F1 Sprint Races: Should They Stay, Go or Evolve?
F1 Sprint Races: Should They Stay, Go or Evolve?
Sprint races are shaking up F1 weekend schedule in a big way. The main aim: to present meaningful and progressively engaging sessions across all three days and heighten fan interest throughout a Grand Prix (GP) event. Having confirmed six sprint races for 2022, is F1 finally smoothing a gimmick into a well-thought-out strategy?
Not yet at least. Interventions viewed as promotional, marketing driven or seeking to manipulate the racing spectacle are extensively disliked by fans. This coupled with apparent schoolboy flaws/mistakes by the FIA and FOM when implementing sprint ‘qualifying’, makes the sale harder. First, an inability to give the sprint race a suitable name. Second, an inability to maintain records. Third, an inability to progress their [qualifying] logic through to fruition. Having said this, sprint races do tick certain boxes such as making Fridays and Saturdays more meaningful, thus more fan engagement and equally important more revenue. Therefore, sprint races really do have the potential to steer F1 towards a new race weekend format.
F1 Sprint Races: Should They Stay, Go or Evolve?
On Saturday 17th July 2021, Max Verstappen made Formula 1 history by winning the sport’s first sprint race (even though technically called sprint ‘qualifying’). The FIA rule book refers to sprint qualifying. F1 sprint qualifying is effectively a mini race run over 100km (300km is the usual GP distance) one day before the Grand Prix. Since then, two more sprint races have taken place, the second at Monza and the third at Sao Paulo. As expected, the experiment has divided opinion.
In F1’s most recent fan survey published in October 2021 just over 167 000 voices from 187 countries were captured and analysed by Nielson Sports. The FIA is on record that fan feedback carries significant weight in any decision on the future of sprint races for 2022 and beyond.
Below is a short summary of the views of F1 fans views after the first two.
This article is divided into four sections. The first section discusses how the idea gained ground, and the criteria used to analyse the concept. The second section provides data on the three sprint races in 2021. The good and the bad of sprint races will be analysed in the third section. Next, different sprint formats will be analysed. Finally, a short conclusion on whether sprint races should go, stay or evolve will be presented.
1. What drove the need for F1 Sprint Races?
The sprint race idea is not new. It, however, eventually gained ground due to the predictability of the existing format and a perceived need for more wheel-to-wheel racing. To move in this direction, F1’s current managing director proposed reverse grids to F1 teams back in 2019. It must be said, the idea of reverse grids has also been around a while due to use in other formats such as F2 and junior categories. Most in F1 are against reverse grids and in 2019 the idea once again failed to get the support of the teams.
Despite the knockback, F1 insisted on the need to improve the show and counter offered sprint qualifying. The teams agreed with the 3-qualifying-race experiment to start in 2021. Again, the primary reason for F1 sprint races was to increase fan engagement throughout the whole weekend. For F1’s managing director of motorsports, “Friday is really for the aficionados at the moment. Watching practice sessions on Friday is fun but there is no conclusion to it. But on a Friday now [at these selected events], we’ll have the excitement of the qualifying format.”
Now, this is not the first attempt by F1 to reinvigorate the race calendar. A double points race was trialled in 2014 at Abu Dhabi and a knockout qualifying format tested in 2016 – both ultimately failed. Despite these failures and F1 fans strong dislike of any artificial gimmick to improve racing, the FIA and FOM have persevered. Introductions such as DRS in 2011 [drag reduction system] to help promote overtaking was, and still is, disliked by some fans, though most nowadays accept it as a beneficial enhancement. More recently, 2019, a single Championship point is now awarded for the fastest lap – and has certainly influenced Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton’s closely-fought Championship battle in 2021.
F1’s primary aim is to generate excitement on each day of the 3-day weekend. Historically, F1 drivers have shown their displeasure for Fridays as ‘boring’ with only the most ardent fans turning up or tuning in to watch the practice sessions. F1 CEO view is that, “This format brings many advantages: The less time for free practice sessions, the more action on the track. If we don’t try it, we will never know if it is an asset or not.”
Whilst the reasons above are absolutely valid in their own right to justify experimentation with the race format, another factor is always in play: money. Regardless of the pandemic, the introduction of cost-capping and the cost of engines in F1 are factors, and no matter what is happening, the bottom line will always be a serious factor in any decision. Prior to the first sprint ‘qualifying’, a new, lucrative, multi-year sponsorship deal – reportedly worth $100m – had been announced. This highlights the significant amounts of money at play in F1.
2. What happened in the F1 Sprint Races?
In this section three graphs show the starting and finishing positions in Friday’s qualifying and Saturday’s sprint qualifying. Green indicates that a driver picked up places during sprint qualifying, i.e., started 8th and finished 5th, thus improving their starting position for Sunday’s GP by three places. The red bars indicate drivers who were worse off, i.e., starting the GP in a lower position than they qualified on Friday for.
What happened at Silverstone? As the graph above demonstrates, there wasn’t much of a shake-up. The two biggest winners were Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen both of whom gained four places. Sergio Perez was the biggest casualty, spinning and dropping from 5th to 19th (Red Bull decided to retire the car and start Sunday’s GP from the pitlane, hence 20th position on the graphic). In terms of the spectacle, the first lap delivered the expected battle between Verstappen and Hamilton coupled with an inspirational progression by Alonso from 11th to 5th. However, drivers were unable to follow each other closely enough for the remaining 16 of 17 laps to deliver one of the principal aims of the sprint race: a fun packed dash to the line full to the brim with overtakes.
What happened at Monza? Again, the graph above demonstrates there wasn’t much of a shake-up. In the sprint, a wheel spin hampered Hamilton’s start dropping him four places to sixth, regaining fifth place only. A collision with McLaren’s Daniel Ricciardo at the first Rettifilo chicane eventually led to Alpha Tauri’s Pierre Gasly driving over his own front wing and into the barriers. A safety car ensued for a few laps after which the sprint became a procession, Verstappen unable or unwilling to risk a pass on Bottas, Hamilton unable or unwilling to risk a pass on Lando Norris’ McLaren and seemingly everyone else suffering the same dilemma.
What happened in Interlagos? Kimi Raikkonen was the biggest loser losing 5 places after being spun by his own teammate (however, at the time, Kimi was higher up on his starting position when the contact was made, so really lost more places than the graphic shows). The biggest winner was clearly Lewis Hamilton; excluded from qualifying and demoted to the back of the grid following a rear-wing infringement on his Mercedes, gained 15 positions in 24 laps, finishing only two seconds off the podium, and one second behind Red Bull’s Sergio Perez, who started 3rd.
3. F1 Sprint Qualifying – the good and the bad
The good
Meaningful. The main selling point of the new format was to ensure each day included a meaningful, competitive session. This was clearly an improvement over the usual arrangement, giving an extra talking point of interest on Friday. “When we went public with the news that we wanted to try out a sprint qualification like this, the organisers who are eligible for the test immediately got a lot more ticket requests. And the TV broadcasters were thrilled,” Domenicali recounted as the idea was put forward. A view echoed by Alpine boss, “Every time you put cars on the track either trying to qualify or to race each other there’s a good story, there’s something happening.”
Less Practice. Though much of the hype with sprint qualifying speculated on the potential for change in the sprint race, qualifying after one hour of practice rather than the usual three or four was arguably the most significant change. The notion of less practice seemingly added to the intrigue. However, it should be remembered that the prevailing qualifying format has served F1 well for 15 years and this weekend showed it would be too radical a step to get rid of it.
Choice of tyres. Sprint qualifying permitted drivers to choose which tyre to use without affecting choice of GP race tyre. Below are the starting positions for the sprint qualifying and choice of tyre for the sprint.
As the illustration reveals, the tyre choice became more and more mixed. With its relative success of adding further strategy and excitement to the races, it appears to have already had a knock-on effect for the rules for 2022. Teams/drivers will now be given a free choice on what tyre they would like to start Sunday’s GP. The attempt to influence strategy has been evident since 2014 when F1 introduced a rule that required the drivers making it through to Q3 to start the race on the tyre used in Q2. The thinking behind this rule was that it would drive the selection of the softest compounds which degrade faster, whereas those outside the top 10 benefit from free tyre choice.
However, and ironically, the rule change had the opposite effect due to the pace advantage enjoyed by the top teams. Such has been the pace advantage, the top teams have been able to safely progress through Q2 on medium compounds, whereas the borderline teams have been disadvantaged requiring softs to progress beyond Q2. “One of the unfortunate things about the Q2 race tyre is it gives those who are really quick even more of an advantage because they can easily choose whichever tyre they want for Q2,” reflected F1 managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn earlier this month. “It’s had a slightly contrary effect, I would argue. I don’t think removing it is a big issue. It is certainly something we’re looking at for the future, whether that Q2 race tyre is still something that overall is better or worse for the race.”
It would seem this conclusion has its foundation in the apparent success of the sprint qualifying format along with Pirelli’s desire to reduce the total tyre allocations in 2022. Interestingly, for the Brazilian GP, which held the third and final sprint experiment of the year, the Q2 rule was not in force. Masi commented, “That’s all part of what we’ve been discussing of late in general, between the reduction and open, trying to ensure that we don’t have the unintended consequence of cars trying to save the tyres and not running. So it’s a very fine balance. The Q3 tyre was obviously put in there for exactly that purpose, a number of years ago. We don’t want to undo what was done.”
Money. It is not just for the business of F1, but also for F1 Teams. Brawn added: “We have got the whole financial system to review because the teams will incur extra costs for sprint events. They need to come out of that on top. But then they’ve got more to offer their sponsors and more to offer their commercial partners. They’ve got a Friday that they can invite people to, that’s really meaningful. So, there’s quite a juggling act to do that. But yeah, we haven’t heard a promoter who thinks it’s a bad idea.”
The bad
Unintended consequences. Social media went into the expected frenzy citing ‘Naming’ and ‘Records’ as the two big ‘No No’s. From a naming perspective, F1 fell, stumbled and blundered over its reluctance to consider the sprint race a ‘race’ with F1’s owners Liberty Media subsequently marketing it as the ‘F1 Sprint.’ For fans it smacks of indecision and is an annoyance.
The arguments for pole position to be awarded to either Verstappen or Hamilton for the 2021 British Grand Prix will rage forever. The Dutchman started from pole after winning sprint qualifying. For many, Verstappen and Vettel included, pole should have awarded to Hamilton for Friday’s qualifying.
Both issues ought to have been properly addressed prior to the first sprint.
The significance and future of Friday qualifying may be adversely impacted by how teams view the importance of grid positions in the sprint race. If the driver for competitiveness shifts from grid positions to making good getaways and strong first laps, then qualifying on Friday may become of less importance.
Lack of excitement. Apine boss articulated what everyone knows to be true, “Not every race is spectacular, not every sprint will be spectacular.” The same consideration applies to all sports, inevitably not all football matches are thrillers! The general consensus was, “There was a little bit of action for two laps, and then it was nothing.” The outcome of the sprint experiment does little to dampen such criticisms especially where the sprint race is less of a thriller, more of a damp squib. Ticket sales and fan feedback both have a role to play in any subsequent changes for 2022. The Apine boss concluded, “The format lends itself less well to an animated race. Equally, it’s F1, and stuff happens. There will be boring sprints, there will be boring races.”
Big losers (with no big winners). A probable outcome the consequences of which ought to have been carefully thought through. It’s hard to judge the value of sprint races based on drivers hugely losing out and dropping to the back of the grid on Sunday. Is F1 really better off, for example, with Verstappen or Hamilton starting at the back on Sunday and with little hope of challenging their rival at the front? There are indications F1 is listening and a tweak could involve the grid for Saturday’s sprint and Sunday’s GP both being decided by Friday qualifying. Thus, minimising the unintended consequence of diluting Friday qualifying.
F1 seems to be moving towards the need for points to encourage drivers to push in the sprint races; though is mindful of the risk of diminishing the importance of the GP by awarding too many points on a Saturday. The Saturday sprint race might prove to be the right vehicle to offer drivers the chance to go after more championship points rather than the current 3-2-1 available. The latter removes the competitive desire for most in the grid. Conversely, it might lead to situations where some rounds are worth more points than others.
4. F1 Sprint Race Formats
As noted earlier, Formula 1 is considering a re-evaluation of sprint races for 2022, exploring the possibility to include them as a complete standalone rather than impact the grid for the main grand prix. Below are four different formats that F1 may use in 2022.
(i) CURRENT Sprint Qualifying Format
As mentioned earlier, the qualifying on Friday sets the grid for Saturday’s sprint qualifying which then sets the grid for Sunday’s GP. In the illustration below, Sunday’s Silverstone’s GP starting grid was formed from sprint qualifying which was subsequently formed from normal qualifying. For example, Lewis Hamilton set the quickest time on Friday’s qualifying but was beaten by Max Verstappen in the sprint qualifying on Saturday and so started 2nd for Sunday’s GP.
*Silverstone GP
Verdict: the new format achieved its ultimate goal of having a ‘focal point’ for each day. As noted earlier, there were good and bad points to take away from the ‘experiment’. It would also have been far more positive had the FIA had not caused themselves issues with what to name it, how to record poles and offering more points, all of which could have easily been addressed beforehand.
However, though the above three issues are readily resolvable, the two real issues stem from its poor concept. Even before the lights went out at Silverstone, the FIA’s aim of a mixed-up grid for Sunday’s GP was less likely to occur. The more laps the cars do, the more likely the cars will line up in car performance order. This is despite other factors coming into play, like a good/bad start and contact between cars. To put another way, when Tiger Woods was in his prime, he would be more likely to beat someone over 72 holes than 18 holes.
Another issue with the current format is that there tends to be a VERY big loser without the chance to be a big winner – again, something the FIA should have noted. Luckily for the FIA, in both instances, another driver was not to blame, if that were the case, is it a double punishment? Consider the scenario where Lewis or Max caused a collision between themselves and the innocent driver had to retire from the sprint and thus start at the back for Sunday’s GP. What are the consequences?
(ii) F2 Reversed Grid Sprint Qualifying Format
Reverse grids have been discussed extensively in recent years, and the concept invariably rejected as too artificial, which – to labour the point – is why we now have the sprint format. Throughout the whole process of introducing sprint qualifying, F1 has been keen to stress that reverse grids will not be a consideration for sprint qualifying. With Formula 1 bosses now pointing out that these sprint races are likely to be standalone races, it makes the previous standpoint redundant in their eyes. Thus, reverse grids are still firmly on the negotiating table.
Typically, in F2, F3 and even junior categories, reverse grids are formed by reversing the order in which cars qualified. However, the reversal is not throughout the whole field and often applies only to the top 10 in qualifying. So, the quickest qualifier will start 10th, second quickest will start 9th, third quickest will start 8th and so on. Cars that qualified 11th and lower will start in their respective places, i.e., qualified 15th, start the sprint race 15th.
*A predicted/simulated result.
Verdict: These have yet to be trialled in F1 but for too many it is a steep change the FIA should not entertain. First, if the whole grid is not reversed, then the top 10, 12 or whatever the number is, is simply an arbitrary number uncorroborated by data or accepted principles of competitive behaviour. Moral dilemmas would be created in the athlete’s head: go slower and you have a better chance of winning the grand prix. Being the fastest actually hinders you. Would slowing down in qualifying become an element of strategy?
Second, this format promotes a 2-tier race. Apart from the odd, good start from cars 11th and lower in the order (e.g., 13th), what is the likelihood of overtaking the fastest cars (assuming they were the fastest) right in front of them? For these grid positions, it certainly decreases competitiveness and thus excitement as they are likely to see the whole top 10 pull away from them. The impact is a reduction in wheel-to-wheel racing throughout the grid.
Third, another view is that the GP is 33% longer but with a handicap system. Handicapping systems in professional sport are notoriously gimmicky. Imagine 100m sprinters in the Diamond League in athletics requiring the top 8 as such: fastest sprinter runs 108m, second fastest 106m, third fastest 104m, fourth fastest 102m and 5th to 8th fastest 100m. A ludicrous scenario!
Finally, it is unpopular amongst drivers and fans. That is not to say it is wrong to do, but it would certainly help if the drivers were on board. “If it’s a reverse grid that means something for the championship, I’m not a fan of that, even in the junior categories,” says Lando Norris. “But for just something more exciting, something more fun for the fans, I think that’s great, and it doesn’t affect Sunday, which I think is the important thing. So you still have the main focus of the weekend. It is more of a challenge for us and the team, and then we can leave that aside for Sunday when we have the main race, and we have that extra bit of excitement in the middle on Saturday.”
(iii) Whole Grid Reversed Sprint Race Format
Notwithstanding the inherent flaws of a partial reverse grid, there could still be a format in which the reversal enhances appeal to both drivers and fans. The significant issues mentioned above, of course, would need to be addressed. First, a standalone event should be considered where qualifying on Friday continues to determine the grid for Sunday’s GP. Something most would agree including current McLaren driver Lando Norris, “If it’s a reverse grid that means something for the championship, I’m not a fan of that, even in the junior categories.”
Second, the whole grid needs to reversed, removing the completely arbitrary number used which creates issues such as: a two-tier race; making drivers wanting to be slower in qualifying; devaluing qualifying; and interfering with Sunday’s GP winner.
Thirdly, as a standalone event it needs a purpose. Though broad acceptance is desirable to attract a fan base (and thus attendance) there must be a compelling desire for drivers to win and one that differs markedly from the Championship. This calls for more radical thinking, e.g., winning team gets to donate £x amount of prize money to a charity in the host country.
Verdict: It keeps the current qualifying and GP starting grid as they are. The current qualifying system is good. The sprint race is a standalone event in that no matter what happens within the race it does not affect Sunday’s GP (unless a driver ends up in hospital). Another criticism of the current sprint race is ‘promising, but the race faded’ and is typical of experience to date.
A full reverse grid would certainly help due to two elements. First, quicker cars are behind throughout the whole grid. Second, all rivals next/close to each other. Lando says, “But for just something more exciting, something more fun for the fans, I think that’s great, and it doesn’t affect Sunday, which I think is the important thing.” Consequently, it values both overtaking and defending, and it allows teams/drivers to show who can follow more closely than others.
Whilst this would be the first realistic sprint race in terms of promoting exciting racing without ‘cannibalising’ Sunday’s GP, there are still a number of pressing issues to decide. How many points should be awarded? And which championships do they count for? To answer the former, there should be a significant increase in points awarded, thus promoting racing throughout the field till the chequered flag. 20 points for 1st, 18 points for 2nd and then 1 less point all the down to 19thwho receives 1 point, with last receiving no points.
In terms of counting towards the Constructor’s Championship, then absolutely. As a positive consequence, it would create further position changes throughout the season between the lower teams. In terms of counting towards the Drivers’ Championship, then yes. It adds value to overtaking and defending. If sprint races happen at every race (which could happen), then points for the Drivers’ Championship would have to be revisited, but for six sprint races in 2022, then yes. Furthermore, a Sprint Championship could also be implemented, thus shining a light of possible other drivers and teams than normal.
(iv) Team Sprint Race Format
This would be a standalone event in that it does not determine or influence the starting grid for Sunday’s GP. Normal qualifying would take place on Friday, setting the grid for Sunday’s GP (pole would be awarded for the fastest one-lap time). Saturday’s Team Sprint Race grid would be determined first by the Constructors’ Championship standings. For example, in the illustration below, T1 represents the best performing team (as of writing), e.g., Mercedes, and T3 represents the third best performing team, e.g., McLaren. The second part of the grid formation would see in effect two reversed grids. T1 would be given grid positions 10th and 20th whereas the team is last position (T10) would be given 1stand 11th.
Let’s say there are six sprint races of some sort in 2022. Now, the third and final part to forming the grid would be that each driver from each team would have to start half (3) of the Team Sprint Races in the team’s higher grid position and half (3) in the team’s lower grid position. For example, for Red Bull (T2), they would have to choose whether to start Sergio Perez or Max Verstappen from 9th with the other one starting from 19th.
Verdict: Whilst maintaining all the good points such as a focal point for each day, awarding pole and not interfering with Sunday’s GP (it’s a standalone event), it has two major selling points. First, a very mixed-up grid has the potential to add significant value and entertainment along with a strategic element (choice of driver for team grid positions). A differing and more relaxed feel for the day should promote battles between rivals throughout the grid. Second, it highlights the Team [Constructors’] Championship. At a fiscal standpoint, the Constructors’ Championship is more important to the teams. The teams invest huge amount of resources, e.g., research and development, and it would be a good thing to promote them a little more with their own race in some way.
Also, this format has potential to appease different fans bases such as traditionalists and new, young fans, as well as providing great excitement. There are still several questions that need to be answered but most notable is the points system. Before answering the question how many points should be awarded, a more pertinent question needs addressing: should points count for the individual drivers’ championship? I suggest that points should not count towards the drivers’ championship and that points need to be awarded for all positions (except for last), going from 20, 18 17 down to nil.
Conclusion: Should F1 Sprint Races Go, Stay or Evolve?
They must evolve.
There have been good and bad elements of the sprint qualifying experiment. It has certainly made the 3-day event more meaningful with a focus on each day, ramping up engagement, which is a big win for all stakeholders (F1, teams, fans and sponsors). This has allowed F1 to introduce more sprint races in 2022.
An open wound that must be healed is the format. The races have failed to live up to the action-packed expectation and delivery of a mixed-up grid for Sunday’s GP. Logic predicted this failure. Moving forward, there is already a consensus that Friday’s qualifying will set the grid for Sunday’s GP in 2022. Thus, keeping the current format of qualifying which has worked so well for the last 15 years or so. The F1 Sprint is one of many ways to promote closer racing in F1.
Finally, with the sprint race format lending itself towards a standalone event, this will strengthen the FIA and FOM’s hand in that it gives them greater flexibility/experimentation with a revised sprint race format for 2022. One such example is the Team Sprint Race Format as explained in this article earlier. Whatever the outcome, it needs purpose if it is to survive and as previously alluded to perhaps a more radical completely standalone (e.g., community driven) approach may prove to be its saviour!
The Stat Squabble says:
- Sprint races should be standalone events. A possible new format would be the Team Sprint Race, thus promoting excitement (mixed grid and strategy) as well as help promote Teams and F1.
- There are many questions that must be addressed such as: what will be the format of the sprint races? which championships do the sprint races count towards? how many sprint races will there be? which tracks will host the sprint races?
Do you agree with the Stat Squabbler? Should the sprint race stay, go or evolve? Comment below.
