F1 Sprint Races: What changes would you make?

F1 sprint races have shaken up Grand Prix events since their inception in 2021. According to research posted on Formula One’s website, the new format has boosted broadcast audiences. For the 2023 US, Azerbaijan and Belgian Grand Prixes, qualifying audiences were 139%, 83% and 34% higher, respectively, than that of the second practice session in 2022.

 

With the main aim of heightening fan interest over all three days of a Grand Prix event achieved, this does not mean F1 sprint races were immune to criticism – far from it actually. In preparation for the 2024 season sprint races received another face lift. Or has it?

 

 

F1 Sprint Races: What changes would you make?

 

In previous years, the sprint format was essentially held as a stand-alone event during the grand prix weekend. On Friday, free practice and qualifying was followed on Saturday by sprint qualifying and the sprint race. Now, in 2024, Friday’s free practice one (FP1) will now be followed by sprint qualifying, moving qualifying for the main grand prix to its usual Saturday afternoon place. Then, on Saturday, the sprint race itself will be the first Formula One action on the track (see image below).

 

In effect, there are no changes to the actual sessions, i.e., FP2 and FP3 are still replaced with sprint qualifying and a sprint race over a sprint race weekend. However, the order of the sessions has changed allowing important changes to parc ferme conditions. Last year, cars were effectively in parc ferme for main qualifying, the shootout, the sprint and the grand prix, forcing teams to lock in their car’s set up after a single practice session.

 

In 2024, teams will only be temporary locked into their set-ups after FP1. These temporary set-ups will be locked for the following two sessions, Friday’s sprint qualifying and Saturday morning’s sprint race. After these, teams will be able to make set-up tweaks before qualifying for the main grand prix. Thus, falling more in-line with a typical grand prix weekend.

 

These changes to parc ferme conditions are very much welcomed by all, with Alpine driver Gasly saying, “I think that’s great… I think that was missing, definitely. We ended up last year having amazing, brilliant, genius guys on a Friday afternoon being forbidden to touch anything on our car.” Thus, it means an uncompetitive car can now be improved with setup changes after three sessions (FP1, SQ and the sprint race).

 

More importantly, it will have less impact on Sunday’s race result. After an incorrect set-up decision was discovered during the sprint qualifying and race, several drivers were forced to break parc ferme in order to secure their grid positions for the race on Sunday. While both Aston Martins and Haas cars started from the pitlane in Austin to make specification changes, Alpine broke parc ferme for Esteban Ocon at the Baku sprint race last year. Furthermore, problems like excessive plank wear that led to Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc’s disqualification following the US GP are less likely to be repeated.

 

Regarding the point above (parc ferme), there is no doubt that this ‘structural’ change to the sprint weekends format is a positive one. However, this slight switching of sessions and creating an initial parc ferme, does not elevate the sprint’s other faults. Far from it. The first main argument against both sprint qualifying and the sprint race is that it is ‘more of the same’ and pre-empts the main GP’s qualifying and race. This leads to the second main argument that sprint races are ‘boring’. The races have failed to live up to the action-packed expectation.

 

F1 fans, especially the purists, have a strong dislike of artificial gimmicks to improve racing. Whilst acknowledging this, the introduction of sprint weekends gives a massive opportunity for FIA to do something a little different. This article will first look at what changes could be made to the sprint’s qualifying format, presenting several new formats. Second, the formation of the grid will be explored, with a number of variations offered. Finally, how the actual sprint race should be packaged, in other words, should it be completely separate to the Drivers’ Championship? This article is about a 15-minute read.

 

 

Should F1 Sprint Qualifying be Change?

 

In a recent poll, Formula 1 fans favoured the current multi-stage knockout qualifying format over others (e.g., open timed session, one-shot qualifying, elimination, superpoles and duels). https://www.racefans.net/2023/01/29/which-qualifying-format-is-the-best-in-motorsport/ However, that was for the main grand prix, not for the sprint. With sprint races likely here to stay, it surely gives a wonderful opportunity to do something different.

 

So, what’s wrong with the current format?

 

The issue with the current sprint qualifying format is that it is exactly the same as the GP qualifying (albeit a few minutes shorter). This has two downfalls. Firstly, that it pre-empts qualifying for the main grand prix. Unsurprisingly, teams/drivers are going to finish in very similar positions in the [near] exact same format. Yes, the new changes to perc ferme do mean teams can make set up changes between sprint and main qualifying, but nevertheless, it is still just more of the same. In a record 24 race season is having another qualifying on Friday evening repeated near identically 24 hours later really the best way to go for sprint qualifying?

 

Secondly, with the same format, Sunday’s grid is likely to be similar to that of the sprint, thus pre-empting the main grand prix. With no pit stops, the sprint is effectively the first stint of Sunday’s race, excluding anything unusual happening (e.g., crash, etc). A driver who completes a ‘good’ overtake in the sprint race will give their opponent time to prevent them doing the same in Sunday’s race. So, not only does the sprint race give insights to Sunday’s race, but it can also prevent on-track action. Whilst another race is generally always going to be valued/wanted amongst key stake holders, a change in sprint qualifying is needed.

 

New qualifying alternatives

 

The three proposed alternatives are aligned with the sprint race completely separate to the Drivers’ Championship (see later).

 

Team 2Q is a team qualifying format where a team’s qualifying time is made of two consecutive laps. Both cars do the same two consecutive laps. The time starts when the first car crosses the line and ends when the second car crosses over the line for the second lap. This qualifying has been used before in motorsport. The format would produce risk and reward, with teammates getting close to each other but also trying to avoid the number one rule in motorsport: don’t crash your teammate. To note, the format could also state whether the cars need to swap positions over the two laps or not. Another benefit would be shining a light on the teams, giving them near-equal coverage (certainly in the first phase – see later).

 

Team CQ is a team qualifying format that is most similar to the current format. A team (of two cars) has drivers’ one-lap time combined. From 2013 to 2020, the World Endurance Championship (WEC) used aggregate times in qualifying. It started an average of four laps taken, two by each driver, however this was modified in 2015 based on a single average lap times set by two drivers from the same team.

 

In 2024, Super GT will switch qualifying format based on aggregate lap times. The aim being to ‘further characterise’ the championship where two drivers compete for victory while sharing a car. During qualifying, aggregate times will be shown in real time on television to facilitate fan comprehension of the qualifying system. To enable this, Super GT said it is developing a new display system.

 

Team RQ is a team-relay qualifying format style. A team (of two cars) complete two consecutive timed laps (like Team 2Q). However, the difference is that each car does one lap only. The time starts when the first car starts lap 1 and ends when the second car ends the next lap (i.e., lap 2). The imaginary relay batten must be passed on after lap 1 but before some determined place (e.g., the end of the home straight). In other words, the second car must start the second lap behind the first car but must take the lead from them by the first corner.

 

Benefits vs Logistics vs Traffic

 

The benefits of a new sprint qualifying format are threefold. Firstly, the main GP qualifying is not pre-empted – it is something different. Secondly, along with a new grid formation (see later), the first stint of Sunday’s GP will not be pre-empted. Thirdly, it emphasises Teams and as much as we are drawn into the Drivers’ Championship, if there were no teams, there would be no drivers.

 

If a similar knockout format was used such as SQ1, SQ2 and SQ3, the issue of traffic remains. Looking at the first typical SQ1, all twenty cars are likely to be on track at the same time because they need to set a time to qualify for SQ2, but will want to have the best track conditions – which tend to come at the end of the session when there is more rubber on the track. The new Team CQ (combined lap time) would be least affected, as this is a calculation done off track and does not affect the 20 cars.

 

The new proposed Team 2Q and Team 2R would likely see up to 20 cars on the track in SQ1, but differently, they would be in ‘pods’ of two [Teams]. So instead of 20 cars looking for their own space, it would now be 10 pods looking for a clean lap. Whilst on the one hand there will less fights for a clean lap, on the other hand, it does cluster cars together more and may be harder for two cars [a pod] to avoid another two cars [pod] coming round on their flying lap.

 

Traffic in qualifying is a problem for all motorsport categories. And with other categories having more cars than Formula 1 and with more and more street tracks being added to series calendars, qualifying formats have changed.

 

In 2022, to avoid the traffic disaster experienced at the Norisring street track, qualifying in the Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft (DTM) divided the field into two groups (A and B) based on their championship standings prior to the event. Group A will include drivers in odd positions, and Group B will include drivers in even positions. The fastest drivers in each group will share the front row, followed by the second-fastest drivers in each group sharing row two, and so on.

 

Also in 2022, NASCAR Cup Series saw qualifying split the 36+ drivers into two groups (A and B). The top five drivers from each group move on to the pole round to determine the starting positions for the top 10 races. The cars that finished outside the top five in the two groups were seeded 11–40 based on fastest qualifying lap. However, with track conditions for the two groups likely to be skewed, a further modification was made in 2024 to make it fairer.

 

Starting in 2024, cars that do not advance from Group A will determine the outside row for starting positions 11–40 and the remaining cars from Group B will determine the inside row. Daytona 500 has its own special qualifying process. The two initial groups are determined by four driver metrics dating back to the prior race (5% fastest lap time position; 25% finishing position in previous race; 25% owner’s finishing position in previous race; and 35% owner points position).

 

In 2024, The British Touring Car Championship (BTCC) unveiled the biggest shake-up to its qualifying in many years, turning Stateside for inspiration. The format, named ‘Quick Six’ will look familiar to fans of IndyCar, where series organisers have taken a direct inspiration. Following Free Practice Two, the grid will be split into two groups, with those finishing FP2 in odd positions going into one half, with those finishing in even positions going into the other. The top 6 from each group will go into the Top 12 shootout, with the Top 6 then qualifying for the final part of qualifying.

 

What should sprint qualifying look like in F1?

 

First, sprint qualifying should take a new format. The best two alternatives put forward would be Team 2Q and Team 2R, highlighting new challenges to the drivers and teams. Drivers would need to drive as fast as possible and as close as possible to their teammate. This change would certainly shine the spotlight on the individual teams, with images / television coverage of their cars and drivers at full speed right next to each other.

 

Second, instead of the three-stage knockout system currently used, sprint qualifying could follow other series and split the drivers into two groups (A and B), with the top two teams from each group qualifying for the pole round. This change would help with the issue of traffic in qualifying. Furthermore, by having a new style and format, it negates the issues of sprint qualifying pre-empting main qualifying and the grid.

 

 

Should a different Grid Formation be used in the F1 Sprint Races?

 

The current staggered start with the fastest car in qualifying starting at the front works well for the main grand prix on Sunday. As mentioned earlier, there are whispers that the sprint format may be tweaked, with some suggestions of the hotly contested reverse grid being introduced. Despite F1 fans strong dislike of any artificial gimmick to improve racing, there is an opportunity to do something different for sprint grid formation.

 

The reverse grid is constantly thrown around in discussions on grid formation in Formula 1. The main reason is that the two feeder categories, Formula Two (GP2) and Formula 3 (GP3) use it. For example, the top ten qualifiers are flipped for the sprint race but remain the same for the main event. A number of years ago, Lewis Hamilton was a staunch critic of the reverse grid in the sprint races, but has recently changed his view and now favours them. “The best sprint race I ever had was when I started last [in 2021 in Brazil] and so I’m in favour of the reverse order, except if we had that then everyone will just try and qualify last!”.

 

With changes to the format still under discussion, Max Verstappen, who has made no secret of his distaste for the Saturday 100-kilometer race, does not want too many changes made. In 2023, the three-time champion even made a threat to give up the sport if more sprint races were held. “I hope there won’t be too many changes, otherwise I won’t be around for too long,” he said. “Even if you change the format, I don’t find that is in the DNA of Formula One to do these kind of sprint races.”

 

Before looking forward, it’s worth reflecting on the past. The old ‘non-staggered’ grids certainly were different. In the 52 Italian GP, the line-up was four abreast, moving to three. The 68 German GP used a 3-2-3 formation, previously 4-3-4. Are these even feasible nowadays? The current F1 cars are now wider than ever (2m) so depending on the tracks used for sprints, track width may be an issue.

 

But of course, another issue is safety. Though, what actual impact on safety do alternative grids have? A thorough analysis is needed to be conducted. It is not a given to simply say a 3-3-3 or a 3-2-3 is more dangerous. Why is it more dangerous? Does it make it less dangerous in any way? One argument for being more dangerous is because cars are more bunched (i.e., less distance between the first and last car). Alternatively, it could be argued that the differences between the cars’ speed would be less (because of a smaller distance between the first and last car), thus making it safer.

 

At what point would the crossover be? Distances between the rows could increase, so that the position of the first and last cars are the same distance, but fewer rows (as some/all rows would have more than two cars).

 

Now, another argument against the straight-line formation (e.g., 3-3-3), like the Italian GP, is that someone scoring a slower time in qualifying starts in the same position. Well, that is partly true in terms of closeness to the start line. However, someone finishing first in qualifying could still be awarded an advantage by having the ‘inside’ line for the first corner as this is advantageous. Thus, a car on the outside would have to get a better start to overtake the inside car after the first corner.

 

Despite Formula 1’s attempt to add variability to the start by placing greater responsibility on the driver on starts, the current technology and drivers’ skill often see the majority of the field get similar starts. Therefore, a further argument for non-staggered starts would be that if cars get a similar start, they would be side-by-side going into the first corner. On the other hand, an argument against would be if all the cars on a row get a similar start, they could end up blocking the whole width of the track, thus reducing overtaking.

 

So, what’s wrong with the current sprint grid formation?

 

There are two main issues with the current sprint qualifying format. Firstly, due to the [near exact] same qualifying format being used, and with no changes from qualifying to forming the grid, the grid is likely to be very similar to the actual Grand Prix on Sunday. As there are no pits stops in the sprint, the race is in effect the first stint of Sunday’s grand prix. Teams and drivers will then be able to adapt and make slight changes to nullify any threat they receive in the sprint. Thus, not only does the sprint race give insights to Sunday’s race, it can also prevent on-track action.

 

Secondly, the lack of overtaking often results in the sprint races being called ‘boring’. To point out, Sunday GPs that do not have much variability are also labelled ‘boring’. There are always going to be races with more and less action than others, just like a dull 0-0 draw in football compared to a thrilling 7-goal match finishing 4-3 with lots of talking points. Having said that, the sprint races have failed to live up to the action-packed expectation. Now, action-packed does not mean just a plethora of overtakes. It also worth pointing out the downside to more overtakes.

 

Racefans examined fan ratings of 67 races over a four-year period (2012 to 2015) alongside overtaking data supplied by Mercedes. Over 50,000 votes were cast where fans rated a race on a scale of one (worst) to ten (best). In its quest to find out how fans rate DRS, wet races were not included, as DRS tends to be disabled.

 

They found that fans rate races higher when they have more overtaking, but interestingly, DRS overtakes count far less towards the rating than non-DRS passes do. Moreover, lowest-ranked races often had significantly more DRS overtakes than ‘natural’ moves, with very few of the later.

 

If there was no sprint qualifying, then constructors’ points table could sort a new grid formation as these would come from the main GP races and possibly the sprint (see later). However, no sprint qualifying is likely not an option for the high fees the tracks are paying. So how can you have a competitive qualifying where teams/drivers want to finish first but mixes up the grid without using a reverse grid?

 

New grid formation alternatives

 

The T10 Split grid formation could be used with any of the team qualifying formats above [Team 2Q, Team CQ and Team RQ]. The first part of forming the grid for Saturday’s Team Sprint Race grid would see the fastest sprint qualifying team take grid positions 1 and 11. The second fastest team would take positions 2 and 12 and so on. Since there are six sprint races for 2024 (as in the last two seasons), the second 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, if Red Bull qualified as the second fastest car, they would have to choose whether to start Sergio Perez or Max Verstappen from 2nd with the other starting from 12th. All teams would hand in driver line ups 60 minutes before the sprint race with other teams not knowing what their rivals were doing – a bit like the Ryder Cup in golf. Even if there was no qualifying for the sprint (unlikely) the T10 Split grid formation could be generated by using the Constructors Championship table.

 

Another alternative grid formation would be the Shuffle 4. This is quite a simply concept of adding a bit of randomness to the grid formation. The cars qualifying first, second, third and fourth would then flip with the fourth fastest starting at the front, third fastest starting second, second fastest starting third and the fastest qualifier starting fourth. This would continue down the grid every four positions or pods (see image above). Whilst the purist would likely find the idea totally abhorrent, labelling it gimmicky, one way to spin in it (pun not intended) would be that it is effectively a reverse grid every four cars or pods.

 

As mentioned above, a non-staggered grid formation should be studied and explored if a new grid formation were to be considered for the spring race. Equally, tweaking the current A-B-A-B staggered start should also be explored. One possible version would see an A-B-B-A staggered start (see image earlier). The difference here to the normal staggered today would be that every other car beginning from the third position would start immediately behind the car in front.

 

If each grid slot stayed the same 8 meters apart, it would mean that the cars starting 3rd, 5th, 7th etc would have a maximum of 2.37m of space in front of them (i.e., a loss of 8 meters as opposed to the current staggered start). Despite drivers having more space to the side/front, this is unlikely to be safe due to slow or stalled cars. Again, other options could easily be explored, such as an A-B-C-B-A. Each car could be set 6m back from the previous car, thus leaving the middle cars – which have the smallest distance in front of them – positioned 10 meters behind the car directly in front of them.

 

A fair mixed up grid

 

Firstly, a new grid formation for the sprint race would negate the issues of using the same grid formation (pre-empts GP and reduces the chances of overtaking). Secondly, a very different (mixed up) looking grid to Sunday’s GP has the potential to add significant value and entertainment along with a strategic element (choice of driver for team grid positions).

 

A new grid formation will promote battles between rivals throughout the grid, seeing more overtaking. It would add excitement and a different challenge to the drivers, something Lando Norris agrees with, “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”.

 

 

Should the F1 Sprint Races be a Separate Championship?

 

Yes, absolutely. This would then allow radical changes to sprint qualifying and the grid formation.

 

So, what’s wrong with the current format?

 

There are four main issues with the current sprint format. Firstly, the lack of action in the sprint races does not live up to the ‘action-packed’ races promised. Secondly, it pre-empts the main grand prix as explained above. Thirdly, the drivers championship can be decided in a sprint race, like in 2023 with Max Verstappen, thus taking the excitement away from the main GP. Lastly, despite points being increased for the top 8, this is still perceived as not enough incentive for drivers to take risks.

 

The Proposed Constructors’ Sprint Championship

 

Working backwards, the points system needs a major overhaul. There will be more points awarded to more drivers with 12 points for the winner, 10 for second place, 8 for third and then one less every position till 10th position. More importantly, the points earned in a sprint race will only be added to the Constructor’s Championship and not the Drivers’ Championship. Thus, the sprints would not interfer with the Drivers’ Championship nor Sunday’s race. This would really allow the sprint to grow its own legs and be a unique own race in itself.

 

With this major change of the points system, a new grid and a new team qualifying should be used for the sprint as reasoned above in this article. At a fiscal standpoint, the Constructors’ Championship is more important to the teams. Teams invest huge amounts on resources, e.g., research and development, and it would be a good thing to promote this with their own race.

 

With this new sprint format, it has potential to appease different fan bases such as traditionalists and new, young fans, as well as providing great excitement and closer racing. By not affecting Drivers’ Championship the purists can sleep.

 

 

Conclusion: Are F1’s new sprint changes enough?

 

Absolutely not. However, there are rumours that the FIA are planning further format changes before the first sprint race in 2024. Whether you like F1’s sprint weekend or not, there is huge potential for the sprint format. With F1 seasons getting longer and longer, a change (and more importantly another race) every four races does freshen it up, but it has to be more different. The FIA has taken three years to stumble into this position and now needs to make the required changes to negate the issues raised in this article.

 

The Stat Squabbler says:

• First, overhaul the points system in the sprint races. With a greater incentive and by removing its influence on the Drivers’ Championship, gives the freedom to do something different!
• Second, a new grid formation will add new challenges, more overtakes and more excitement to the sprint.
• Third, change the qualifying format to something new! Perhaps a new team qualifying format

 

Do you agree with the Stat Squabble: Should the FIA introduce a Team element into the sprint race? Should the formation of the grid be tinkered to aid further excitement to the sprint race?

 

Comment below.