda. All US residents will be eligible to receive the vaccine in 2 weeks and anyone that wants the vaccine should be able to get it by the end of summer at the latest. The race is in October.

          2. @jimfromus Fair enough. The vaccine situation will impact things to an extent.

  7. protecting the DNA of a sport while changing its sporting fundaments every now and then sounds — complicated

  8. There were questions on here some weeks ago regarding what the definition of success/failure would be that would see the idea continue forward or be dropped.

    I’ve been told the definition of success will be TV ratings & trackside spectator engagement. The actual impact on the track action will be a secondary consideration with the affect been moved to Friday will have on the ratings/attendance for the usual qualifying session been seen as even less important.

    If there is a bump in TV ratings and/or Saturday attendance then it will be a format that will become a more permanent feature going forward with the idea been to gradually phase the format in for use at every round within the next few seasons.

    I gather they intend to have a totally new weekend format in place for 2025 & that even if the 3 race trial this year is deemed to have not worked they will likely trial tweaks to the sprint race format in 2022/23/24 until they have something that they believe will work for use from 2025.

    1. Yes, that sounds like the metric that FWONK will use to measure the success of Sprint Qualifying weekends.

      1. And of course they choose 3 of the traditionally more exciting events.

        So Q2 tyres still the ones you start the main race on? Even though you might no longer be starting in the top 10?

        Any relaxing of engine limits given 3 more races?

        Are engine penalties taken for the Sprint Qualifying grid, or the main race? Ie: if taken in the main race, a pre event declared 5 place grid penalty for the main race would mean its pointless for a Williams or Hass to take part in sprint Qualifying.

        Congratulations to the teams for getting their financial settlement.

        1. Sorry, wasn’t meant to be a reply!

    2. @gt-racer I am glad that we are finally getting some clarity on what exactly Liberty Media are going to be using as their baseline for defining “success”, though it does at the same time lead to some ambiguities.

      We can reasonably assume that Sky Sports, who seem to have been particularly keen on this idea, will be putting out more promotional material for the sprint races than they would normally put out for a conventional qualifying session – or, for that matter, the level of publicity they’d normally give this measure if it were to become a more permanent fixture. It does therefore raise the question of what measures Liberty will take to filter out the effects of a short term boost due to abnormally high levels of promotion for those events, plus the initial “novelty factor”, to determine whether it’s actually beneficial for the longer term health of the sport.

      1. If anything from what I’ve gleaned from the Sky commentators, they have other ideas, including reverse grids which has already been scrapped, than the Sprint Qualifying, so no I don’t see them as “particularly keen.” I certainly have not picked up from them that they are all on the same page and towing some Sky party line.

  9. this is such a bad idea.

    but i guess things like this were bound to get forced through when americans took over the sport. i mean a lot of the series over there are full of various gimmicks with heavy restrictions of development and many spec cars/components.

    the american way is all about the show & sadly it now seems like f1 is going the same way. it will soon resemble the nascar/wwe model of ‘sports entertainment’ rather than be something that is more like an actual pure sport.

    this is just the start of the gimmicks, mark my words.

    1. Don’t forget that all the teams agreed to this!

  10. Sometimes, a football team is doing so badly that the fans want their team to lose, in the hope that the manager will be sacked. I never used to understand this – how could you want your team to do badly?

    Now I do understand this. I love Formula 1 and want it to be really exciting, but not with sprint qualifying. So I will be hoping for the three most dull weekends of all time. I know this sounds stupid like the football example, but I just cannot believe that it will really improve Formula 1 at all, and I really like the current format. For me, it needs to improve Formula 1 significantly enough for it to be worth the change from the simple, pure format, and I don’t see how this will happen. If it does happen, then fair enough, I will consider sprint qualifying a success. But my biggest worry is that the race will be an exciting one through some fluke that would have happened anyway, and that gives the bosses of F1 an excuse to consider Sprint Qualifying a success when actually it wasn’t, and leaves us stuck with it.
    Of course, an even bigger worry is that the race is very boring, and rather than doing the correct thing and scrapping Sprint Qualifying altogether, the bosses will go the other way and award full points for Sprint Qualifying, turning it into a second Grand Prix. One thing’s for sure; it will definitely be a race where mixed emotions will be experienced.
    Overall, I would not mind the trialling of Sprint Qualifying as long (as no points were awarded), if I trusted the likes of Stefano Domenicali to actually do the right thing and get rid of it if it does not work (as I expect). But I just don’t; I think he will try and find a reason why it was positive even if it was overwhelmingly negative, and will then keep it and even expand on it. This could turn out to be a very positive thing, but I just don’t see it being so.

    1. An example that I would like to mention is the three-segment qualifying format used at the moment. This did alter the simplicity of the F1 weekend format, but it was worth it, because it is much better. Maybe the sprint qualifying will do the same, and I hope it does so. But I just see that as incredibly unlikely.

  11. Surely they’ve missed a trick here by only awarding points to the top 3? Why would Williams or Alfa go all out in the sprint race when they can’t get a bite of the cherry?

    1. @Alistair Agreed. The top five, six, or eight, etc., would be better.

  12. What is the purpose of this? Who asked for this?

  13. What if the 19-year old environmental conscious, attention deficited, new F1 viewer doesn’t materialize or produce any new sponsors? What if they realize the disposable-income traditionalist adult was the best F1 fan after all? They’d lose years and have to build up again.

    1. @balue And what happens when the ‘disposable-income traditionalist adult’ demographic dies out?
      If you weren’t already into F1, would you join in it’s current form based on the last half-dozen years?

      1. @S For me the best example is watching Indycar. When I first got into it, I properly loved it, but after a while I realized all the full yellow / full course caution (or whatever it was called), was just for ad break and to inject ‘excitement’ into races, which after awhile put me off, to the point where I just dropped it altogether.

        For the rest of the world, there’s football. There’s obviously a huge appetetite for pure, long-winded stuff. No one in their right mind would even think to ‘fix’ it with any gimmickry.

        1. @balue that’s not quite true.
          Here in Australia they are fiddling with the rules for AFL and the NRL to enable much higher scoring “to keep the fans engaged” and have pretty much destroyed the skill of defence.
          Gimmicks are definitely creeping in to football, as they already have for cricket.

          1. @dbradock But that’s rugby. My example football is hugely popular all over the world despite a lot of fiddling about and hardly any goals in 1,5 hours, and even more long winded cup / series systems.

        2. Then I guess, after a while, you’ll probably drop F1 too.
          So they’ll need some way to attract someone to replace you, won’t they?

          1. Sport over the decades has been littered with the bodies of so called great ideas driven by marketing people that led to their demise, as have a great number of companies.

            I don’t have to worry about people replacing me as a viewer/attendee – I worry about F1 destroying itself and losing any chance of any sticking around at all. These “new” people that you’re on about – do they really exist? I guess we’ll see.

          2. @S That’s a circular argument

          3. @dbradock
            I don’t worry about F1 destroying itself anymore – I’ve gone beyond that.
            F1 is no longer F1 in my opinion. It doesn’t even slightly resemble what attracted me 35 years ago.

            Liberty/F1 have been forced to seek new audiences due to a dying out of the ‘old traditionalist’ demographic, then the teams and manufacturers are demanding an increasing share of the pie, then the governments around the world are imposing all these restrictions on the automotive industry…. And so on…
            Running and selling F1 would not be an easy gig – if it was what we wanted it to be, it probably wouldn’t turn a profit. And we all know what the world is about these days. Profit profit profit.

  14. What would be the point of a practice session between QLF and the races? The purpose of having a practice session(s) in the first place is to prepare for both competitive sessions of a given event. FP1 as the sole session would be enough.

  15. Adding, deleting, changing rules, with more costs, doesn’t make any sense or improve the game in Formula 1.

    Might as well just use go-karts instead of this quagmire.

  16. As much as I like trying out new ideas, qualifying is not one of the things that should be changed.

    I hope the round in Brazil goes ahead, and the championship will be decided on Saturday. That would be a “nice” moment in the history of the sport.

  17. The idea to give points for pole position is not knew, but in the past it was always defeated by the argument that it could potentially decide the world championship on a Saturday and that would be undesirable for the fans as well as the sport. Now, points potentially going to first three on Saturday increases likelihood of that happening even more, should this format be extended for the whole season in the future. But even if not, why should top-three qualifying position be so much more valuable at Interlagos than in Monaco?

    1. The championship is often tied up now in September or October – what difference does it make if it happens on a Saturday or a Sunday?

      1. The championship been decided on the Saturday would detract massively from the GP the next day.

        Awarding points for qualifying has always been something broadcasters & race promoters have been against, Especially for potential championship deciders when they put a huge promotional effort into promoting the Sunday GP which for broadcasters always results in higher viewership & can also help promoters sell additional Sunday tickets if some are still available.

        You could argue they can just promote the Saturday as well as the Sunday but given how most people have Sunday’s off work promoting around the race on Sunday will always draw them higher ratings/attendance than anything happening on Saturday. That is in my view part of the flaw with the whole plan, Fridays/Saturdays don’t usually draw smaller crowds/less ratings purely because less people are interested, It’s more because people are at work/school on Fridays & a lot of people still have to work on Saturdays. Qualifying on Friday & a sprint qualifying race on Saturday won’t change that fact so more than likely won’t move the needle all that much in terms of ratings or attendance.

        1. Not to mention how even those who are off work on Saturdays tend to be less likely to sit in-front of the TV than they are on Sundays because they have things to do (Or just want to spend time with family/friends) having been at work from Monday-Friday.

        2. Legacy-F1-Fan
          8th April 2021, 10:39

          What about in the Middle East? Their weekend days fall on Friday & Saturday…So, is this happening to focus on pulling a bigger audience into the tracks and on TV in the region? Does this mean F1 thinks there is more low hanging fruit out there than other regions?

      2. You’re right, it wouldn’t make much difference lot of times, and probably it won’t even happen very often. But should the title be decided on Saturday of the season finale…that would be a huge let-down.

      3. @S Not September. October or November.

        1. Regardless of exactly when the championship is actually decided (or effectively decided) – we all still watch the races thereafter, don’t we?
          Whether that falls on the Saturday of the final race or a Sunday in October is irrelevant. The races are still the races, and that’s supposedly worth watching, regardless of the championship..
          Additionally, given how much of a foregone conclusion the championship has been for most of the last 10 (or 20) years, I’m surprised that this argument is still even being brought up. It seems like just another excuse to resist a change…

  18. Proof that money can win.
    Messing with the DNA of F1 is wretched .

  19. Will teams be able to change their driver after Friday qualifying? Or do they need to stick with whoever’s in the seat on Friday quali for the sprint qualifying and the main event? It could create less opportunities for other drivers to participate in race weekends (why let them do FP1 if you need your main driver to be prepped for qualifying to set the sprint race grid) and a reduced grid if drivers get injured/fall ill and can’t be replaced by a substitute on Saturday afternoon.

  20. Would’ve thought a sprint race in place of qualifying to determine the grid for Sunday would’ve made more sense (and been simpler), but hey.

  21. Jockey Ewing
    7th April 2021, 20:55

    Then why do not they create a Formula1 Sprint Championship, with results and stats of the sprint races completely distinguished from stats and results the F1 World Championship? So basically two different series, with the same entrants, with the sprint race held on Saturday, as they want, but dont mix it up with the qualification, and the GPs. And some motivating reward for the bests of the Sprint Championship, like considerable amount of money, or development tokens, or some more aero development for them. With different, but still nice podium celebrations, probably on the track, instead of the podium, but something really cool. Although as a non-Briton, neither Commonwealth citizen, I am a bit far away from understanding how it would feel for many.

    And as GP’s are about 1 pit stop and most often ran on hard tyres as primes => the sprint race could be something else, something like 20 laps, on 2sets of softs, 1 mandatory pit stop for tyres. Or half distance, 2 mandatory pit stops, only C3, C4, C5, so the softest 3 compounds available. (Or something what is definitely borderline viable, borderline challenging for most entrants on the tyre side, but with not too much managing). Although if it would be too exciting, and too resource hungry, it would still be bad for the original world championship.

  22. It ain’t broken, but it will be fixed. That’s moronic.
    What we have is fine.
    Is there any way that the FIA will listen to fans? Of course not.
    I hate to admit this but I never rated Domenicali, his Ferrari years were abysmal, and now his tenure in F1 will surely be even worse.

  23. Here’s an idea: Run an “all out” sprint race on sunday and call it a Grand Prix. Award championship points to motivate the drivers and teams.

    1. That should be comment of the day!

  24. Please don’t confirm.

  25. Have they changed Parc Fermé rules?
    Because under the current rules, changes are no longer allowed after Q1, making Second Practice on Saturday what? A warm-up?

    It’s still mesmerizing they haven’t sorted this before the competition started…

Comments are closed.