F1 won’t use ‘Grand Slam’ Sprint Qualifying format at Monaco – Brawn

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1’s new Sprint Qualifying races would not be suitable for all rounds of the world championship, the sport’s managing director of motorsport has conceded.

But Ross Brawn confirmed the format, which was formally approved by the F1 Commission today, could be rolled out to more rounds in the 2022 F1 season if they consider it a success.

“I’m not sure this format would be as successful at Monaco,” Brawn told the official F1 website. “We’re considering these weekends being ‘Grand Slam’ events, spread through the season, so it is something different.

“I don’t think it’ll go to the whole season, I think it’ll be a limited number of races, but that is to be decided.”

Although drivers including Sebastian Vettel, Sergio Perez and Daniel Ricciardo questioned the need for the extra races, Brawn says the competitors are “open minded” about it. He said the sport may abandon the plan if it “doesn’t work”, but has not indicated how its success will be judged.

“The drivers are open minded about the format,” he said, “and that’s all we ask, that the drivers keep an open mind so we can evaluate this event and then we decide if in the future it forms a feature of the F1 season.

“If it doesn’t work, we put hands up and we will think again.”

Brawn is keen to ensure the new races do not diminish the importance of the main race. “We want to give fans engagement throughout the whole weekend,” he said. “Sunday’s grand prix is fantastic, and we don’t want to cannibalise that, but we want to lift up the engagement on a Friday and a Saturday.”

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

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.

Posted on Categories 2021 F1 season articles, F1 newsTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 48 comments on “F1 won’t use ‘Grand Slam’ Sprint Qualifying format at Monaco – Brawn”

    1. What is the criteria for “doesn’t work”? It would be nice to hear more about this from Brawn. Is a short term gain of viewers an acceptable reason to mess with F1 history, and if so to what extent? How do the other circuits feel about being tier 2 events rather than ‘Grand Slam’ (sigh) events?

      1. @john-h Isn’t it kind of a no-brainer? Will it be a more exciting way to qualify? We shall see. Mess with F1 history? That has been done throughout F1’s history. Who says the current three day weekend style is the perfect be all and end all? How will other circuits (aka organizers/promoters) ‘feel’? Probably like that’s just the way it is. Probably think to themselves ‘Thank goodness’ if you go by all the negativity on this topic.

        1. It’s not qualifying though is it @robbie? It’s a sprint race. I’ve seen enough sprint races in my time to know that it is not qualifying in any shape or form.

          I dunno, call me a luddite, whatever, but I’m completely against this type of tinkering for short term gain. Of course it will gain more viewers and generate interest, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. I could think of countless things that would get more viewer ratings in F1, sprinklers included, but it doesn’t mean we should bow down and just take it. Anyway, I’m sure I’ll enjoy the carnage.

          1. @robbie I would have to agree with @john-h that this really is not “sprint qualifying”, but a sprint race in all but name. Let us not forget that both Liberty Media’s marketing department, as well as Domenicali, both termed this proposal as a “sprint race” and put it forward under that guise to begin with – the “sprint qualifying” name is entirely a piece of retrospective rebranding.

            Even a fair bit of the current marketing press about this being seeing if this is “a more exciting way of qualifying” is being applied retrospectively to the original proposal, rather than having been part of the original case for these sprint races.

            I know you have also put forward the argument that “well, this is about increasing revenue, and it’s therefore it will be good for the teams” – but is it really that much in their financial interests? It comes back to that old expression – “cui bono?”.

            The teams are not getting paid that much for these sprint races, and Liberty Media have said nothing about reinvesting any additional revenue generated from these events back into the sport either – the indication is that this is more about maintaining dividend payments to Liberty Media’s shareholders than it is about “the welfare of the sport”.

            1. anon I think it is inevitably a race of course, but my objection all along in part has been to those who have tried to call it a race just for the sake of F1 wanting another race. Call it a race for sure, for that is what it is, but it is also to determine the running order for Sunday, and that by it’s very nature is also Qualifying.

              It is not I that have put forth that it is for revenues, it is this site that has taken the stance that it is only about revenues, and running with that theme I have then said, so be it. What is the harm in that? Are you so sure the teams will not benefit if F1 itself benefits from an enhanced F1 that is drawing more audience, which begets more sponsors, which begets more money for all? I’m not at all convinced this is only about Liberty’s shareholders, but absolutely they have a responsibility to them too. I don’t see it as impossible that the pie might get bigger for the teams as well.

              To me this is no different than any company looking to grow and expand and do better for themselves and their shareholders of course, but along the way they are willing to enhance the product and not just demand more for less. They are working toward offering more and thus making more, and that is what millions of business entities strive to do every day unless they’re trying to pull one over on their customers. F1 is offering us sustainability where it had run out of that, more fairness amongst the teams, a better product on the track, and better social media access. They aren’t BE. They have taken what they inherited and have tackled all the big issues that desperately needed attention and which the previous regime could or would not do. To our benefit, hardly just Liberty’s and it’s shareholders, but of course they are a big part of this too.

            2. @robbie have we really seen if Liberty’s solutions really do “tackle all the big issues” yet?

              You are giving them a lot of praise for initiatives that are not yet complete or not even started yet, and where we don’t yet know if they are necessarily going to work entirely as planned or won’t have unexpected and potentially negative side effects. It might be better to wait a little longer to see if things do actually work in the way that they intended them to before heaping the praise on them just yet.

              With regards to your comment that “I don’t see it as impossible that the pie might get bigger for the teams as well” – will it? As others have noted, Liberty Media took on quite a considerable amount of debt to purchase the commercial rights holder – around $1.5 billion – which resulted in the debts that the sport had under Bernie being increased quite significantly.

              We also know from previous financial statements that Liberty Media has undershot their original expectations when it came to signing new commercial sponsorship deals, TV revenues are plateauing and their streaming service is also growing more slowly than hoped for too, in part due to some of their initial technical issues. Are you really going to hand so much to the teams when your own financial position is not as rosy as you hoped for when entering the sport, and particularly when those teams are also locked into a financial cap that means you can argue that they don’t need to be paid significantly more than they already earn?

              With regards to the comment about “drawing a larger audience” – making the sport accessible via free to air services would be a far more powerful way to increase audiences, given that quite a few of the falls in key markets have been directly linked to the rise of subscription only services, rather than changing the format of the race weekend.

              Having the counter argument that we shouldn’t always look for the worst is a valid position to take, yet at the same time I am wary of taking that too far in the opposite direction and putting too positive a spin on things when reality usually sits in a messier middle ground.

              With regards to the name – all of the other formula races administered by the FIA use the term “sprint race” for this type of event, and Liberty Media themselves introduced this whole initiative under that same guise as well. Calling it “sprint qualifying” when nobody else uses that term really smacks of a name change for the sake of a name change.

            3. anon That’s fair comment, and sure much remains to be seen, but my stance is that everything they have addressed, and again with the teams playing a big part in this too, was badly needed, and for me will mean that going forward they will be on a far more solid footing from which to proceed and tweak.

              Too positive a spin? Yeah that’s me guilty as charged for sure, but I just see so many more positives than negatives in the direction that F1 is going, that I can’t help but be stoked, and just as the improvements they have done and their effects remain to be seen, so too does it remain to be seen that they won’t work as advertised.

              All in all I try to start everything off with just being very grateful we have F1 at all, so I don’t want to moan too much, and rather just take great relief that an entity actually came in post-BE and has affected changes to all that we all knew was badly needed, granted yes, remaining to be seen the final product, which is never final anyway. Where they fail, or under deliver, they will well have it within themselves to correct considering all they have tackled so far.

        2. @robbie will it be a more exciting way to qualify, you ask. Well, for me this is a question that didn’t need asking because the current format is routinely excellent and often a highpoint of the weekend.

          You’re right to say we should wait and see how it goes (it could be good) but there are better things Brawn and his team could be doing with their time than tinkering with something that doesn’t need tinkering with.

          1. @frood19 The thing for me about the current qualifying is that I am fine with it too, however, it is not always excellent, is often predictable, perhaps not as much this year we’ll see, and it comes down to the last few minutes of the hour, perhaps the last few minutes of Q2 sometimes as well. Much of the hour is spent watching drivers sitting in their cars in their garages. So yeah for sure if they never even brought up a more exciting way to qualify, of course I’d be fine with what we have. I’m grateful for it all. However, is there perhaps a more exciting way? I think it is worth exploring to see if we can be enthralled for more than just the last few minutes of the hour.

            Better things Brawn and his team could be doing? Oh they’re doing, and have done plenty thank goodness, and they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

      2. I’m sure the marketing teams create a satisfaction rating for each event at the moment, probably just compare these races against existing benchmarks. Data used would probably be things like TV viewers, social media activity or Newspaper review columns. It’s probably going to become a success straight way as everyone will be talking about it, which increases the brand, which makes money.

        1. Data used would probably be things like TV viewers, social media activity or Newspaper review columns. It’s probably going to become a success straight way as everyone will be talking about it, which increases the brand, which makes money.

          And Liberty is experienced enough to assess if it is a novelty spike, or a long-term improvement for the fans (and not just the ones on this site, but all fans who watch TV/SM/etc.).

      3. I think the argument about ‘messing with F1 history’ is a little bit weak here. Take aggregate qualifying in 2005 (ok that wasn’t perfect and like this could be it was scrapped pretty quickly but still, the point remains). You could set the lap record and go half a second quicker than anyone else on Sunday morning, but if it had rained and you’d spun off on your lap, so still don’t get pole. Or Suzuka 1994, where Schumacher clearly crossed the line first, but Hill won on aggregate time. Even the current system isn’t perfect. You could be Valterri Bottas and smash in a lap record in Q2 and still not have pole. ‘But Q3 is the one where pole is decided’. Except when it isn’t (USA 2015 for example). F1 history is scattered with different anomalies, and if this is another set of them then fine. If it’s quite good and they adopt it full time, then it’s just the regular system from now on.

        1. Or Suzuka 1994, where Schumacher clearly crossed the line first, but Hill won on aggregate time.

          Schumacher was behind Damon Hill who won the race both on the track & on aggregate time.

          1. Oh yep this is my bad. Schumacher had been leading before the red flag and Hill beat him in the second half of the race. The race still has the statistical anomaly of being the last (potentially only, although I can’t find anything referring to it as the only one, but I can’t find any other race decided this way either) one to have been recorded on aggregate time.

            1. Tommy Scragend
              27th April 2021, 9:52

              You don’t have to go back very far from that race to find the next previous example.

              The 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was decided the same way, with the five laps before the red flag aggregated with the 53 after it.

              The other instances were:
              1992 French GP
              1989 San Marino GP
              1987 Mexican GP
              1981 French GP

            2. Tommy Scragend
              27th April 2021, 9:55

              The purpose of aggregating the times was so that a driver who had built up a lead over the car behind him didn’t lose that advantage as a result of the red flag. Once safety cars came into use it obviously became commonplace for gaps to be wiped out, so aggregate time was no longer needed. It just took a while for that rule to catch up.

      4. “If it doesn’t work, we put hands up and we will think again.”

        @john-h For better or worse, I think this answers your question. If this new format is unsuccessful, they will iterate on it to try something else, whether that’s a small tweak or a completely different concept. Either way, I’m pretty certain alternate race formats are something they are determined to implement over the next few years and will probably remain for the foreseeable future.

        1. My question is what defines “unsuccessful”? @keithedin

          1. @john-h Ok i got a bit ahead of myself there. I don’t think they will set any specific targets because they want the flexibility to be able to make their own judgements on what is ‘successful’ after the event. And i think that quote means that whatever the outcome, they will continue to push for some alternate race weekend format, even if it is something completely different from Sprint Qualifying.

          2. My question is what defines “unsuccessful”?

            The answer is simple, but you might not like it, @john-h ;)
            And it’s the same for all commercial companies when they tinker with adjusting their product or introduce a new one:
            Success is when the engagement by fans makes them believe they can make more money in the long run by introducing this.

            The good part in F1 is that a big chunk of that extra money will go to the teams, rather than solely to the shareholders.

      5. Coventry Climax
        27th April 2021, 15:48

        Yes, @John-H, exactly my question too.
        In any normal environment, the targets to meet would be established beforehand, so the ‘test’ can be measured up to something. This however, sounds very much like trying to match up the targets to the results, which is generally done by bad scientists, totalitarian regimes and such. But then I have little doubt that this was never a test to begin with.

        Brawn says he is keen to not diminish the importance of the main races, while at the same time naming the new format ‘Grand Slams’. As far as I know, Grand Slams have always been considered something higher, more, better and more desirable than the ‘ordinary’ tournaments. So effectively, the ‘Grand Slams’ will be considered the main races from now on, while the other weekends are only ordinary? Certainly those will lose the shine of the word ‘Grand’ there, I would say. ‘Sigh’ indeed.
        We all know it’s just about money for LM shareholders, so I think this is nothing but a business inspired way to be able to ask more money from the circuits. Slogan: “Join the elite club of Grand Slam Circuits!”. Then the ‘success’ will be measured against the number of circuits that apply for being allowed to organise (and pay for) a Grand Slam? The competition has just been expanded from car brands and drivers, to car brands, drivers AND circuits. I don’t think I’m very into that sort of match.

    2. Well said RB. Makes perfect sense to question the validity at Monaco, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to ‘lift up the engagement on a Friday and a Saturday.”

      And to those who say Friday is a business day and more difficult to access, so be it. For those who can watch it live or be there, great, they’ll have a more enhanced day. I personally record it and watch it Friday evening, being in Canada and having Friday practices being done by about 10 or 11 am our time on average. Now I will try not to hear the results of the Friday qualifying whereas I don’t care if I hear ahead of time who was fastest in practice. I still watch. Small potatoes. There’s always a more enthralling Saturday to look forward to when I can watch it live.

    3. Would be nice if they considered other means to set the grid too.
      One lap shootouts, for example… Would be ideal at Monaco.

      1. They have tried the single lap format in the past & it was really dull to watch & also not especially popular.

        I recall reading an article at the time discussing how TV ratings & track attendance for qualifying declined quite sharply which played a role in them tweaking it a few times before eventually dropping it in favour of the wonderful qualifying format we have had since 2006 which doesn’t need changing!

        1. I remember being there when we had this @roger-ayles. Best reason not to bother much with all but a few minutes of qualifying (when the top 3-4 were having their go). With rain, or accidents during the session it could turn into a complete farce. And there were a few drivers who never got their lap together in that one instance they could go for it. It was a big dud.

          There was a good reason why they started experimenting with different formats, including having serval stages of it, and the thing where cars had to burn off fuel to force them to be on track for a longer period of time so people would watch.

        2. Coventry Climax
          27th April 2021, 16:01

          Yes, they have tried it before, and it was not very entertaining. But: that does not mean it can’t be entertaining to watch this at the Monaco circuit. What’s being said by Brawn is that the Grand Slam concept will not be applied to Monaco. So, if there’s to be a difference between circuits anyway, why not try something else altogether at Monaco? Monaco has always had a certain Grandeur in itsself, and even if the overtaking opportunities aren’t the best, I remember some nailbiting races there. So if the Monaco Grand Prix loses some grandeur by not becoming a Grand Slam, then let it have something else?
          Mind you, it would be my first choice to scrap the entire sprint race nonsense anyway.

      2. I don’t like the prospect of them running different races to different qualifying formats as I prefer having a single format that is run at every round through the season.

        I would also really like them to define what would make them consider the sprint qualifying format a success or failure.

        It shouldn’t just be based on TV ratings or social media engagement, It should be based on how the format affects the actual track action on both Saturday & Sunday as well as how it impacts the standard qualifying session on the Friday. They need to look at the full picture & how everything gets affected & they need to be open & transparent so that we can all see what there thinking is & why they make whatever decisions they will make.

        1. That wasn’t meant as a reply & i’m not sure how it ended up as one. But whatever.

    4. Even when this gimmick race format proves to be a failure i’ve no faith they will drop it. They will just do what they did after that even more gimmicky reverse grid idea failed to gain any support last year, They will simply repackage it & try & force it through again.

      It’s starting to remind me more & more of nascar with all these ‘grand slam weekend’ buzzwords & all these graphics sponsored by AWS that clutter the screen like you see on a nascar broadcast. It’s clear who’s running the show now & its even more clear what direction they want to take that show. Fill it with gimmicks, Artificial nonsense & marketing buzzwords & sell it to the low attention span casuals who don’t understand that it was once a wonderful SPORT!

      It’s change for changes sake that’s changing a popular & highly successful qualifying format that doesn’t need changing!!!!!!!


      1. Since it is money talking, I am quite sure that they will go on to find ways to bring this to more and more races, just like you mention.

        They might agree to ditch it, only to slightly modify it and bring it up again.

      2. @roger-ayles As I have asked you before, only to run into silence from your end, please run down the list of all these supposed gimmicks, artificial nonsense, and marketing buzzwords that Liberty has instilled and that you fear.

        1. @robbie This gimmick sprint qualifying race for starters.

          The proposed reverse grid gimmick, Purely for entertainment standing restarts, Dangerously late safety car restarts despite drivers concerns, More/Longer DRS zones & a more powerful DRS gimmick wing, Additional development restrictions, More limited car development, Engine freeze to appease RBR.

          The very American Sponsored bits of graphics, Unnecessarily large graphics plastered all over the screen, Gimmicky prediction graphics & overall dumbing down of the graphics set compared to what we had before 2018.

          Grand slam sprint qualifying & other such very American style buzzwords & promoting. And that awful driver introduction at COTA that one year.

          And BTW I say the ‘very American’ thing as somebody who has an American mother & has spent half of my life living over there. American TV productions of sports have a certain look/feel/style which i’ve never been fond of & it’s just starting to feel like elements of that are creeping into the F1 broadcasts since Liberty came in & did the deals with Amazon AWS & all that. Just don’t like the graphics we have now.

          1. @roger-ayles Hey you’re going to feel how you feel, I do respect that, but I do find your points weak. Or at least they shouldn’t be deal breakers for you imho of course.

            Reverse grids were proposed but dropped. Fair enough. Asked by Liberty and answered by the teams. Dangerously late safety car restarts? I’d say they did it the safe way, and drivers and teams seem to have understood how it works except for SV who bemoaned a different tire choice of slick had he known sooner. Small potatoes. The safe option was a rolling start and the vast majority of the grid seemed to understand that and didn’t complain during nor afterwards.

            The more longer DRS zones and the more powerful DRS wing? If you’re talking about this year, yeah that’s just Liberty being saddled with these cars they inherited that the drivers keep saying you can’t pass with. These cars will be obsolete after this year. If you’re talking about DRS for next year I have presented a scenario a number of days ago, taking from what I believe Domenicali was suggesting for it’s future, that if DRS exists on the new cars it will strictly be to reduce fuel consumption, and not as a gimmick to aid passing. I predict DRS may be used in the future and all drivers will be able to open their rear wing along the straights that have been designated a zone, and it will not depend on whether one is leading or trailing a car nor will it depend on being within a certain amount of time behind a leading car. All cars will use it in the traditional one, two, or three zones, every time they are in those zones, simply because cars do not need that downforce and drag on the straights, and they can all save fuel that way.

            Additional development restrictions? Yeah I wish that wasn’t so as well, however, the other side of the coin is that F1 becomes a money/resources race and that is what had made it unsustainable. I know there is something to the argument that they should have more freedom with the caps they have in order to develop within said caps, and they can still do so somewhat, but I’m going to accept that the teams have agreed this, for now, subject I think to potential tweaking an opening up down the line once F1 has it’s financial ducks in order and it is better balanced and growing. I would like to eventually see an opening up of more freedom to develop but understand why they have to do now what it is they are doing.

            The engine freeze was agreed by all unanimously and certainly if it was just to appease RBR the other three would not have agreed. They benefit from the cost savings as well, as they approach needing to start work on the next gen of pu soon anyway, in order to be ready for 2025. I’d argue amongst several benefits, one might be that teams can keep more staff on payroll by not having to spend so much on continued engine development. The pus are good, viable, reliable units, that don’t need more and more work when they are about to be obsolete. And this keeps a fourth pu in the mix, rather than all teams having 3 pus amongst them.

            The American sponsor graphics? Haven’t phased me personally, yet, but as a Canadian I certainly get what you are saying there and have had a lifetime of observing it, the look/feel/style of which you speak, and often cringing at it. Grand Slam? Yeah I hope they don’t call it that. The COTA driver introduction? Yeah I cringed at that big time and hope to never see it in F1 again, of course meaning particularly when they are back in the US.

    5. “I’m not sure this format would be as successful at Monaco,” Brawn told the official F1 website.

      Does this mean that he’s also not convinced that it would be a bad idea? Unsure? It won’t work almost anywhere. Perhaps with 15 DRS zones and some sort of debuff for the driver ahead (maybe mandatory pit stop if he’s defending more than once in five laps).

    6. Better idea for Monaco qualifying: Swimming pool, 5 groups of 4 drivers, 200m (4 length) race, winner of each race goes through to a superpole session where the top 5 positions are decided. Rest of the grid decided from best time.

      1. anon Ah…so you’re advocating for a wet qualifying.

    7. I think Monaco would have been the ideal place to try the new format, since the race is possibly the most boring on the whole calendar and a sprint race could have spiced up the action a bit (even if it’s just on a Saturday).
      Regardless of that, I think F1 needs to find a way to make the Monaco GP more exciting. It’s just ridiculous how boring the Sundays are at Monte Carlo. It’s the same processional race every year.
      Here is my proposal for the Monaco GP:
      Thursday: 60 minutes of practice, followed by qualifying to set the order for the Saturday sprint races
      Saturday: Sprint races spread over three sessions; 1st session – 1 on 1 sprint races over 5 laps (1st vs 20th fastest from Thursday’s qualifying, 2nd vs 19th fastest etc.); 2nd session – again 1 on 1 sprint races over 5 laps (fastest remaining driver from qualy vs slowest remaining driver from qualy, 2nd fastest vs 2nd slowest, etc.); 3rd session – the remaing 5 drivers battle it out over a 10-lap race (starting order: results from qualifying), which sets the order for Sunday’s race (drivers outside of the top5: Sunday grid set by fastest individual lap time each driver set in the 2nd sprint-race session, the same for drivers eliminated in the 1st session); each driver has got three sets of tyres available for the sprint race session (1x Soft, 1x Medium, 1x Hard) and has to use each compound over the course of the sprint race sessions (i.e. 1st session: Medium – 2nd session: Hard – 3rd session: Soft)
      Sunday: usual race distance (78 laps), order set by results of Saturday’s sprint races, free choice of tyres (no mandatory pit stops or tyre compounds to use)

    8. So this is the r̲e̲a̲l̲ reason why Friday practice has been cut to 2x 60-minute sessions.

      A report I read elsewhere, said these sprint qualifying races will be at Silverstone, Monza and one (unspecified) “non-European location”

      Brazil/São Paulo was mentioned as being this third circuit, now it’s not. Would mean F1 aren’t confident of a race there this year then…

    9. Monaco would not be suitable for an extra race as it would cost us too much money… now that we have committed to reimburse the teams for damage experienced in these extra races

    10. Brawn: “If it doesn’t work, we put hands up and we will think again.”
      C’mon, admit it, you didn’t think in the first place.

    11. Classic take – keep an open mind, and the moment someone doesn’t say anything negative about it we’ll use it to justify permanent inclusion – despite Ross already saying that it won’t happen at Monaco, which therefore devalues Monaco as a sporting event (ignoring that most Monaco races are hardly a sporting event).

    12. “If it doesn’t work, we put hands up and we will think again.”

      And decide again according to what the sponsors and the Sky will offer us. Oh, Ross, you double-faced puppet clown.

      1. But the sponsors and Sky will only offer money if the fans (you, I, others) want it and either spend money, or allow them to bombard us with ads (and some to act on those ads).
        In the end we are in charge, @pironitheprovocateur.
        That’s the good part about a commercial society ;)

        I suggest that all fans who are so vehemently opposed to Sprint Qualifying to switch off the TV on those Saturdays and keep quiet on Social Media (remember ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’).

        And, as I’m open to testing this and will only make up my mind afterwards, I am happy to fill you all in after those qualifying sessions, races, events, or whatever you want to call them.
        I’ll think of some code words I can use so Liberty doesn’t know that we are talking about it ;)

    13. Why not Ross? Contrary to popular belief it is actually possible for people to overtake at Monaco, its just really hard to do and takes a lot of skill.
      With your new car designs it’ll be a doddle.

      In fact why are we even bothering with a long race at all given the new ADHD viewers can’t watch anything for longer than 5 – 10 minutes before being distracted by some Tik Tok meme. Lets break up the main race to two extra sprint races – that’ll generate massive numbers of dedicated F1 fans and the future of F1 will be saved.

    14. Someone should tell Liberty media that they bought F1, not the ATP tour.

      1. Someone should remind F1 viewers that Liberty bought F1…

        1. I am saying this for their own good. Assuming they want a sustainable business, or even sell it later for a profit they should be careful not to destroy the brand. Remember what happened when coke tried to change the formula? Or what happened to NASCAR doing similar gimick steps. There are many exemples of somene buyng something and not understanding where the value of what they bought is.

          There are many forms of motorpsoprt with reverse grids, joker laps etc, but they have a fraction of the viewers F1 has. Liberty should listen to the fans and drivers. They are completely out of touch.

          1. Remember what happened when coke tried to change the formula?

            That’s it, @vjanik.
            They’ll come back with a Classic version and the new one; both 23 races.
            Can’t wait for Cherry F1.

    Comments are closed.