Start, Interlagos, 2021

‘Greedy’ F1 teams will disappoint accountants more than fans by scuppering sprint races

News Focus

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1 has wasted no opportunity to declare the sprint qualifying format it introduced last year an overwhelming success with immense popularity among fans of the sport.

Following its debut at Silverstone, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali declared the sprint format had received “overwhelmingly positive feedback from the teams, drivers and fans”.

But after two more of its sprint events F1 was prepared to admit its innovation has a few shortcomings and pledged to make changes to it for the upcoming season. But with the start of the new championship just six weeks away the exact details haven’t yet been confirmed.

Nonetheless F1 pledged last year double the number of sprint events on its 2022 calendar, taking the tally up to six. Now that too is in doubt.

The merit of sprint events is not the issue at stake: Inevitably, this is a row over money. Three teams are pressing for a break in F1’s budget cap, which falls to $140 million (£103m) plus exceptions this year, to cover the potential crash damage costs arising from three extra sprint races.

There is, arguably, an element of opportunism about this. Last year’s three sprint races resulted in little extra damage, Pierre Gasly’s Monza crash being a significant exception.

Nonetheless the potential for expensive crashes is clearly there. Sprint races add an extra standing start to race weekends, at which the risk of an incident is high.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Red Bull suffered three retirements due to crashes shortly after standing starts last season: Max Verstappen at Silverstone and Sergio Perez at the Hungaroring (where Verstappen also suffered race-ruining damage) and Jeddah. Should a crash take a power unit out of circulation, as happened on two of those occasions, the bill shoots up.

Sergio Perez, Red Bull, Hungaroring, 2021
The potential for damage at the start of a race is high
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that last week Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, who previously supported the sprint format, gave it rather lukewarm backing recently and said time was running out for F1 to firm up its plans for the new season.

“I’m very much a purist,” he said. “I believe that qualifying and the race are the fundamental aspects of a grand prix. I think that the sprint races were interesting last year. I think the format wasn’t perfect. But if you don’t try something you don’t know, and I think there’s things that could be done to make it more exciting, to make it more interesting.

“But it’s getting quite late now and we’re going to need to have a decision pretty shortly.”

F1 subsequently came forward with its compromise proposal to revert from six sprint races to three. Has its hope of more sprint action in 2022 therefore been scuppered by the greed of a few teams?

McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown warned of this possibility last month. “Some teams still look for excuses to raise the cost cap and win world championships with chequebooks,” he said. “The ongoing lobbying by certain teams to increase the cost cap for sprint race damage is a continuing example.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“The Saturday sprint race initiative by Formula 1 has added new viewers and raised the profile of the sport to expand its global fanbase. However, these teams continue to demand a raise to the cost cap by an inordinate amount of money, despite the clear evidence that little damage was incurred during these races last year, in a thinly veiled attempt to protect from their competitive advantage being eroded.”

Valtteri Bottas, Mercedes, Interlagos, 2021
Bottas might miss sprints – he won two last year
How sincere the three teams are in their concerns over costs, will the loss of three sprint races this year cause much disappointment? Maybe not for sponsor which, given its recent troubles, would surely welcome a cheaper than expected bill for branding the format in 2022.

As for fans, their view of the format has always seemed far more mixed than F1 has purported. While Domenicali has claimed “the vast majority of the comments that we receive are totally positive, super-positive”, the numbers paint a different picture. An F1-backed survey of over 167,000 fans last year revealed 40% (two in five) felt sprint qualifying had “improved the show” while 34% (more than one in three) disagreed.

The sprint experiment has shown that if you replace a practice session with a race, schedule that race on a Saturday, and hold it and Friday qualifying later in the day than usual, viewing figures rise. That was a predictable outcome. Nonetheless this will have gone down well at Liberty Media’s quarterly earnings reports, in which it has keenly highlighted the success of its sprint races.

But despite F1’s positive spin, sprints haven’t yet found broad acceptance among F1 fans. Many of which responded to yesterday’s news by observing that as F1 had dropped three sprint races for 2022 it only needs to drop three more to achieve the ideal number: Zero.

When F1 was seeking a race in Miami it urged supporters to write to local politicians and urge them to back the proposal. If it hopes fans will start petitioning the teams to change their stance on sprint races they are surely in for a disappointment.

2022 F1 season

Browse all 2022 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.

64 comments on “‘Greedy’ F1 teams will disappoint accountants more than fans by scuppering sprint races”

  1. The only fixing F1 needs to do is to keep sprints away from interfearing with the pole position in the first place, therefore let pole position be same as set for sprints and sundays race…and increase the distance covered to 125 kilometers instead of 100 and make tyre change mandatory at least once.

    1. @spiderman 100 km is good. Longer would only make them resemble actual races more.
      I agree on pole position, though.

    2. If we are going to stop them from “interfering with pole position”, they will need a decent amount of points awarded, and those points need to be awarded at least as far down as those for a current GP. If there are not a decent amount of points available, then the teams and drivers will not make as much of an effort with them, and they will fail. If they award points to fewer positions, it will only cement the advantages of the top teams, and the lower end of the grid will have far less incentive to compete.

      I am also not sure about the mandatory tyre change. I know that last year, without tyre changes, the sprints were pretty dull. However, I generally hate the artificial mandatory tyre change we currently have, and it would be even more artificial (IMHO) added to the sprints. I could potentially see it being acceptable to restrict them to the softest tyre, with the aim that the softest tyre couldn’t do the whole distance of a sprint.

      When it comes to sprints in general, I am going to reserve judgement until I’ve seen how the new cars turn out*. I enjoyed the effect of the sprints on the race weekend last year: reduced practice, both overall and before parc ferme came into effect, made the practice sessions more engaging and exciting, and also made the Friday qualifying session more exciting (IMHO). They didn’t have a massive effect on the races, if any, but the sprints themselves were dull. With a bit of luck, the new cars will improve that.

      * This is all with the caveat that the FIA resolve the RD situation precedented by Abu Dhabi to me satisfaction. If not, it won’t really bother me what they do with anything else.

  2. I think the perceived “fan” blowback on sprint races is a result of a loud minority rather than real consensus. Sprint races were great. An additional standing start, more strategic options at the cost of one less practice session? Sign me up. It needs tweaking of course, such as qualifying stats etc but where we had sprint races last year the Sunday race proved to be great. Shame we won’t have more than 3 this year, I agree with Zak. Teams used as na excuse to increase the cost cap, and you probably can guess which teams can’t you?

    1. @pmccarthy_is_a_legend given that only 40% of the fans thought that it was a good idea, with 34% opposed and the remaining 26% thinking it offered no benefit, you are, if anything, just as much of a vocal minority in clamouring for more sprint races.

      1. Even if we take that remaining 26% as not caring either way – using only those who feel more strongly about it, it’s still net positive, isn’t it anon… If they felt negatively about it, they probably would have said so.
        When I went to school, 40 was more than 34.

        1. with 34% opposed and the remaining 26% thinking it offered no benefit,

          So 56% is not really interested.

          1. So 56% is not really interested.

            It’s equally valid to suggest that 66% don’t have a problem with it.

          2. @drmouse
            No problem or no benefit are not interchangeable.

          3. No benefit and not interested are also not interchangeable. There are many things I have come across in my life which I don’t believe will be of benefit, but I have been interested in their results.

            That’s my point: Grabbing those who are effectively “undecided” and lumping them in with your own preferred supporters is something people often try to do, but it is just an attempt to distort the statistics to favour their own narrative.

          4. Not sure where you’re getting that 56, if we said that 40% liked them, 34% didn’t like them and 26% didn’t care, if anything those who weren’t interested would be 60%.

        2. As noted by others, only 40% are explicitly supporting the change, with the rest either saying that there was no benefit or that it was a negative change.

          You are being, as usual, rude to others simply because you want attention – the point is that the original poster was giving the impression that they considered themselves to be in a decisive majority, but at best they only marginally outweigh those who complained in numbers.

          Furthermore, the original poll that they ran did show more negative responses – until that poll was pulled down and a new one put out instead that generated results that they preferred. There has been active cherry picking of the results from the polls to produce a more favourable outcome for their sponsor.

          1. I have absolutely no idea what you thought was rude in my comment, anon. Probably that it opposes yours, I guess.
            And really – don’t go reading anything into polls on fansites. You are still only getting responses from the tiny minority who actually care enough to go to the effort of responding.
            Especially when those polls are run by a marketing organisation with vested interests in the outcome….

          2. S, how many other posters have pointed out that it is you that seems to have a problem with others making a point of view you don’t like? Every time it happens, you respond – just as you are now – with snide and patronising remarks, before often following posters round the site and then posting a response trying to provoke a reply.

            You are the one who seems to have a problem with others liking something you do not – you’ve even repeatedly stated that you post solely to wind others up who have a point of view that you don’t like – and you’ve now got the arrogance to try and claim that, when somebody puts forward a point you dislike, that they are in the wrong for doing so? How about you learn to tolerate somebody having the opposite opinion instead, rather than taking such a snide and patronising attitude to others.

          3. S, how many other posters have pointed out that it is you that seems to have a problem with others making a point of view you don’t like?

            2 or 3 that I can recall, anon – usually from people with a similar confidence in their own ideas and beliefs. Makes for an interesting and spicy exchange. Yay for free speech, yeah. Good fun.

            you’ve even repeatedly stated that you post solely to wind others up

            Yep, a couple of times. Pressing people is how you get them to really think about what they are saying and what they really mean.
            They’ll either back themselves into their corner, or they’ll open their mind and learn something.

            that they are in the wrong for doing so?

            Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. I’m allowed to express mine too.
            If my opinion just happens to be that I completely disagree with their version of history or something, then I’ll say that. Why shouldn’t I?
            Should I be censored for putting forward a different angle into the conversation?

            Why are you so defensive?
            I assume at least most of us here are adults and can think for ourselves – and don’t need protecting.

    2. While i like the Sprint races i still wanted some change as i was not happy the winner became the polesitter which why you do the qualfier then (which i like) Also I think it should be 125km and the points more spread not only 1-3, but 1-10 or something like 1-6 (like the old days :) )

    3. I agree. The overall concept is good and it adds value to people going to the track for the first time in decades. I think it needed refinements and with the new cars it was going to be great to see this aspect developed.

      It’s a shame that the big three can’t put their selfish opportunism aside for the good of the sport and the same goes for the vocal minority.

      1. @coops27 that’s a great point about people going to the track for the first time. Tickets are expensive at the best of times, the more value we can deliver to people the better for sure.

      2. @coops27 @pmccarthy_is_a_legend

        adds value to people going to the track

        I’d argue the opposite as imo one of the best, most valuable experiences you can get from attending a race weekend are the 2 Friday practice sessions which is a time in the weekend where you are able to walk the track & watch from different locations.

        You simply don’t have time to do that with just a single 1 hour session & don’t want to be doing it during qualifying & races where you need to be paying attention to a big screen to follow the action.

        Losing the option to be able to do that takes a massive amount of value out of attending a race weekend. Not to mention how you are also actually seeing less track running on a sprint weekend as the gimmick race is half hour shorter than a practice sessions.

        1. @roger-ayles we are never going to agree on this, still, its interesting to hear different points of view. Fundamentally arguing that a practice session is a better experience than a racing session goes against everything that motor racing stands for in my opinion. It is a no contest.
          An additional benefit for fans of having less practice sessions that many people glaze over is the fact that the teams have less data to work with going into the weekend, and as a result have to make more calls on the fly, which adds to the excitement, increases the possibility of mistakes being made and rewards talent and ability to think on their feet within the teams. Also drivers have less time to understand the tires behaviour in long runs, which supports less predictable races.
          All around a winner in my book.

          1. @pmccarthy_is_a_legend The thing with the idea that cutting practice is better for fans is something i’ve always disagreed with in part because in the long run I don’t think it would result in better/less predictable racing because teams would just adjust run programs & data collection & end up able to get all the data they need with less running anyway.

            The only time less practice can lead to less predictable races is when the lost practice time is unexpected due to bad weather & other interruptions which catch teams out & mean they are unable to do the run plan they went into the weekend expecting to be able to do. On occasions such as Imola 2020 (Which just had the single 90 minute session) & the 3 sprint weekends last year with less practice I don’t think having less track time made any difference to the racing because teams went into the weekend knowing they had less time so altered run plans accordingly.

            I also think that sprint weekends actually give teams more data rather than less because by having a race before the GP they are going to be getting far more representative data as far as how tyres are performing under race conditions. The sprint is effectively the opening stint of the GP (With a 24hr red flag) so all of those unknows/uncertainties you usually have going into the opening stint of the GP now occur on Saturday which takes away from the GP & makes that opening stint on Sunday significantly less interesting as a result.

            An additional negative is that it would mean they end up relying more on simulators/simulation tools which is not only bad as far as it’s stuff fans don’t get to see (While we do get to see cars on track for practice sessions) but it’s also the top teams who tend to have the better simulation tools so it’s going to benefit them more than the smaller teams. I’d also argue that it will hurt any potential new teams who won’t have the past data on top of having less track running to get it.
            I will simply never agree with giving fans less track time, It’s bad enough we don’t have testing anymore which is already giving fans less opportunities to see the cars.
            I used to be at some track watching cars testing at least once a month & entry was often free or very cheap. I feel so, so bad for the newer/younger fans who don’t have opportunities to go & stand trackside to watch them we used to. And are also having track time further taken away from them with reduction to practice or these silly gimmick races that take away the time to walk tracks & see the cars acting in different places.

            This is one area where Indycar is so much better than F1. They still do testing regularly & They still have a lot of practice over a weekend which gives fans plenty of opportunities to see them trackside & how they handle different types of corners & so on. It’s such a better fan experience than F1 in that regard.

            Just a shame Indycar has been turned into a boring single make series.

          2. @roger-ayles

            don’t think it would result in better/less predictable racing because teams would just adjust run programs & data collection & end up able to get all the data they need with less running anyway.

            Quite a lot of conjecture and confirmation bias on this whole comment, so no really worth the time picking it apart.
            Let’s just say if given the choice, most fans would prefer to watch a race session to a practice session. Thats why most fans tune in on Sunday rather than Thursday or Friday.

        2. @roger-ayles

          You still have the option of walking the track to see other vantage points, there will still be on-track action through the day with support programs as Qualifying is scheduled for happy hour. There is still 2 hours of free practice.

          As for cutting F1 track time, I get the point, but most people will trade 25 non-meaningful laps for a 17 lap race.

          I respect your opinion and you’re personal preference, but attendance figures and viewing numbers show that this format is more popular and I think you have to respect that as well.

          1. @coops27 I always go do other things for the support races as i’ve no interest in single make categories, I’m attending an F1 race to see F1 drivers in F1 cars on an F1 track.

            And again you don’t want to be walking the track during qualifying as that like the race is when you really need to be in a seat where you can see a big screen to keep up with timing so you know whats going on in qualifying.

            Having the 2 practice sessions on Friday was perfect for the track walks as you had the 2 sessions, You could walk part the track during one & the rest for the other with enough time to not feel like you need to rush. You don’t want to be walking around over 2 days & you don’t want to be walking around during qualifying or races.

            This whole gimmick format just doesn’t work & since it may end up in Montreal this year I guess I won’t be attending that as I was planning to. I just want nothing to do with this awful, gimmick format thats been forced through by an american company that knows nothing about f1 or it’s fans & clearly doesn’t care to learn or listen.


          2. @roger-ayles
            So this is purely about what is your particular preference and you will deprive yourself of something you enjoy rather than compromise in any way?

            Also, it’s not a gimmick, it’s was a legitimate qualifying format that is used in other series around the world. If the changes go ahead for this year and it’s a stand-alone sprint then it will be a legitimate stand-alone race. ‘Gimmick’ and ‘Americanization’ are just used by people that don’t like stuff and they can’t explain why they don’t like stuff

            Liberty has done nothing but listen, learn, and implement changes that are in the interest of fans. fan engagement, F1TV, the 22 regulations, drive to survive, the entire 2020 season, Cost cap and fairer distribution of prize money. but you want to throw all that out because you can’t do a track walk during FP2?

          3. @coops27 Thing is that walking the track on Friday is actually my favourite part of a race weekend, It’s also why I used to attend as many of the test sessions I used to back before the FIA deprived us of that by banning testing a decade or so ago.

            I do see these sprints as a gimmick, I don’t care that other lesser series do them, I have always & will always see such formats as gimmicks. Hence why I don’t pay any attention to those lesser series which do such things.

            And from my point of view Liberty have done far more negative than positive as I legitimately don’t like most of what they have done/want to do. They have put show above sport which is a big part of what created the Abu Dhabi farce & sadly tainted Max Verstappen’s championship. The massive increase in red flags just to artificially mix things up with more standing starts, The silly gimmick sprint format, Bonus points, The most restrictive set of regulations in the sports history, Drive to survive which is awful fake drama imo. They are just taking the sport in a direction that i’m struggling to want to follow it down. The nascar-ification of F1.

            And the things I do like have been done badly. F1TV which is great on paper but a joke in application. The budget cap which should have come in with less restrictions on development rather than more.

            My frustration is that I feel like i’m been driven away from F1 by Liberty & left with nowhere else to go because there is nothing else out there that gives me what the real F1 does (What we have now is more Indycar+). Those who didn’t like F1 should maybe have just watched Indycar or something & left the real F1 fans to enjoy the real F1 rather than trying to change everything into a lesser Indycar+ pseudo-spec, artificial gimmick filled show over sport joke!!

            #LibertyOutNOW #WeWantF1 #FansAgainstGimmicks #NoToSprints #NoIndycar+

    4. @pmccarthy_is_a_legend There is definitely an element of echo chambers in this discussion, but that cuts both ways – both the (predominantly long-term) fans of the sport who vocally oppose sprint races on forums like this one, and also the likes of Domenicali and Brawn who loudly extol their benefits while arguing that those who oppose them are “traditionalists” or simply “yet to be convinced.”

      The most recent Fan Voice survey is probably the most representative way of assessing actual opinion, which shows that fans are narrowly in favour of sprint races but large numbers are undecided. I don’t actually think that’s a very good result for the sport given the aggressive way in which they’ve been marketed.

      1. @red-andy I think it is a good result actually. What fans are saying is that they like the concept (a majority, though narrow still a majority) but many of them can’t decide whether its good or not. This could be for a number of reasons. Possibly we haven’t had enough of Sprint races for people to make up their minds.
        It is a yes in general but please make some changes and tweaks so more people can get onboard, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome for an experiment.

    5. Gavin Campbell
      4th February 2022, 13:58

      I disagree that they were great and actually other than the novelty that I’m sure a few extra people tuned in for it creates a bigger drain on time thus reducing numbers.

      To follow a weekend properly you now need an hour on Friday afternoon or evening (rather difficult for most of us!), an hour on Saturday to watch the sprint and then to return for two hours on the Sunday.

      Despite being a die-hard I dont think I managed to watch all 3 sessions live at any sprint race last year. So I actually think it doesn’t work long term as it increases the already increased time commitment of 22 races.

      F1 was so popular previously because it was easy to access and had 16-18 races on a sunday throughout the year. It creates an easy to follow narriative rather than this muddying of the waters but I’m sure someone declared it a sucsess and took home a nice bundle of extra cash.

  3. Has its hope of more sprint action in 2022 therefore been scuppered by the greed of a few teams?

    If there are no sprint races thanks to greed then Gordon Gecko was right: Greed is Good!

  4. I for one am glad they are cutting them back. It dilutes the prestige of Pole Position, and the Grand Prix itself. There are already too many races in a season. I think the sport needs to look to the future of its own sustainability. Keeping the ridiculously expensive hybrid tech, and adding sprint races is only going to keep pushing costs up. Before you know it every team on the grid will only be able to survive by being bought out by billionaire’s who want their son’s to drive racing cars.

  5. As much as I dislike the sprint races, I feel they are just being used as a wedge. I think they will go ahead despite what the majority of fans think. The reason is the same as putting F1 behind a paywall either on Fox or F1’s broadcast. Simply because they can and will charge a premium to watch and the profits are substantial despite the smaller audience.
    I’m sure an arrangement will be reached with the teams, maybe a cut of the takings in the form of a budget increase.

    1. Um, yeah the races are pretty expensive you know. Charging for it is not unreasonable and it’s not like the NFL where you can put an ad every 30 seconds between plays.

      1. @yaru You really don’t know how it all works do you :)
        NFL, yes I know what that is. also called Gridiron and it was an adaption from Rugby because the Americans thought Rugby was too slow, well that turned out to be a dead-end now there’s plenty of time for ads :))

      2. @yaru There is hardly a frame of the F1 broadcast that isn’t crammed with sponsors logos. The very style of camerawork is dictated by marketing concerns. The advertising is constant, not merely in 30 second chunks.

        1. Gavin Campbell
          4th February 2022, 14:00

          Although that money isn’t exactly going into the Broadcasters pockets to pay for the coverage is it?

          1. Gavin Campbell I think the goal of Liberty is to have the majority if not all races shown exclusively on the F1 TV channel, that would be a nice little earner for them.

  6. With the current rules, sprint races were pointless, other than the extra start and the first two laps. If they’d implement some of the excellent changes proposed by ChainBear, I’d be all for more sprint races. As it is, they can just drop them for all I care.

  7. “We want to be able to use more money” seems like the opposite of greed to me. :D

    1. They aren’t donating it to charity, @losd.
      It’s for their own benefit, and nobody else’s.

  8. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    4th February 2022, 8:19

    Disappoint accountants?

    No worries there. I’ve been doing it all my life and it hasn’t bothered me one bit.

    I was worried with the budget cap, accountancy my get the same level of importance to the teams performance as engineering or aerodynamics. And we might start talking about it on this forum…
    oh wait.

    1. Accounting will probably be more important a few years after budget cap kick in rather than immedietly cos they will start to hand out punishments, appeals, counterappeals, etc.

      Although being a closed league helps a lot, compared to say association football

  9. The teams do more mileage on their race engines (yes I know it replaces a practice session so net zero mileage) so as a result, the sprints are detrimental to the longevity of the PU’s given the parc ferme rules on engine modes. Being a revenue raiser for F1 / Liberty, the teams have a right to ask for increased revenue off the back of that increase, and an increase in cost off the back of the extra 100k of competitive running which may influence decisions for the remaining races of the season.

    I can understand the viewpoint of the teams that operate easily within the cost cap, but for those who make tough decisions between competitiveness and cost compliance, there is a disadvantage which should be considered. What I can’t fathom is teams not banging the drum for an increased slice of the bigger pie.

  10. Sprint races make zero sense from a cost-cutting POV. I like the idea of more races for more entertainment, but last year they just weren’t enjoyable.

    How about this: immediately after qualifying, the drivers reverse grid in a cart race using identical carts provided by F1. It would be a separate sprint championship just for fun. Zero cost to the teams. And it would be fun for the drivers and the fans. I think it would be hilarious. Drivers that don’t do well in qualifying could redeem themselves, or take out their frustration in some elbows-out action.
    It would be good to see how some back-markers, who are not normally rated, do against the front-runners under equal terms.

  11. Probably not an Original idea, but if they want sprint Races then i think they should take a normal Sunday race, cut it in two and host two separate sprint races instead,
    Sat Quali as normal sets the Grid for Race 1 on Sunday Morning,
    Race 2 on Sunday afternoon is either the order of finish from race 1, or you could even set it as reverse grid from Race 1
    Half points on both races,
    i think the race circuits might like it as they would maybe get fans to hang around longer and spend between races,
    one issue is the time for repair between race 1 and 2 might be problematic if they have serious issues…
    am sure there is a whole other raft of problems in that concept, but im not a fan of shoving a sprint race in and messing around with qualifying.

  12. Yawn. It’s a Grand Prix weekend. We want the tension, the build up, the atmosphere, the excitement.

    We do not want a parade on Saturday if that’s all we end up with on Sunday too.

    There was 1 interesting sprint race, and it was only interesting because a wdc contender was trying to recover positions.

    If sprint races are to stay, do something that emulates that, reward it with points, but DO NOT influence the starting grid for Sunday based on the outcome.

  13. Sprint away, spint races, sprint away… Never return.

  14. I couldn’t care less about Sprint Races. I am sick, tired, bored and totally and utterly fed up with modern motorsport’s obsession with messing around with ways of deciding the grid.

    Seeing a racing car flat out against the clock, or setting as high an average speed as possible, with the driver using their skill to extract every possible ounce of performance from it is a spectacle like no other. It is one of the fundamental qualities of automotive competition.

    Just stop messing with it !!

    1. Seeing a racing car flat out against the clock, or setting as high an average speed as possible, with the driver using their skill to extract every possible ounce of performance from it is a spectacle like no other. It is one of the fundamental qualities of automotive competition.

      Which still happens at sprint events….

  15. playstation361
    4th February 2022, 11:03

    It’s like a magic show which is fun to watch.

  16. I wouldn’t be disappointed with none, In fact i’d be far happier with none.

  17. Cancel all sprint races!

  18. Sprint races are a solution in search of a problem. Focus on what’s actually WRONG with the sport F1.

  19. Of course the sprint format won’t happen as planned, they linked it to crypto ;)

  20. The most important aspect is being missed and it’s the thing that also makes races processional. I’ve said it before and will continue to beat the drum, qualifying, whether sprint or traditional, lines the cars up fastest to slowest and if the teams are not allowed to change the cars between qualifying and the race, then why would anyone expect there to be more than a few overtakes during the race? Get rid of the parc ferme rules first and foremost.

  21. There are some good options on how the sprint races should be done on chain bear yt channel if the sprint races aren’t going away anytime soon.. For example my favorite was don’t make the result of the sprint as to determine the grid for the grand prix instead making it standalone and make it like mini championship and the points only will be given after all the sprint races are done and the standings for the sprints.. I know it’s very complicated and I too rather not having sprint races at all but at least Liberty should find a way that their products are high quality not just for adding gimmick sake..

  22. fix the core problems and you don’t need to alter the basic sporting concept at all — undless you desperately want it

  23. If they want to do sprint. They should make it an independent championship “The Crypto Cup”. Crypto puts a bucket of money and the winner takes it home. Result of the sprint should have no effect at all on the starting order for the grand prix and also no points awarded for the F1 championship.

  24. At least scuppering three is better.

    All should be scuppered would be the best.

  25. The cynic in me suspects that teams are playing the “don’t upset Liberty by disagreeing with them” game like they used to with Bernie.

    Instead of openly opposing sprints, they’ve come up with a novel way to torpedo this sprint abomination without having to say they don’t want them.

  26. Tommytintop (@)
    4th February 2022, 23:20

    The sprint/qualifying is not needed qualifying has been determined on Friday. Why have a qualifying for a qualifying?
    Still, you could go the whole hog, and have a qualifying on the Friday morning, to find out who qualifies for the qualifying which then qualifies for the qualifying who ultimately qualifies for the qualifying for the race on Sunday.

    Or are there too many qualifying’s?

    1. Why have a qualifying for a qualifying?

      Why have more than one race in a championship?

  27. The F1 circus could surely use a bit more of disappointing the accountants and not the audience

  28. I would be happy with any race right now, 3 more, 3 less… I just want one race for this weekend.

Comments are closed.