Race start, Suzuka, 2022

Rate the race: 2022 Japanese Grand Prix

2022 Japanese Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

What did you think of today’s race? Share your verdict on the Japanese Grand Prix.

RaceFans has held polls on every F1 race since 2008 to find out which fans thought of each round of the season.

Join in the latest poll and give your verdict on the race: 10 being the highest and 1 the lowest. Please vote based on how entertaining and exciting you thought the race was, not on how your preferred driver or team performed.

What were the best and worst moments of the race? What was the main thing you’ll remember about it? Rate the race out of ten and leave a comment below:

Rate the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix out of 10

  • 10 (3%)
  • 9 (5%)
  • 8 (13%)
  • 7 (14%)
  • 6 (18%)
  • 5 (17%)
  • 4 (8%)
  • 3 (8%)
  • 2 (4%)
  • 1 (10%)

Total Voters: 153

Loading ... Loading ...

1 = ‘Terrible’, 10 = ‘Perfect’

A RaceFans account is required to vote. You can register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

View more Rate the Race results:

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.

63 comments on “Rate the race: 2022 Japanese Grand Prix”

  1. Some decent racing, but overall, over-cautiousness stroke again.

    1. @jerejj a race to sum up the last 10 years. The fia and fom cannot stand up above the teams political power and we get a shambolic race at all levels. The inconsistency of making decisions based on the result that suit f1 better. Might not change a thing about the championship this year but in my view race direction has reached a new low of incompetence. F1 is scripted.

  2. Rating the actual racing, this one was great fun! Such a shame they couldn’t get all the laps in. It was one of those races where it was hard to know where to look! George’s passes around the outside of turn 6 were fantastic! Surely it’s a red bull 1-2. Gave it a 7.

    1. At this point the FIA should ask pirelli to stop making the extreme wets. They all pitted for inters as soon as they started racing again

  3. Decent race. Important points for Aston Martin and Alpine and finally some points for Latifi. Possible penalty for Leclerc?

  4. A solid 8. Great fight between Hamilton and Ocon ánd Perez and Leclerc! Great racing that was!

  5. What there was was pretty good.
    There just wasn’t enough of it. Far too cautious again.

  6. Poor stewardship again compared to last week.

  7. Best (extended) sprint race yet!

    1. And they finally tested the sprint format without DRS!

      1. Wouldn’t say it was a good advert for it.

    2. And even no sprinklers were needed!

  8. A classic FIA finish once again.

  9. The racing was good but the race direction is a joke.

    1. This is an understatement.
      The FIA brakes its own rule to give all the points.

  10. FIA ruining it with over cautiousness. Would’ve cleared up hours earlier if they’d have got them all on wets behind the safety car for 5-10 laps to clear the standing water.

    1. FIA ruining it with over cautiousness

      They have panicked due to the crane incident and overreacted so safety will not be questioned.

  11. 8 to the little racing we had, but unfortunately they were intermediate conditions immediately, could’ve been a 9 or even 10 race, but like always too cautious. I miss the 90s, spa 1998, 1997, spain 1996, etc.

    1. @esploratore1 Spa 1998 a race that was quite dull and nothing but a crash fest. Same with Spain 1996 & Monaco 1997.

      Even at the time many felt many of the very wet races from that shouldn’t have been run and the complaints from drivers and others in that regard is what led to procedures been introduced to allow races to be delayed or run for longer periods under the SC.

      We want to see racing but I at least don’t want to see races like some of the wet races we had in the 80s/90s and before which were more of a crash fest lottery rather than a race. Where spray was so bad nobody could run close enough to actually race, Where said spray and lack of visibility resulted in cars just running into the back of each other on the straights and where the level of water and aquaplaning created conditions that were more about luck than driver skill.

      When you actually go back and look at some of those very wet races, They weren’t actually especially good and are in some cases only remembered because of accidents rather than because they were actually good races featuring good racing.

      1. Spa 1998 a race that was quite dull

        Speaking for yourself, of course.
        I thought it was great.

        Wet races are very much more about the driver, their skills and their calculation of risk than it is about the car they drive.
        Nothing at all like a “lottery.”

        Those drivers lacking in those qualities tend to be the ones who crash.

        1. What was so great about it though?

          There was no close racing or much overtaking because nobody could run close enough to race because of the poor visibility.

          You had Michael Schumacher who was the best driver in wet conditions at the time run into the back of another car because he couldn’t see it.

          You had a multi-car crash at the start for similar reasons, One car crashed and nobody behind could see it so just ran into the mess.

          Outside of the start crash, Outside of the DC/Schumacher crash & Fisichella/Nakano crash it was a race where nothing happened other than cars flying off the track. It was awful as a race because there was no racing & it did indeed turn into a lottery.

          Those drivers lacking in those qualities tend to be the ones who crash.

          So I guess all of the usual front runners in 1998 were not very good as it was all of the usual front runners including multiple race winners and world champions who failed to finish.

          1. What was so great about it though?

            Exactly how many times have you requested quality over quantity?
            Race driving in the wet is all quality. The racing itself sure isn’t about quantity, is it?

            Outside of all the things you mentioned (which were highlights in their own right) it was no worse than any other F1 event.
            “Lottery” is such a rubbish description, as though anyone could win without putting in any skill or taking any risk whatsoever.
            Hey, you could do it, right…? Absolute nonsense. Of course it takes skill.

            So I guess all of the usual front runners in 1998 were not very good as it was all of the usual front runners including multiple race winners and world champions who failed to finish.

            You misrepresent the incident at the start of the race – Coulthard underestimated the risk and crashed, and the rest of the pack piled into him.
            You’re choosing your own words instead of debating the ones I’ve used to describe it.
            There are a thousand reasons why a car can fail to finish a race, and a momentary loss of concentration or poor choice by the driver does not equate to a complete lack of skill.

            I’m sure you can respect that different people like different things about F1 and motorsport in general, you just seem to choose not to.

        2. Super wet races where drivers are aquaplaning are pointless. Driver skill counts for nothing. I know people like to look back at races like Spa 1998 with rose tinted glasses but in reality, we were probably quite lucky that races like that didn’t end with a fatality or two. Imagine if the Coulthard off happened at Radillon. It would have been a Hubert style accident with less safe machinery.

          1. We all have our own opinions.
            Driving fast – but not to the point of aquaplaning – is very much a skill, and one that separates drivers. The tyres are the same for everyone and everyone has their own throttle and brake pedals. Every driver makes their own choices and assessments.
            It’s really no different than determining how fast to take a corner, or which line to use. You make a judgement before you get there, you commit, and you adapt throughout. If you get it wrong, you accept the consequences as yours and yours alone.
            And if you don’t get it wrong, you get to do it all again on the next lap.

  12. Gave it a 5, ridiculous the time wasted and some of the racing was decent but can’t give it more due to the seeming inability to race in wet conditions. What is the point of the extreme wet if they refuse to race in the conditions it’s designed for.

  13. When they don’t know what points to issue at the end of a race you can’t rate it high. Hours of sitting around to watch drivers send a single racing lap on wet tires then decide its safe enough to race on inters after all what a waste of time.

    1. They just avoided the full wets as soon as possible, as they’re rubbish (ask Mick).
      Important to note: Visibility is the most important safety issue, not the grip.
      I would urge Pirelli to drop their current full wets, and make a new tire like the inters, but with 2 – 4 mm larger thread depth. And for organizers of races with large chance of standing water i would urge to provide drainage options where needed. A few submersible pumps in strategic points and a few marshals with large squeegees can remove standing water. Off racing line, one could add guiding grooves in the tarmac. Of course this won’t help if the rain is too heavy, but here it wasn’t that bad.

      1. It’s an avenue to pursue but I doubt it’s quite as simple as we’d hope it to be.

  14. Wow that many seconds in so few laps by Max

  15. So, the FIA decides to attribute the full amount of points, now?
    AFAIK we’re between 50 and 75% of racing distance.
    So Max should not yet be crowned DWC. Is it the same organisation that needs to decide about a budget cap? good luck with that.
    Other than that: Great race, once it restarted. A shame Leclerc wasn’t able to keep Verstappen in sight…

    1. Part points only awarded for 50-75% when red flag calls an end to race but when there is a red flag and the race restarts full points can be awarded.

      The teams knew the rules but watching Sky F1 they confused themselves and subsequently us.

      1. Not only Sky was confused. So was Gaetan Vigneron @ RTBF and the people at RedBull.

  16. Now thats their new way to make the WDC exciting? Not applying the correct number of points and make everyone wondering, whats up. Really?

  17. Alpine is purposely ensuring that Ocon finishes ahead of Alonso so that he can look good on the points standings at the end of the season. I am very very angry. Why was Alonso delayed so long for his first pitstop? That put him quite some positions behind Ocon who pitted earlier. And even the secon pitstop was scheduled so late that Alonso wouldn’t have the laps to get past Ocon or even get close to him. Keith, please take this up. It isn’t the first time we aee thus happening. No wonder Alonso is leaving for Aston Martin.

    1. Alpine is purposely ensuring that Ocon finishes ahead of Alonso

      Happens all the time in F1.
      McLaren have been doing the same for Norris for quite a while, deliberately holding Ricciardo out for longer again here.
      Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes are all well known for doing it too.

    2. That is not how it happened. Alpine decided not to double-stack because they were too close from each other and Ocon was in front, having done a better job this time in quali. Alonso pitted right on the next lap. Then for his second pitstop he was going nowhere on used inters so they gambled to overtake Vettel which almost worked. No big deal, really.

      1. Why did they wait so long for Alonso’s second stop for new intermediates? This delay in pitting isn’t something new this season. In Canada, Alpine threw away a solid P2 grid slot that Alonso earned. With Alonso having qualified much ahead of Ocon then, why didn’t they pit Alonso first there? It’s a clear pattern we’ve been seeing this year.

    3. And again, how can anyone think a team deliberately jeopardizes its WCC points (where the money is) to favor one driver over another. It only ever happened eventually when there were no change in the race result (like the multi 21 row). Stop reading conspiracy nonsense.

      1. It isn’t jeopardizing WCC points
        It is ensuring one driver finishes ahead of the other.

      2. Check this article. Probably it will open your eyes:

          1. @pt if it doesn’t open yours, can’t do much about it. Making bad decisions is one thing, deliberately destroying your own team’s results is another.
            Also, in Canada Alonso had a problem with its car. Two suppositions by yourself doesn’t make a “clear pattern”.

            What is sure though is that Alpine has a very bad reliability and sometimes a poor strategy.
            And don’t get me wrong, Alonso is my favourite driver. He wasn’t the better of the two this time. Have a look at his onboard camera from 2h30 onwards on F1TV.

  18. Haha desperate to give him the championship before the cost cap ruling tomorrow. He’d have won anyway, pathetic.

    1. One does wonder. Maybe they wanted Max to get no. 2 today before it becomes no.1 again tomorrow. I kind of doubt this is the case but there is a sneaking suspicion.

  19. Today I’m awarding 17 points (out of 10)

    1. 1 … Actually got a “checkered”
      +1 … Utterly dominating performance by Max & Red Bull. Smoked the field.
      +1 … Ocon held off a frantic Lewis
      +1 …. “Rain” race
      +1 … Latifi got two (!) points
      + 2 … Laura’s rack
      Total … 7

  20. Would’ve been a fantastic race if it was in full length with tyre strategies. But we only had a half, so half points. 5

  21. I suspect FIa should retire “wet” tyres. Apparently races would be stopped or not started when the conditions would call for extreme wet tyres. All drivers restarted today on extreme wets by FIA decision but immediately changed to inters.
    Eitherit was possible to start the race before on extreme wets or extreme wets will not be used because conditions wil call for a red flag.

  22. For the half of the race we got, a good 7 or 8 out of 10.

    If you include the delay and confusing officiating, 4 or 5 out of 10.

    If you include the tractor incident, 0 out of 10.

  23. F1 needs to let the races finish and skip the podium ceremony on the broadcast. Put it on youtube . That’s two back to back races ruined by poor FIA/F1 decision making. No one cares about the podium if the race was shortened because of broadcast windows.

    What ever happened to four hours anyway? Think of all the classic races that would have never been under this current 3 hour setup. No no no!

    1. Yeah. They should have instructed all teams to attach torches to the cars, right?
      Did you see how dark it was? Night falls very quickly in Japan at this time of year.l

      1. Then obviously the race was started too late in the day.

    2. It was too dark to continue for much longer.

  24. Can’t rate a self-imposed half race. The Pirellis, once again, prove to be the deciding joke

    1. How did the tyres cause this?

      1. The current, nominated as full wet, doesn’t award the ability to have a race in wet conditions. The teams switching to the intermediates within a few laps (or indeed immediately when possible with Vettel) after the safetycar is proof of the fact that the decision was made to delay the start until conditions were such that the so-called wets were not really needed. Was it not mandated, they would’ve all started on intermediates.
        IF they had a good wet weather tyre, there might have been a race of various lines around the wet, even what you might call a flooded track for a few laps before the changeover to intermediates.
        But then, obviously, the current Formula brings with it the underfloor churning up a massive spray behind and the long, heavy cars, combined with the low ride height makes them aquaplane unrecoverably.

        1. You got there in the end.
          The tyres are fine – it’s the amount of spray and the complete lack of trust in the competitors being responsible that is behind the delay.
          Teams switch to inters ASAP simply because they are allowed to. They tried it at race start, and the FIA weren’t happy with letting them try it again.

          F1 don’t really want to run in extreme wet conditions for other reasons too.
          Commercially, for example – it’s difficult to see the cars on TV with so much spray. It’s difficult to read the sponsorship signage too….
          And a rain delay puts those sponsors on screen for a bit more time, conveniently.

  25. The actual race was good to watch, loved the Ocon-Hamilton battle in particular, Leclerc-Perez made the last few laps interesting too. And just watching the cars in those conditions is always nice.

    So I gave it an 7. But according to Appendix G of Neil’s Race Rating Regulations:

    31.2 A shortened race comprising fewer than 75% of scheduled racing laps will be scored at 75% of a full race score.
    43.8 Where compounding factors are present in causing fewer racing laps than necessary, including but not limited to those detailed below, a further reduction of 10% of a full race score for each irritating factor shall be applied.
    a) overcautious race direction
    d) poor wet weather tyres

    However, because I forgot to add a line into 43.8 which applied to races which are not red-flagged and unable to be restarted, I’m forced to award 5.25 (rounded to 5), rather than 3.85 (rounded to 4).

  26. Pretty good racing when there was actual racing, but shenanigans makes it a very easy 2.

  27. I was disappointed that we didn’t see Russell and Alonso tearing through the field the last couple laps. I really enjoy the wet races since the cars are mostly equalized and it’s all about team strategy and driver bravery. Not suggesting installing sprinklers but it’s amazing when it happens.

  28. I only watched the highlights on C4 but this was pretty much the whole race. I didn’t really know how to rate this but in the end gave it a 7.

    The actual racing itself was pretty exciting. A shame there wasn’t more of a battle at the very front. I was surprised how quickly Charles fell back but it seems his front tyres faded very quickly. There was a good battle between Charles and Checo though and Alonso and Hamilton. It was good to see Vettel enjoying probably his final Japanese GP as well.

    The FIA rule book seems to be a mess. Surely less than full points should have been awarded for a race this short?

    1. I meant Ocon and Hamilton.

  29. The way wet races are managed is auite frustrating. The lack of decent full wets hurts in my opinion. Made the first two hours quite frustrating. Happy there was some decent racing after that with nice fights between Hamilton/Ocon and Perez/Leclerc.

Comments are closed.