@@Panozaa not sure what that mean guns is just the things I think about when I think states and Middle East people being shot at because someone did something like breath and someone took offence to it
You're exactly right about the strategy aspect. I remember watching the Sao Paulo sprint and thinking how much lamer it is than the race, because once it settled down, I couldn't even look forward to who will pit when, or watch with anticipation whether or not we'll see another fumbled pit stop, or cross my fingers that my favourite driver manages to undercut the car ahead of him. A pit stop can make or break a race. That said, I like your ideas, and maybe some of them could actually make up for the lack of pit stops.
I would like to see a simulation of what happens if there must be 2 trips through the pit lane and must be one, and only one, tyre change in the sprint.
04:05 been saying this from the start; all the sprint is doing is negating any surprises quali might throw up. It gives the top teams a third of a race to make their way back the front after any quali mishaps, and mid field teams a third of a race to lose any impressive quali result and end up ‘where they belong’. More over, it gives all the teams a lovely little simulation of how the race will go and how the tyres will behave so come the actual grand pros there’s even less possibility of surprise. Personally I still like the idea of the sprint being it’s standalone thing with a reverse grid order and give points to the top 8 or 10. The top teams have an incentive to push from the back as there’s good points on offer, and the lower teams also get racy for points they wouldn’t necessarily be able to get in a full race, and everybody has a bit of fun with wheel to-wheel racing and overtakes without worrying about compromising the Sunday race🤷🏻♂️
I largely agree. Specifically, what I would do is have independent sprints where the top 10 grid positions are the reverse of the top 10 from qualifying, and to do 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 points for 1st to 5th. I think points for the top 10 is too many considering P10 in a grand prix gets 1 point only, and points for the top 8 is still a bit much imo. Yes, having any reverse grid is artificial, but this format still requires you to get to Q3 to have a good grid position and doesn't affect the points standings too much. And we'd be guaranteed to see the top qualifiers starting not from the front. That's entertainment. That's something new and exciting for the championship. Not just lengthening the grand prix, as you say.
I'm actually a little bit concerned that the 2022 cars making passing easier might do a bit of the same thing. Passing is great, and it's definitely too hard for the most part right now. But if it's too _easy_, you'd quickly get a situation where the field just sorts itself in order of car speed by the end of the race, which wouldn't be very fun either. You need to find that balance where it's possible to pass, but with good driving also possible to defend as long as the difference in pace isn't too great.
Yeah something like this is needed for sprint. Or you could have quali which grants the same amount of points to the top 10 as the actual GP does (or half of the points if full points is too much). Then do a reverse grid for sprint (everyone starts with same set of tires as their fastest quali lap) and the sprint results are the starting order for the GP itself. Everyone has large incentive to be the fastest in quali, sprint will be super interesting and will have pit stops for tires and the race will be interesting because the grid will still probably be somewhat mixed after the sprint. For some added craziness, make everyone start the GP with the set of tires they ended the sprint with. That way someone could qualify with hard tires, use them in the sprint without a pit stop and end up quite high on the grid for the GP, but with worn hard tires. This would also have the benefit of being easy to understand for everyone.
As I commented on the F1 subreddit, the problem with the sprint qualifying format is that after the first lap the risk-reward calculation for 80% of the drivers swings heavily in favor of playing it safe. Unless you're near the front and fighting for those few championship points, there's not much to be gained from fighting for position relative to the risk of crashing out and ruining your grid position for the actual race.
Is that true though? If you decide to 'play it safe' and not go for the position in Sprint qualifying, you'll just be behind that person in the race. Then when you try to overtake them in the race, you'll still have the exact same risk of crashing and losing out anyway. At least if you crash out in the Sprint, you'll have a chance to fight back through the field. I'd actually say you have less to lose from risky moves in the Sprint.
@@matthewreynolds4382 But if you risk your chances in Sprint, and all goes wrong (like did with Perez in Silverstone), you start the actual meaningfull race at the back.
This argument really doesn't make sense to me, what's the difference between risking it in the sprint or in the race. If you're not willing to take risks when overtaking then whats the point.
@@GuidoHaverkort It's a bit like battling for position really hard in the middle of an endurance race: battling early on is very inadvisable, it makes more sense to just preserve your car and fight another time. Same for the sprint races. If you're in P10 in the sprint and you have a choice between fighting for P9 and risking a crash and tumbling down to P20 for the actual race or just preserving the position and saving your battling for the race on Sunday, it makes way more sense to play it safe for the spring and just wait for the actual race for battling.
I would love to see hypersofts come in. Make them all do a one stop sprint and then have some variety based on how teams like the track position they have.
My take: quali sets grid for both sprint and GP, but Sprint have a reverse grid. Old scoring system for first 8 position would be great. This way drivers cant afford to be 20th in quali because GP is more important. And we will have a great sprint. Will top drivers even score points? And most importantly will haas score points?
@@Feanor0404 Problem with that is that there is atleast some reward for having a mediocre/bad car. On Monaco for example (if a sprint was held there ofc), an Alfa or a Haas could probably keep everyone behind and score some points in a car that doesn't deserve to. The teams should be rewarded for the car they produce or the hard work they put in, not gifted an opportunity to score points because they're in a worse car. Don't get me wrong, it'd probably be fun to watch with all the overtakes, but it's likely not a good idea for the sport.
That is why I think it's better to decide the spint grid by championship points. If a bad team gets benefitted by the virtue of having fewer points and get say 10 points , that means they most likely will start few positions lower in the grid for the NEXT sprint.
@@ubbystoned Teams wouldn't be rewarded for having a mediocre car, they would be rewarded for strategy. If you don't think you have the pace to fight for 10th, then would you rather start 5th in a short race and 15th in a long race, or would you want to start 1st in a short race and 20th in a long race. Slower cars would want to qualify last. This would probably be great to watch for about one race =)
Honestly I'd like to see the F2 style reverse grid race, it might be a bit artificial, but watching drivers fight through the field is the best part of watching races. Alternatively reworking it to feel closer to NASCARs stage system where you get some points for a position but less than a race win could be interesting
14:08 Perhaps Pirelli could bring more varied compounds.... instead of the C1, C2 and C3 for example, perhaps for the Sprint they could use the C1, C3 and C5 which could potentially allow pit strategy to be a factor - for example, Starting on the Soft C5 and then pitting for another set of Soft C5's might turn out significantly faster than starting and finishing using a single set of Hard C1 tyres.
just have two choices sofest possible and hardest possible if a driver starts on softest they have to pit and must put another set of softs on. equallt hard starters can't pit unless they need another set of hards for a puncture or something like that. soft starters would be torn between shooting off into the distance and trying to pit and stay ahead or manage it and pit late knowing they will lose track position and have to earn it back on track but with a speed advantage. could even demand teams split strat alternating each race coin toss for first race.
@@michaelarmer256 that's what i was thinking too, but maybe make a brand new type of tire, completely new compounds for sprints. You could play it safe on a hard and definitely make it to the end but have dismal pace, risk a no stop on the medium and maybe take a puncture, or take a one stop on the softs and fight back through. The strategy would be really interesting to see, especially mixing it with a reverse grid would make for a very interesting concept. One thing i thought of with quali is just to make it the set the grid for both. Let quali affect both races but make the races independent from eachother, with a reverse grid in the sprint.
@@Hibernathan05 I actually typed out this exact idea before I saw you already posted it - but yes this seems like a good suggestion. Introducing a need for pitstops during the race presents the teams with more strategy options, which in turn provides for more excitement during the race, sorry, the sprint.
Love the sprint championship idea, but I’d combined it with the “sprint results set next sprint grid” so it’s essentially one race separated over 6 weekends and 6 tracks, but for the same points as a single race.
But if the sprints are separate from the rest of the weekend and the previous sprint results are the next sprint's starting grid and points are awarded at the end of the last sprint, that makes the sprints basically one GP that is 3 times longer than a regular GP. You are pretty much guaranteed to have 0 surprises when you reach the checquered flag of the last sprint because even if a top team/driver messes up in, say, the third sprint race, they still have 1½ race distances to get back to the top. The top teams could basically not participate in or just do 1 lap and then retire the car in the first three or four sprints and only race properly in the remaining sprints to get to the top and get all the points.
@@Kepe maybe the fastest of cars but in a competitive season starting from last while your championship rival starts 1st is not a good idea, also, you can intentionally pick tracks that throw things around, like no matter how much better mercedes is than williams for example, the chances of the latter finishing ahead are significantly higher if all sprints are in power heavy tracks, imagine a red bull starting from 1st and 2nd after winning in idk monza and then having to hold on to good positions in singapore (where theyve been notoriously bad)
I really like the idea of q1 session setting the grid for the sprint race What if they had to start the actual race on the same worn tires they finished with in the sprint? Would that add a strategic pit stop in the sprint?
Teams will claim it's a safety issue. Also, it wouldn't work with the idea of a Pirelli balls-to-the-wall sprint tire. But sprint top 10 has to start on softest compound could be a good rule maybe, in particular when race grid is decided by qualification iso sprint
I think teams would take it very easy on the tyres in the sprint so that the tyres would be better for the main race. So more processional driving in the sprint race
Ok here's what I would like: Qualifying on Friday which sets the grid for the Sunday race, but for Saturday sprint, you reverse the grid and do the 21-1 points for the "Sprint Championship", and in the end once all the points are tallied, the top ten receive 50, 45, 40, 35, etc. points for the actual championship. I think that's fair, not TOO much but enough incentivize the teams.
Chaining sprints together and having the finishing order determine the grid for the next one would make drivers take even less risk than they did this year. Because crashing out would put anyone at a HUGE disadvantage. That would be less entertaining to watch than FP1.
What if you add something like park ferme to this? Like engines and tires must be carried over between sprints. Crashing out would allow a free tire change.
@@GolfYankeeDelta That wouldn't help, especially not at the end of the sprint series. A crash/spin/damage would mean you would start P20 next race, making it impossible for most teams and still very hard for all teams to get a top 6 finish, so risk must be avoided at all cost. There is simply no counter benefit to crashing, and finishing the race unscathed will always be infinitely better. Which will cause boring racing like Clemens said. In full races that is not the case, because next race you get to qualify again, so a crash means nothing is lost for next race.
But if you started on a reverse grid and combined them, it would mean the top drivers have to fight their way through the field without crashing, and the midfield would have chances to win sprint races which would be good
The Sprint idea didn't come from "hey, you know what would be great?" It came from "we think we need a headline event on each day of the 3-day grand prix weekend, what do we concoct to put next to qualifying and the race?" The Sprint weekends actually show me that F1 should seriously consider 2-day weekends, especially with the calendar expanding more and more.
Didn't F1 trial that already at one of the italian races last year? I think it's a fine idea. Having an extra day "free", especially if F1 bumps up the calendar to 25 races (which is their ultimate goal) could prove to be very valuable.
I agree with this. I will admit, less FP sessions probably makes it slightly more dangerous which is not good obviously but it does make it more unpredictable and more of a challenge for the teams. To me sprint races just won't work for F1. For F2 and F3 it's perfect because it's more of a drivers championship so you get to see some young talent shine over two days. But for F1 it doesn't sit tight for me. The two races make it less special to me. Cost is so high, they're going to more races and now adding more races within a weekend as well. When you looked all that I agree with you. Just go to a two day weekend and treat the Friday like we currently treat Thursday. Most people are working Friday anyway so I dont see the point of trying to increase viewership on that day.
I'm inclined to keep the points small for now, so experiments like you've mentioned can be done without a big drama around it determining the championship. I've enjoyed the sprint weekends as is, but would love to see different things tried out without it becoming the focus of the sport.
Friday: *60 Minute Practice. *Qualifying - Q1 & Q2. Counts towards Sundays grandprix and end of Q2 sets grid for Sprint race. . Saturday: *30 Minute Practice for young drivers only who dont have a main drive. *Sprint race - Small amount of points awarded. . Sunday: *30min warm up for drivers eliminated in Q1 & Q2. *Qualifying - Q3 - Top 10 Shoot out. *Normal Grand Prix
Love the Q1 idea, it's beauty lies in its simplicity. I hope Ross Brawn sees this On a side note, it's not a fleshed out idea, but what would you think about awarding point based on how many places you gain in sprint. This way in Q1 you'd have to to set a time that is fast enough to get to Q2, but don't want so far ahead that you don't have any opportunity to make up places in the sprint
I actually prefer it when teams do Q1 as normal and don’t turn it up to maximum too early. It keeps the tension and excitement up without spoiler. You would pretty much end up getting two Q3s, while Q1 basically already spoiled the end results. Not ideal. I would much prefer a one shot qualifying for the sprint race.
We could get rid of FP2 on sprint weekends and run a separate qualifying session and maybe make it one-shot qualifying. That might mix up the grid a bit without it seeming too artificial.
Connecting each sprint to each other to make it so that's it's basically one gp that lasts the whole year, and rewarding one race's worth of points for the sprints sounds perfect
I came to a conclusion that the best thing to do with the sprints is: 1- Create a separate championship of sprints. Like NASCAR's playoffs. But add the points fron the sprints to the final results of the actual drivers and constructors championships 2- The grid for the first sprint of the season being set by the second best laptimes on the qualis 3- From the second sprint and beyond, use the final results of the previous ones 4- Sprints do not affect the race itself 5- Make an specific tyre compound 6- Use something like the Lap Loop penalty from MotoGP combined with the Attack Mode from Formula E to boost the power of some driver but at a cost of taking a longer line trough a specific corner 7- Use an alternative layout to do the sprints. Like the Outer layout on Bahrain, the 3A Layout of Paul Ricard (Note: F1 uses the 1C-V2 layout on Paul Ricard) and the North layout of Yas Marina
I have no Idea about how points should be rewarded for sprint races, but for the rest I'm quite sure about my wishes: Qualifying on Friday for Race on Sunday. The less the teams are able to collect data the better. Sprint races, and hear me out on this one, should always start in reverse championship order. Every battle would be meaningful. There is nothing exciting or meaningful about VER or HAM cruising by 80-90% of the field with DRS open cause of the sheer speed difference. Maybe I'm too harsh but honestly compare the VER HAM duels with either of them overtaking LAT or GIO or any of those. In reverse Championship order every battle in the beginning is against your closest rivals. With the potentially faster one behind and slower in front. The pressure to clear the slightly slower one in front while keeping the other behind would make me sit on the senate edge. The slower cars will surely try everything to keep every single position, while the faster cars would try hard to clear them and put cars between themselves and their championship rivals.
The big issue is finding a way to get the teams to care about the Sprint without too many points being on offer, so the solution seems to be to offer non-points based incentives. Set the Sprint Grid by "Reverse use of Budget Cap" (the team that's spent the least gets the front row, etc.). Best combined team position gets an additional PU change for both cars + 1 development token. Second gets a choice of a free PU change for both cars or 1 development token. Third gets whatever Second didn't pick.
Qualifying sets race grid order. Sprint grid is reverse order but doesn’t impact the race 10 points for the winner dropping by 1 points each position. Sunday race isn’t ruined, everyone would be flat out in the sprint with fast cars going for big overtakes.
The fact that we have to try so hard to make to make sprint racing work in Formula 1 shows that we really don’t need it. Out of all the problems we’ve had in F1 in the last 5 years with racing qualifying was always the one thing that everyone always loved, I think we’re better off without sprints
The idea of having each sprint race determine the grid order of the next is a really attractive one. It addresses the issue of slower cars having nothing to race for while also not creating the issue of the sprints having too much weight on the championship. I think main f1 championship points for the top five would be enough for each race, and then, the sprint races also count towards a separate sprint championship table in which the top 5 constructors of just the sprint races at the end of the year get some bonus points added to the main f1 championship table. When it comes to constructors fighting for midtable positions, something like a 15 point boost can easily be a massive boost. Imagine aston martin being able to invest a little bit more in sprint races so that they get one place higher at the end of the season. That would be cool.
So, what made brazil so amazing was having Hamilton battle everyone. What made Hungary so good was Alonso battling for his life. Why don't we have an Overtaking race instead of the Sprint? Qualifying set's the grid for the race and the "Sprint" is reverse grid. Then you give points relative to the overtakes and positions defended. For example Mazepin start's P1 and is given points for every faster car that finishes behind him and his final position. Max or Lewis get points for positions gained and final position. Is obviously a bizarre idea and the example was on the top of my mind, I'm just suggesting it for fun, but... If what we like is on track action and we don't want to change the WC let's have a "Overtaking" race where wheel to wheel racing is the point.
Fantastic and well-thought out video as always. To me, all it seems sprints are good for is waiting for one of the leading drivers to make an error (Perez at Silverstone, Gasly at Monza), to subsequently drop them down the order and force them to have to carve their way from the back the next day. If F1 wants more of that, they need drivers to push more, thus I have to agree there needs to more incentive other than a measly points offering. Maybe points are awarded to all, but are only used in the main championship table as a tiebreaker. This make little difference to the leading pack, who'll just be chasing better grid slots (and maybe that's where strategy can come into play), but for those at the back who rarely have a chance to sniff at the top 10, it's a way of boosting their championship position, better than the current "best result" tiebreaker, which I've always felt is a little flawed.
This year would have created the perfect conditions for Formula E style quali for the sprints. Drivers sent out in 4 groups in quali order in the morning, in championship order for a one-shot style quali, potentially even without superpole. It's the exact thing that sprint format was designed for - it fucked up this year's FE championship but with such a spread out F1 grid, the Haas', William or Alphas could have a proper chance at some points (If we go by top 8)
What a brainstorming session this was! So many good points, the main being “what do we want a sprint to be?” I’ve been advocating for points for all finishers for 25 years. The bottom half of the race is inherently less interesting, and not giving them any points makes it even more so. Give every position an incentive to be gained. Furthermore, it would also make the standings more relevant for the backfield. I think their standings shouldn’t be based on how they do weekend in weekend out, not by how many times they fluked into a 7th place finish. - What I want? A time trial on Friday. Every driver one after the other. We get to see everyone’s fast laps instead of looking at the standings frenetically for 1 minute at the end of each qualifying session. The one weakness of this plan is changeable weather, which I’ve yet to figure out. Reverse grid on Sprint Saturday based on Friday results. Flat out. Every finisher gets half points. Regular GP on Sunday based on the Friday qualifying session. Full points for all finishers. There. Everyone has an incentive to fight for every place in every session. Reverse grids are unfair, sure, but that’s why it’s only half points. Make every position count. Sprint races where only the top 3 get a minuscule amount of points makes it rather underwhelming for the rest of the field in the absence of strategy.
Easiest and best solution is for sprint grids to be a reverse grid from the finishing positions from the last race. The finishing positions in the sprint will then be grid for the grand prix removing the need for traditional qualifying that weekend and throwing a stone into the works.
Some great ideas, I really like the idea about have Sprints as a separate points, that add in to the main championship at the end. But could be tweaked, to say half points for everyone. Or the points could be just for construction championship, create a some tension between driver/ team.
One thought on "reverse grids" - what about "randomised reverse" grids? Rough sketch: 1. Run qualifying as normal 2. Cars eliminated in Q1 enter mini-ballot and are randomly allocated Ps 1 to 5 on sprint grid. 3. Cars eliminated in Q2 enter mini-ballot for Ps 6 to 10 in Sprint 4. Q3 cars in ballot for positions 11 to 20 in sprint - possible amends could be: a) Top 4 get positions 17 to 20 - but also get points in Sprint Championship b) Pole-sitter guaranteed not to start on back row c) driver who qualifies tenth must start in P16 (to incentivise every car going out) Essentially - mixing up the grid but with a good combination of reason, reward, and random!
An idea I had was to split sprints between the front and back half of the grid - either run two sprint races, or perhaps alternate which half participates. This gives the teams at the back a real chance to get some points on a more regular basis, something that they usually don't have much hope for - under normal circumstances the top five teams will (or should) take the points positions fairly easily. It also means that those at the back of the front half *need* to attack, as there is a real chance of those behind the championship being able to catch them - unlike now where the team in say 7th in the championship has no hope of catching whoever is in 6th
5:00 While I understand the artificiality of reverse grids, I think it’s a bit unfair to say they punish the better performing drivers. They punish the best *cars* and drivers. All we need to do is look at Ricciardo v Norris, Bottas v Hamilton, and even Perez v Verstappen this year to see how a very talented driver coming through the field, in ostensibly the same car, is different than a more average driver (they’re all still F1 drivers, so the margins are thin between talent, but still). I contend that reverse grids would allow those better drivers to pull off all-time moves every sprint. The only drivers in the fastest cars that need fear being “held up” or “artificially punished” are the ones who aren’t as good at overtaking. It’s at least part of the reason Valterri has struggled to come thru the field compared to Perez for the last half of this season. His racecraft just isn’t as strong. And it’s a bunch of crazy hairless apes strapping themselves into carbon fibre road rockets to see who can go around a strip of asphalt the fastest for sport. The whole thing is artificial.
I think the artificiality point sounds a bit weird, I mean who gets to decide wether or not it's artificial if the whole thing is made up by a few people in the FIA or something. I think it would only counteract some of the mechanisms against smaller teams, like positive feedback loops (I know budget cap is inserted now but it will take some time to really take effect). As it is, the fastest teams get to start in front and have no challenges except for one their teammate and, in this years case, their respective rival (RB and Merc basically). Faster teams are quite separated from having to fight really, lapped cars for instance just have to make room for them (I don't necessarily disagree with that but it adds to the bigger picture) and after the first stint they just overcut everyone so they just have their rival in front. On that note, almost all sorts of action is artificial or influenced by artificiality, depending on the definition. Aside from the obvious punctures, weather conditions or safety cars, the concept of DRS or having to pit and their respective introduction could have been deemed as artificial, we don't need to have it for the natural flow of the race but it aids the purpose of action - the definition of artificial. To me, it just sounds like people are afraid or at least sceptical of change and trying it out, sometimes F1 has this conservative undertone in a way (thinking about the halo)
Honestly I don't understand why this argument exists. Why are Chainbear and other commentators lying about why people don't want reverse grids? Because they are lying about it, knowingly and intentionally. The issue with reverse grids is the fact that they generate crashes, as faster cars get taken out by slower cars desperately trying to hold onto a spot. That's what happens in every other reverse grid race except when it's F2/similar series that have literally identical cars. If your cars aren't identical, it results in crashes, and that's why no one wants them in F1. It has nothing to do with punishing anyone or being artificial and never has, it's just outright dangerous in F1.
I hope the FIA follows these videos, this one in particular. As a long time hard core fan I agree with almost all of these. Great job on this and thank!
2 things i would like to see. Qualy going to single lap will mix up the grid more frequently without being artificial. The tires you finish the sprint on are the tires you start the race on.
@@ahl.56 I do think the way qualy is laid out is decent and it has been a good system for a while, trumping a lot of the qualy experiments tried out on the lead up to this format, don't get me wrong. What I am finding more and more recently is the 1st qualy session is irrelevant, the 2nd is almost as irrelevant and the 3rd can be entertaining but the grid is fairly predictable. You do sometimes get the odd surprise with where someone ends up, either dropping early or qualifying up the grid in the top 10. But then I look at how many times different drivers have messed up their banker lap and would provide such a different grid and therefore race, where with the opportunity to go again, the grids often fall in line to what we would expect. Because you get a fairly predictable grid, you therefore get a fairly predictable race. While the sprint race currently doesn't provide a huge amount of action, it does make for a more interesting weekend, with Friday qualy and less practice sessions. So without going to reverse grid or spraying water on the track, a single lap qualy may provide a few more drivers out of position come sprint/race day, which isn't artificial as every driver had the same number of laps and had to perform on their given lap, do they risk it or play it safe? That's my thoughts behind my suggestion anyway
Excellent suggestions & framing. I’ve thought about sprint long & hard (lolz) this past year & quite enjoy them, but, as your show here, their context does not smoothly fit on the grander scheme of F1. So here are 3 sprint formats I have come up with; 1) 5 sprint races/season Reduce race length to ~75KM Reverse grid start (based on quali laps times) The last 4 to cross the checkered flag are eliminated from the following race Top 12 get points towards DC & CC 2) 3 sprint races/season Normal Grid based on quail times Points for DC & CC are awarded based on your NET position changes (ex. If you gain 2 in the first, lost 1 in the second & lost 1 in the third, you would get 0 points) 3) 6 sprint races/season Normal grid start based on quali times Sprint race EXCLUSIVELY for reserve/junior drivers Points awarded for each race go towards SRC (sprint race championship) Top 10 total point finishers get points towards CC F1 community gets to vote for “Sprint Driver of the Series” (1-2-3) (like an expanded version of driver of the day) I think anyone of these would add an extra dimension to the sport.
3 sprints. You have to take a pit stop in one of those three across the season and you have to use all tyres across the three sprint races over the season. It brings strategy into the sprints. When to use what tyres where etc
Thank you again for a well explained, nicely illustrated video. I would propose: 1 detach sprints from the regular championship, as Denise suggested 2 award the old point system of 10-1 for the first 6 drivers 3 use ultrasoft tires that require 1 pitstop during the sprint 4 penalize drivers with grid drop places based on their licence point penalties since the last sprint (to help show the audience who are the cleanest drivers) 5 NO reverse grids, which are artificial, unsporty and prone to cheating 6 engine penalties are only for the race, not like HAM Brazil, so he would have "started" 25th, so effectively 20th 7 suitable tracks only; Monza was the wrong choice, though I understand the commercial aspect, better to pick another Italian race like Imola or Mugello
Honestly reverse grid and separate championship sounds pretty good to me, maybe say that it finished atleast 3 races before the end of the season. The amount of points given could be discussed.
I’ve been thinking about this this week and here’s the best I could come up with. I propose doing a reverse championship order grid except every driver no matter the position gets 1 championship point for each overtake they make during the sprint (except for overtakes on your team mate for obvious reasons). With the sprint result setting the grid for the race, same as the current format. I think this addresses the issue of artificially punishing successful drivers because although starting from the back gives a disadvantage in terms of track position you gain the advantage of having the maximum number of potential points you can get from the race. Another advantage of this is that with this point system it’s unlikely the sprint will have a huge impact on the two championships on the higher end but provides the best opportunity to gain points for the slower teams each weekend. It also incentivises super aggressive racing throughout which would make it more of a sprint than the more processional current format. This would obviously mean no conventional qualifying, so I would only implement this at every other race at most.
I really like the Q1 idea for setting the sprint grid and browsing through the comments section I'm not the only one. It adds an extra challenge to the overall hour of qualifying because the top teams will have to decide whether they want to use a second set of tyres or not in Q1 to improve their sprint grid position but at the cost of not having two new sets of tyres available for Q3 runs so they're put under more pressure to perform there.
Have a one lap Quali for the sprint, starting in reverse grid order. Everybody gets theyre spot in the sun and the fast cars need to go out first, hence the greener track makes them slower. Depending on Track it will be stronger or weaker, so sometimes the lower championships standings teams can get faster times. Maybe have 2 laps, first everybody once, then a second lap for everybody. If you bodge the first lap, you can still hope that somebody else does too so the second lap is the fight for the losers. I imagine it like downhill ski races were the fastest person is in the hot seat and all other trying to kick him of and that would create some excitemet. Mainly i think it serves to show drivers to the audience you usually dont see, like having an onboard of them for theyre fast lap.
I genuinely prefer the sprint races from Aarava's MyDriver career, over what we got in real life: -Completely separate from the main Grand Prix -Sprint tire compounds, which wear out extremely fast, adding strategy to the mix -Points for all drivers, which encourages battling on track It also uses shorter layouts of the tracks, which is unfortunately impossible to implement in real life (except Bahrain maybe), but it could work without them So it has got 4 out of 6 points you mentioned at the end
Great video! The issue for me with some of the ideas you propose, while intriguing, they are overly complicated. For example, the sprint championship then giving points to the main championship, or grids carrying over from race to race, or some of the more expensive ideas like ERS deployment rules and sprint only compounds. It makes the sport overly confusing. Not to mention the problem of these races either having too much of an effect in the championship or being worthless. There is something about the trial this year that not enough people seem to realise. Even only having 3 sprints and them avarding very little points, Verstappen has achieved 5 more points than Hamilton across them. And given how tight the championship currently is, it could well come down to those points. Even with very little influence, these events matter a lot. Call me a fan stuck in the past, but to me the sprints havent't worked and I would not consider it for next year. It is an overly complicated format that doesn't really work. The only positive I found is having a competitive session on a Friday. But event then I really like what we normally have and I think it works well, BUT, if we need a competitive session, here is and idea I thought of: -Friday: FP1 in the morning, Q1 and Q2 in the evening. Top 7/8 are locked in a Saturdays shootout, with the fastest driver in Q2 going out last to benefit from track evolution. -Saturday: FP2 (still relevant because the fight for pole is still yet to come). Then a 10 minute Last Chance Qualifier so the Q2 drivers who didn't end in the top 8 still have a chance to enter the shootout. The fastest 2 drivers from this session move to the shootout for pole, which becomes a 1 lap attempt to get pole. This combines a few things. FP2 remains relevant, you get competitive sessions on Friday. The Last Chance Qualifyer is inspired by MotoGP's format, which I personally like. And then you get all the excitement, pressure and intrigue from 1 shot quali
The one thing I don't like about 1 shot quali is if the conditions are changing then there's an unfair advantage to those going out in better conditions. Formula E this year had some weird grids because they qualified in groups and the last race had some strange grid positions that didn't really make sense in the overall championship. I'd still have them go out in a session together personally, the last chance qualifier is a great shout though.
One shot quali is a rubbish idea for F1, because it's really satisfying to see 5 times pop onto the board in the space of 20s, as drivers stack over and under eachother. OSQ slows it down.
@@hdr_diamondz my counter argument is that you sometimes get anticlimactic finishes when the best time is posted on the first attempt. I love 1 shot in other series and back in the day when F1 had it. You get to see all attempts from drivers, and it puts a ton of pressure on them to deliver.
Been a big fan of the channel for a while, respect your veiws and I enjoy the way you talk about F1 .... when it comes to Sprint Qually tho, it cant fuck off quick enough. The idea's you brought are fun at least ... but I'd rather not have any of it. I'm in my 20's but I know i'll sound like a old man here, but I liked it the way it was. I feel cars that can battle better (potentially next year) resolves a lot of these sprint qually and DRS crap that gets brought in to make the sport more "exciting". If you dont like the format of F1, dont watch it .... its as simple as that. I dont see football introducing a warm up game before the real game for an extra point, or get the youth intrested. Plenty of other formula's out there with other formats. Feels like a lot of extra faffing about for no real reason.
Basically the same as having 2 football matches where one is only one half and only counts for a point instead of 3. 1 Qualy session. 1 Race. We don't need more stuff just for the sake of having more racing. Making cars easier to overtake and having budget caps are already huge improvements but we dont need mode races.
As a new F1 fan-- like so many Americans, "Drive to Survive" season 1 introduced me to the sport -- I have learned so much from you Chain Bear. Thank you for the instruction! You are always so spot on, F1 should watch your channel, and then just do everything you say. Actually, F1 should just appoint you CEO and Dictator.
Every race in F1 is a historic event, the stakes are massive and huge risks are the norm. That's why F1 is so epic. Sprints only take away from the races and these "improvements" only overcomplicate the sprints.
My suggestion: Six sprint races that form a separate sprint championship (SC), with everyone getting WDC points depending on where they finish in the SC (with the winner of SC getting 50 WDC points). The starting grids would be formed almost as explained at 6:20, but the order of the first sprint would be the last years WDC finishing positions REVERSED (by car, not driver, so e.g. Russell would start 3rd last in 2022 if Bottas finishes 3rd in this years WDC).
Theres only 1 way to improve sprint races... Get Rid. The 'problem' with F1 is already the procession. Sprint + Quali = 2 Opportunites for the fastest to filter forward, before the real battle for points begin. Currently, if a Lewis messes up quali, someone else gets a chance. But, If there is still a sprint race to go, the Lewis (or Seb if it were his era) has a good opportunity to mitigate damage.
The most important question should be "do we need Sprint races?" Since the answer is no the solution is obvious. If you want a sprint race watch F2. More sprint races would also create a need for increased number of engines in the annual allocation.
Honestly, a straight reverse of the championship standings would be great, especially with real points for the top 6 (either the 10, 6, ... Or 8,6,...). It gives the back marker teams a real chance for points and can't be gamed by the top teams like just reversing part of the grid based on quali.
I like the idea of making them a very long race with multiple episodes. The first episode could start with a reverse grid, all the others would follow the result of the last episode. Maybe they could even keep the same tyres from the last episode, so they had some strategy to play with - in this case I think the sprint should be shorter. The objective would be to make the best position in the final episode, the only one that would count points to the world championship, the amount being similar to a normal race. Although the best cars would easily overcome the reverse grid along the way, there are many things that could go wrong with that many race starts and overtakes.
Option C, do away with sprints entirely. They are causing their own new set of problems and the proposed solutions only further muddy the understanding for fans. See NASCAR.
I think having a separate Sprint championship that has minimal or no impact on the real WDC is probably the best decision precisely because it doesn't muddy anything. It functions as essentially a support race that happens to have the top guys and cars in it, but it doesn't muddy anything and fans can choose to completely ignore it if they want to.
Really like your ideas in this vid, maybe some harder to follow for newcomers, but very fun. The one thing I would NOT want to see is the mgu limits. Id prefer mechanical restrictions over software restrictions any day
What I like about sprints is that we get the action straight on in Friday instead of watching the teams finding the best setup and strategy. Then I take the Sprint as the race itself, like if a normal race was red flagged and continue the next day. I agree it hasnt been amazing this year but it was alright for me and I'll happily watch a few race weekends with this different format rather than trying to complicate it more
I find that idea more palatable BUT and it is a HUGE BUT, F1 is trying to cut its carbon footprint. All these extra tyres and race laps in Sprints are going against everything it is preaching. I am not a treehugger but I don't think Sprints are necessary. F1 should ditch Friday altogether and move PR Thursday in it's place. Then one 2 hour Free practise early Saturday, with Qualis later Saturday. Races should have mandated use of all 3 (Dry) compounds with free choice to start (I think the free choice is coming in 2022 anyway).
My Idea: Limit battery capacity during the Sprint according to Quali placement P20 - P16 get 100% P15 - P11 get 98% P10 & P9 95% P8 & P7 93% P6 & P5 91% P4 & P3 90% P2 % P1 88% I have no Idea how that would work out but I want to see it
The sprint races are not really for the television audience, they are more for getting more people to the track in person on friday and saturday, and in that f1 has a great idea. Having gone to a few races in person with friends who are not super into f1 it was hard to convince them to go friday and saturday morning when we knew the cars wouldnt be pushed hard for most of the day. The sprint races do just that, bring a whole new level of involvement to non-f1 people
The problem with a full reverse is that it diminishes the value of points to backmarkers. Would you rather see Williams get their first points in an action-packed hard-fought Hungarian GP, where they took advantage of the situation, or just being gifted a front row by qualifying trash? Reverse top 10 and 11-20 for sprints.
I like the Sprint Championship idea and of the order for the previous one ... and what about doing Friday: FP1 and Spint, Saturday: FP2, FP3 and Qualy so you concentrate the FP's more for Sunday (in this case the First Sprint will be determinate by the finals positions of the previous Sunday Race, the other Sprints will be determinate by the last Sprint positions)
I recommend that the DRS is allotted by time, for use at driver's discretion, each getting, say, 100 seconds (or whatever seems to work out) of "button time". The timer would run whenever the button was held down, regardless of whether the driver was on the brakes and thus DRS disabled, adding a skill element. Yeah, sort of like PTP in IndyCar, but pure aero. I've recommended this for the full race in the past.
What I liked about the Sprint is that it gives teams options to see how their strategy can improve over a weekend. Like Silverstone doesn’t happen if Lewis doesn’t see he can’t run the outside in trying to overtake Max at Copse in the Sprint.
1. Leave it at 3 Sprints 2. Taking the "Sprint Championchip" format you mentioned 3. Leaderboard of the Sprint Championchip at the end gets same points as one GP. (As they are 3 thirds of a full race) 4. Call it the "Aramco Sprint Challange" for extra oil money
My view on it: Ditch the sprint races. It's mostly created for the circuits but me as a TV viewer don't care for it. It actually makes me feel more jaded about F1. They are increasing weekends (I love F1 but I don't want most weekends to be F1 weekends) and making it so some of the weekends are three days mandatory viewings. It's just getting a bit much and that is the first time I have that feeling since I started watching F1 (1987).
I felt the same on the brazil weekend. I love F1, but having to watch Friday, Saturday and Sunday evening was a bit much for me. Also I never felt like the sprint races really added anything because as explained in the video, F1 just isn't that entertaining with 20 cars going flat out the entire time. Personally, I think it was a worthwhile experiment but I prefer the classic weekend format.
Just remember what Hamilton and Vettel said during a press conference in 2019: "whoever thought of the reverse grid is just a stupid person and doesn't know what he's talking about". So I think the drivers to begin with don't want the reverse grid, especially top drivers.
How about reverse grid only for sprints but from the same qualifying as the main race? And then 1/3 of the normal points awarded. We’d get both action and motivation
Make the sprint about the constructors. Give points, but no driver points. Then you could also go as far as saying each constructor must give one seat to a rookie/test driver. So sprints become about a ‘team’ game, and maybe we get to see Oscar Piastri in an Alpine, or Kubica getting a regular sprint race slot.
I've said this before, but... Make sprint races worth points (10 for 1st, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, ect.) and stick with the finishing order of the sprint race being the starting order of the Grand Prix. That probably makes it worth it to teams to risk accidents and allow the cars to race rather than just hold position. Further, lean into the different qualifying formats and add One-Shot quali to places like Imola or Monaco, and make sprint races features at 'Marquis' events with a history of good racing.
Another idea to spice up the sprints (and it may be so fun that the format would soon be brought to the main races): split them up into three stages. 5 laps for the 1st 2 segments and 10 laps for final segment. Standing starts for each segment, or implement a new double file nascar style rolling start at the start finish line (or 300 feet before it in a "restart zone") to start segments 2 and 3... and of course the 1st 2 segments must be worth points and the final segment worth more points.
Sprint Championship is a brilliant idea. Also make sure there's a special budget for it so same engine penalties are not applied there. Keep it to 4 races, 25% length. Overall winner should get at least 25pts, ie winning the sprint championship should be worth a race win but points should be awarded down to 15th place to incentivize everyone. Great idea
I really like this video! It accurately describes why i dont like sprint races right now (something i wasnt sure how to describe myself). But it also gives enough new and excitong ideas for sprints that im not chanting get rid of them! Love the chaining of sprint race ideas maybe have them in batches of 3 or 4 that at the end count as a full race points. The q1 idea is also great. And the 2nd fastest quali lap would be much fun, although i think crofty and brundle would spend more than half of quali trying to explain it.
I think there were lots of great ideas in this on how to make the sprints more interesting but I'm really struggling to see what the point is. At the moment, the sprints don't add much to the weekend. I'm struggling with the point of them at the moment.
How about this: the sprint grid will be defined by the REVERSE order of the q1 times. So its possible that top teams avoid beeing too fast in q1, so they wont start the sprint from p20, but take risks in beeing knocked out in q1 instead. The other way round, drivers will find themselves in q2 that would normally not get there. Also the sprint will give the classic points system from 1st to 8th but wont determine the starting grid of the grand prix. I would absolutely love this!!!
Saying that reverse grid is artificial and punishing succes is really stupid when you have DRS and a system where you can use more time in the windtunnel if you're last.
Move the sprint to the FP1 slot, make the teams make a best guess at car set up and have the drivers have to adapt to what would probably be a softer set up then ultimate qualifying or race set up would be. Teams can gamble on finer set ups if they think it worth the risk or if the driver is adaptable. Points for reward in proportion to distance travelled so ~1/3 race points to make it worthwhile for the teams.
i really like the idea of having a sprint championship which gives points to the main championship at the end, maybe that with having reverse grid order from normal qualifiying, so youd still want to quali high for the main race for the big points but still get a more dynamic sprint grid, maybe only reversing the top 10 or 15 to not make backmarkers go slow on purpose, since they likely dont have a chance at points in the main event anyways.
I really like those suggestions. The sprint championship is great because it's a low risk medium reward since losing it don't affect championship that much but can give some extra points in the figth. Or maybe give some other bonuses like free engines or a "you don't need to use 2 different compounds" ticket. Another thing they should do is remove parc fermé for the sprint.
My ideas on the spot: 1 Make points for every position gained or lost. Points stop at minus 5, so if you retire you don't drop down of too much. 2 Make everyone gain points from 1 to 21 in the sprint and double the points for each of the real races. Nobody said that we need to assign exactly 25 points for a full race win!
Machine guns! The halo is perfect for mounting them.
Mad Max (Verstappen) sponsorship with F1
American comment
We’re also going to the states and the Middle East a lot so the sponsors will love it
@@slap_k_man1862 liberating countrys with machine gun f1 cars
@@Panozaa not sure what that mean guns is just the things I think about when I think states and Middle East people being shot at because someone did something like breath and someone took offence to it
You're exactly right about the strategy aspect. I remember watching the Sao Paulo sprint and thinking how much lamer it is than the race, because once it settled down, I couldn't even look forward to who will pit when, or watch with anticipation whether or not we'll see another fumbled pit stop, or cross my fingers that my favourite driver manages to undercut the car ahead of him. A pit stop can make or break a race. That said, I like your ideas, and maybe some of them could actually make up for the lack of pit stops.
I think that Pole should go the one that sets the fastest lap.
@@Firebolt1729 how is this relevant to their comment?
I firmly believe in unicorns. Who gives a fuck?
I would like to see a simulation of what happens if there must be 2 trips through the pit lane and must be one, and only one, tyre change in the sprint.
Yeah, as it is they could make the sprints a single lap and you'd get almost the same results.
@@TheAngryDwarfff Username checks out lol
3:13 'Hamilton accounts for Nintendo 64% of position changes'
thanks, it almost scaped my sight
Something snuck in from the clipboard there, it seems...
Glad I’m not the only one who noticed that
Super Nintendo Chalmers
@@Nickelodeon81 I'm learnding
04:05 been saying this from the start; all the sprint is doing is negating any surprises quali might throw up. It gives the top teams a third of a race to make their way back the front after any quali mishaps, and mid field teams a third of a race to lose any impressive quali result and end up ‘where they belong’. More over, it gives all the teams a lovely little simulation of how the race will go and how the tyres will behave so come the actual grand pros there’s even less possibility of surprise.
Personally I still like the idea of the sprint being it’s standalone thing with a reverse grid order and give points to the top 8 or 10. The top teams have an incentive to push from the back as there’s good points on offer, and the lower teams also get racy for points they wouldn’t necessarily be able to get in a full race, and everybody has a bit of fun with wheel to-wheel racing and overtakes without worrying about compromising the Sunday race🤷🏻♂️
👌🏼
@@GianpieroFusco 👌
I largely agree.
Specifically, what I would do is have independent sprints where the top 10 grid positions are the reverse of the top 10 from qualifying, and to do 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 points for 1st to 5th. I think points for the top 10 is too many considering P10 in a grand prix gets 1 point only, and points for the top 8 is still a bit much imo.
Yes, having any reverse grid is artificial, but this format still requires you to get to Q3 to have a good grid position and doesn't affect the points standings too much. And we'd be guaranteed to see the top qualifiers starting not from the front. That's entertainment. That's something new and exciting for the championship. Not just lengthening the grand prix, as you say.
I'm actually a little bit concerned that the 2022 cars making passing easier might do a bit of the same thing. Passing is great, and it's definitely too hard for the most part right now. But if it's too _easy_, you'd quickly get a situation where the field just sorts itself in order of car speed by the end of the race, which wouldn't be very fun either. You need to find that balance where it's possible to pass, but with good driving also possible to defend as long as the difference in pace isn't too great.
Yeah something like this is needed for sprint. Or you could have quali which grants the same amount of points to the top 10 as the actual GP does (or half of the points if full points is too much). Then do a reverse grid for sprint (everyone starts with same set of tires as their fastest quali lap) and the sprint results are the starting order for the GP itself. Everyone has large incentive to be the fastest in quali, sprint will be super interesting and will have pit stops for tires and the race will be interesting because the grid will still probably be somewhat mixed after the sprint. For some added craziness, make everyone start the GP with the set of tires they ended the sprint with. That way someone could qualify with hard tires, use them in the sprint without a pit stop and end up quite high on the grid for the GP, but with worn hard tires.
This would also have the benefit of being easy to understand for everyone.
As I commented on the F1 subreddit, the problem with the sprint qualifying format is that after the first lap the risk-reward calculation for 80% of the drivers swings heavily in favor of playing it safe. Unless you're near the front and fighting for those few championship points, there's not much to be gained from fighting for position relative to the risk of crashing out and ruining your grid position for the actual race.
Is that true though? If you decide to 'play it safe' and not go for the position in Sprint qualifying, you'll just be behind that person in the race. Then when you try to overtake them in the race, you'll still have the exact same risk of crashing and losing out anyway. At least if you crash out in the Sprint, you'll have a chance to fight back through the field. I'd actually say you have less to lose from risky moves in the Sprint.
@@matthewreynolds4382 But if you risk your chances in Sprint, and all goes wrong (like did with Perez in Silverstone), you start the actual meaningfull race at the back.
This argument really doesn't make sense to me, what's the difference between risking it in the sprint or in the race. If you're not willing to take risks when overtaking then whats the point.
@@GuidoHaverkort It's a bit like battling for position really hard in the middle of an endurance race: battling early on is very inadvisable, it makes more sense to just preserve your car and fight another time. Same for the sprint races. If you're in P10 in the sprint and you have a choice between fighting for P9 and risking a crash and tumbling down to P20 for the actual race or just preserving the position and saving your battling for the race on Sunday, it makes way more sense to play it safe for the spring and just wait for the actual race for battling.
@@boninolucas And if you takes risks in the actual race you might crash out which is much worse.
I would love to see hypersofts come in. Make them all do a one stop sprint and then have some variety based on how teams like the track position they have.
Having 1 mandatory pit stop but tyre range is superhypersoft c8 and superhards c1
I dont mind having reverse grids for sprints if they dont impact the actual grand prix.
It will be interesting if we give the old 10 8 6 points system as well
My take: quali sets grid for both sprint and GP, but Sprint have a reverse grid. Old scoring system for first 8 position would be great. This way drivers cant afford to be 20th in quali because GP is more important. And we will have a great sprint. Will top drivers even score points? And most importantly will haas score points?
@@Feanor0404 Problem with that is that there is atleast some reward for having a mediocre/bad car. On Monaco for example (if a sprint was held there ofc), an Alfa or a Haas could probably keep everyone behind and score some points in a car that doesn't deserve to.
The teams should be rewarded for the car they produce or the hard work they put in, not gifted an opportunity to score points because they're in a worse car. Don't get me wrong, it'd probably be fun to watch with all the overtakes, but it's likely not a good idea for the sport.
That is why I think it's better to decide the spint grid by championship points. If a bad team gets benefitted by the virtue of having fewer points and get say 10 points , that means they most likely will start few positions lower in the grid for the NEXT sprint.
@@ubbystoned Teams wouldn't be rewarded for having a mediocre car, they would be rewarded for strategy. If you don't think you have the pace to fight for 10th, then would you rather start 5th in a short race and 15th in a long race, or would you want to start 1st in a short race and 20th in a long race. Slower cars would want to qualify last. This would probably be great to watch for about one race =)
Honestly I'd like to see the F2 style reverse grid race, it might be a bit artificial, but watching drivers fight through the field is the best part of watching races. Alternatively reworking it to feel closer to NASCARs stage system where you get some points for a position but less than a race win could be interesting
14:08 Perhaps Pirelli could bring more varied compounds.... instead of the C1, C2 and C3 for example, perhaps for the Sprint they could use the C1, C3 and C5 which could potentially allow pit strategy to be a factor - for example, Starting on the Soft C5 and then pitting for another set of Soft C5's might turn out significantly faster than starting and finishing using a single set of Hard C1 tyres.
just have two choices sofest possible and hardest possible if a driver starts on softest they have to pit and must put another set of softs on. equallt hard starters can't pit unless they need another set of hards for a puncture or something like that. soft starters would be torn between shooting off into the distance and trying to pit and stay ahead or manage it and pit late knowing they will lose track position and have to earn it back on track but with a speed advantage. could even demand teams split strat alternating each race coin toss for first race.
@@michaelarmer256 that's what i was thinking too, but maybe make a brand new type of tire, completely new compounds for sprints. You could play it safe on a hard and definitely make it to the end but have dismal pace, risk a no stop on the medium and maybe take a puncture, or take a one stop on the softs and fight back through. The strategy would be really interesting to see, especially mixing it with a reverse grid would make for a very interesting concept. One thing i thought of with quali is just to make it the set the grid for both. Let quali affect both races but make the races independent from eachother, with a reverse grid in the sprint.
@@Hibernathan05 I actually typed out this exact idea before I saw you already posted it - but yes this seems like a good suggestion. Introducing a need for pitstops during the race presents the teams with more strategy options, which in turn provides for more excitement during the race, sorry, the sprint.
Love the sprint championship idea, but I’d combined it with the “sprint results set next sprint grid” so it’s essentially one race separated over 6 weekends and 6 tracks, but for the same points as a single race.
Does that make Bottas Sprint world Champion?
But if the sprints are separate from the rest of the weekend and the previous sprint results are the next sprint's starting grid and points are awarded at the end of the last sprint, that makes the sprints basically one GP that is 3 times longer than a regular GP. You are pretty much guaranteed to have 0 surprises when you reach the checquered flag of the last sprint because even if a top team/driver messes up in, say, the third sprint race, they still have 1½ race distances to get back to the top. The top teams could basically not participate in or just do 1 lap and then retire the car in the first three or four sprints and only race properly in the remaining sprints to get to the top and get all the points.
Horrible idea
@@Jahanoudis Then suggest a better one instead of criticising others' ideas without any kinds of arguments.
@@Kepe maybe the fastest of cars but in a competitive season starting from last while your championship rival starts 1st is not a good idea, also, you can intentionally pick tracks that throw things around, like no matter how much better mercedes is than williams for example, the chances of the latter finishing ahead are significantly higher if all sprints are in power heavy tracks, imagine a red bull starting from 1st and 2nd after winning in idk monza and then having to hold on to good positions in singapore (where theyve been notoriously bad)
I really like the idea of q1 session setting the grid for the sprint race
What if they had to start the actual race on the same worn tires they finished with in the sprint? Would that add a strategic pit stop in the sprint?
i like this one a lot.
Teams will claim it's a safety issue. Also, it wouldn't work with the idea of a Pirelli balls-to-the-wall sprint tire. But sprint top 10 has to start on softest compound could be a good rule maybe, in particular when race grid is decided by qualification iso sprint
Nah just have everything normal for the full race, the important one. Eliminate sprint and have all cars with the same tires like we did for 70 years
I think teams would take it very easy on the tyres in the sprint so that the tyres would be better for the main race. So more processional driving in the sprint race
Ok here's what I would like: Qualifying on Friday which sets the grid for the Sunday race, but for Saturday sprint, you reverse the grid and do the 21-1 points for the "Sprint Championship", and in the end once all the points are tallied, the top ten receive 50, 45, 40, 35, etc. points for the actual championship.
I think that's fair, not TOO much but enough incentivize the teams.
This is the format I was thinking too, the only difference I would say is to make the actual championship points worth closer to an actual race/GP
Chaining sprints together and having the finishing order determine the grid for the next one would make drivers take even less risk than they did this year. Because crashing out would put anyone at a HUGE disadvantage. That would be less entertaining to watch than FP1.
What if you add something like park ferme to this? Like engines and tires must be carried over between sprints. Crashing out would allow a free tire change.
Good point. Which is why use the results from the previous main race to set up the sprint order not the previous sprint race.
@@GolfYankeeDelta That wouldn't help, especially not at the end of the sprint series. A crash/spin/damage would mean you would start P20 next race, making it impossible for most teams and still very hard for all teams to get a top 6 finish, so risk must be avoided at all cost. There is simply no counter benefit to crashing, and finishing the race unscathed will always be infinitely better. Which will cause boring racing like Clemens said. In full races that is not the case, because next race you get to qualify again, so a crash means nothing is lost for next race.
You would also make it much harder to keep track of the season, anyone not avidly following F1 would be even less likely to be engaged.
But if you started on a reverse grid and combined them, it would mean the top drivers have to fight their way through the field without crashing, and the midfield would have chances to win sprint races which would be good
The Sprint idea didn't come from "hey, you know what would be great?" It came from "we think we need a headline event on each day of the 3-day grand prix weekend, what do we concoct to put next to qualifying and the race?" The Sprint weekends actually show me that F1 should seriously consider 2-day weekends, especially with the calendar expanding more and more.
Didn't F1 trial that already at one of the italian races last year? I think it's a fine idea. Having an extra day "free", especially if F1 bumps up the calendar to 25 races (which is their ultimate goal) could prove to be very valuable.
I agree with this. I will admit, less FP sessions probably makes it slightly more dangerous which is not good obviously but it does make it more unpredictable and more of a challenge for the teams.
To me sprint races just won't work for F1. For F2 and F3 it's perfect because it's more of a drivers championship so you get to see some young talent shine over two days.
But for F1 it doesn't sit tight for me. The two races make it less special to me. Cost is so high, they're going to more races and now adding more races within a weekend as well.
When you looked all that I agree with you. Just go to a two day weekend and treat the Friday like we currently treat Thursday. Most people are working Friday anyway so I dont see the point of trying to increase viewership on that day.
I'm inclined to keep the points small for now, so experiments like you've mentioned can be done without a big drama around it determining the championship. I've enjoyed the sprint weekends as is, but would love to see different things tried out without it becoming the focus of the sport.
I like how at 9:24 he still marks Mazepin as last of the grid even though it's the second best lap hahahaha
Friday:
*60 Minute Practice.
*Qualifying - Q1 & Q2.
Counts towards Sundays grandprix and end of Q2 sets grid for Sprint race.
.
Saturday:
*30 Minute Practice for young drivers only who dont have a main drive.
*Sprint race - Small amount of points awarded.
.
Sunday:
*30min warm up for drivers eliminated in Q1 & Q2.
*Qualifying - Q3 - Top 10 Shoot out.
*Normal Grand Prix
Love the Q1 idea, it's beauty lies in its simplicity. I hope Ross Brawn sees this
On a side note, it's not a fleshed out idea, but what would you think about awarding point based on how many places you gain in sprint. This way in Q1 you'd have to to set a time that is fast enough to get to Q2, but don't want so far ahead that you don't have any opportunity to make up places in the sprint
Or combining them both! Half of the sprint points from position and half from gaining positions
I actually prefer it when teams do Q1 as normal and don’t turn it up to maximum too early. It keeps the tension and excitement up without spoiler. You would pretty much end up getting two Q3s, while Q1 basically already spoiled the end results. Not ideal. I would much prefer a one shot qualifying for the sprint race.
We could get rid of FP2 on sprint weekends and run a separate qualifying session and maybe make it one-shot qualifying. That might mix up the grid a bit without it seeming too artificial.
Connecting each sprint to each other to make it so that's it's basically one gp that lasts the whole year, and rewarding one race's worth of points for the sprints sounds perfect
@3:08 nintendo 64%?? I had to do a double take to make sure I wasn't crazy.
I came to a conclusion that the best thing to do with the sprints is:
1- Create a separate championship of sprints. Like NASCAR's playoffs. But add the points fron the sprints to the final results of the actual drivers and constructors championships
2- The grid for the first sprint of the season being set by the second best laptimes on the qualis
3- From the second sprint and beyond, use the final results of the previous ones
4- Sprints do not affect the race itself
5- Make an specific tyre compound
6- Use something like the Lap Loop penalty from MotoGP combined with the Attack Mode from Formula E to boost the power of some driver but at a cost of taking a longer line trough a specific corner
7- Use an alternative layout to do the sprints. Like the Outer layout on Bahrain, the 3A Layout of Paul Ricard (Note: F1 uses the 1C-V2 layout on Paul Ricard) and the North layout of Yas Marina
I have no Idea about how points should be rewarded for sprint races, but for the rest I'm quite sure about my wishes:
Qualifying on Friday for Race on Sunday. The less the teams are able to collect data the better.
Sprint races, and hear me out on this one, should always start in reverse championship order. Every battle would be meaningful. There is nothing exciting or meaningful about VER or HAM cruising by 80-90% of the field with DRS open cause of the sheer speed difference. Maybe I'm too harsh but honestly compare the VER HAM duels with either of them overtaking LAT or GIO or any of those.
In reverse Championship order every battle in the beginning is against your closest rivals. With the potentially faster one behind and slower in front. The pressure to clear the slightly slower one in front while keeping the other behind would make me sit on the senate edge.
The slower cars will surely try everything to keep every single position, while the faster cars would try hard to clear them and put cars between themselves and their championship rivals.
The big issue is finding a way to get the teams to care about the Sprint without too many points being on offer, so the solution seems to be to offer non-points based incentives.
Set the Sprint Grid by "Reverse use of Budget Cap" (the team that's spent the least gets the front row, etc.). Best combined team position gets an additional PU change for both cars + 1 development token. Second gets a choice of a free PU change for both cars or 1 development token. Third gets whatever Second didn't pick.
Qualifying sets race grid order.
Sprint grid is reverse order but doesn’t impact the race
10 points for the winner dropping by 1 points each position.
Sunday race isn’t ruined, everyone would be flat out in the sprint with fast cars going for big overtakes.
Sounds good, but 10 points is too much imo, maybe 8
Waiting patiently for Chain Bear's take on the Jeddah chaos as the most valuable F1 opinion that I can source...
The fact that we have to try so hard to make to make sprint racing work in Formula 1 shows that we really don’t need it. Out of all the problems we’ve had in F1 in the last 5 years with racing qualifying was always the one thing that everyone always loved, I think we’re better off without sprints
That would mean we have to change the race. Which is a constant for over 70 years!
I think thats almost impossible
I have zero interest in the sprints. Redundant circus shit.
I like the idea of "Joker Laps" in the sprint race to get some kind of strategy into the format. Really liked the ideas you showed.
If we HAVE to have them, I'd like to see the F2 style reversed top 10 and it be a standalone race, that doesn't impact the GP grid
The idea of having each sprint race determine the grid order of the next is a really attractive one. It addresses the issue of slower cars having nothing to race for while also not creating the issue of the sprints having too much weight on the championship. I think main f1 championship points for the top five would be enough for each race, and then, the sprint races also count towards a separate sprint championship table in which the top 5 constructors of just the sprint races at the end of the year get some bonus points added to the main f1 championship table. When it comes to constructors fighting for midtable positions, something like a 15 point boost can easily be a massive boost. Imagine aston martin being able to invest a little bit more in sprint races so that they get one place higher at the end of the season. That would be cool.
So, what made brazil so amazing was having Hamilton battle everyone. What made Hungary so good was Alonso battling for his life.
Why don't we have an Overtaking race instead of the Sprint? Qualifying set's the grid for the race and the "Sprint" is reverse grid. Then you give points relative to the overtakes and positions defended. For example Mazepin start's P1 and is given points for every faster car that finishes behind him and his final position. Max or Lewis get points for positions gained and final position.
Is obviously a bizarre idea and the example was on the top of my mind, I'm just suggesting it for fun, but... If what we like is on track action and we don't want to change the WC let's have a "Overtaking" race where wheel to wheel racing is the point.
Fantastic and well-thought out video as always. To me, all it seems sprints are good for is waiting for one of the leading drivers to make an error (Perez at Silverstone, Gasly at Monza), to subsequently drop them down the order and force them to have to carve their way from the back the next day. If F1 wants more of that, they need drivers to push more, thus I have to agree there needs to more incentive other than a measly points offering. Maybe points are awarded to all, but are only used in the main championship table as a tiebreaker. This make little difference to the leading pack, who'll just be chasing better grid slots (and maybe that's where strategy can come into play), but for those at the back who rarely have a chance to sniff at the top 10, it's a way of boosting their championship position, better than the current "best result" tiebreaker, which I've always felt is a little flawed.
This year would have created the perfect conditions for Formula E style quali for the sprints. Drivers sent out in 4 groups in quali order in the morning, in championship order for a one-shot style quali, potentially even without superpole. It's the exact thing that sprint format was designed for - it fucked up this year's FE championship but with such a spread out F1 grid, the Haas', William or Alphas could have a proper chance at some points (If we go by top 8)
What a brainstorming session this was! So many good points, the main being “what do we want a sprint to be?”
I’ve been advocating for points for all finishers for 25 years. The bottom half of the race is inherently less interesting, and not giving them any points makes it even more so. Give every position an incentive to be gained.
Furthermore, it would also make the standings more relevant for the backfield. I think their standings shouldn’t be based on how they do weekend in weekend out, not by how many times they fluked into a 7th place finish.
-
What I want?
A time trial on Friday. Every driver one after the other. We get to see everyone’s fast laps instead of looking at the standings frenetically for 1 minute at the end of each qualifying session. The one weakness of this plan is changeable weather, which I’ve yet to figure out.
Reverse grid on Sprint Saturday based on Friday results. Flat out. Every finisher gets half points.
Regular GP on Sunday based on the Friday qualifying session. Full points for all finishers.
There. Everyone has an incentive to fight for every place in every session. Reverse grids are unfair, sure, but that’s why it’s only half points.
Make every position count. Sprint races where only the top 3 get a minuscule amount of points makes it rather underwhelming for the rest of the field in the absence of strategy.
"Make every position count." This is sound. I like the idea that they will be tearing strips off each other for 19th.
Make teams run their reserve driver in one of the cars
So many good point and an overall thorough analysis of the lackluster concept that is the sprints.
Thanks for the video Stuart!
Easiest and best solution is for sprint grids to be a reverse grid from the finishing positions from the last race. The finishing positions in the sprint will then be grid for the grand prix removing the need for traditional qualifying that weekend and throwing a stone into the works.
Downside though: a p.13 in the final few laps (of a GP) will do anything to end at the back, so they'll start next sprint from the front.
Some great ideas, I really like the idea about have Sprints as a separate points, that add in to the main championship at the end. But could be tweaked, to say half points for everyone. Or the points could be just for construction championship, create a some tension between driver/ team.
I still feel that the best option is scrapping sprints entirely, we simply do not need them.
Thank you. We already have
grands prix. No need for another race that just introduces potential for car damage or injury.
One thought on "reverse grids" - what about "randomised reverse" grids? Rough sketch:
1. Run qualifying as normal
2. Cars eliminated in Q1 enter mini-ballot and are randomly allocated Ps 1 to 5 on sprint grid.
3. Cars eliminated in Q2 enter mini-ballot for Ps 6 to 10 in Sprint
4. Q3 cars in ballot for positions 11 to 20 in sprint - possible amends could be:
a) Top 4 get positions 17 to 20 - but also get points in Sprint Championship
b) Pole-sitter guaranteed not to start on back row
c) driver who qualifies tenth must start in P16 (to incentivise every car going out)
Essentially - mixing up the grid but with a good combination of reason, reward, and random!
Six Way to improve F1's Sprints
yes
Six Way to improve F1's Sprints
@@cyrilb7608 Six Way to improve F1's Sprints
Update: Six Way to Improve F1's Sprints
Six Way to improve F1’s Sprints
An idea I had was to split sprints between the front and back half of the grid - either run two sprint races, or perhaps alternate which half participates. This gives the teams at the back a real chance to get some points on a more regular basis, something that they usually don't have much hope for - under normal circumstances the top five teams will (or should) take the points positions fairly easily. It also means that those at the back of the front half *need* to attack, as there is a real chance of those behind the championship being able to catch them - unlike now where the team in say 7th in the championship has no hope of catching whoever is in 6th
5:00 While I understand the artificiality of reverse grids, I think it’s a bit unfair to say they punish the better performing drivers.
They punish the best *cars* and drivers.
All we need to do is look at Ricciardo v Norris, Bottas v Hamilton, and even Perez v Verstappen this year to see how a very talented driver coming through the field, in ostensibly the same car, is different than a more average driver (they’re all still F1 drivers, so the margins are thin between talent, but still).
I contend that reverse grids would allow those better drivers to pull off all-time moves every sprint. The only drivers in the fastest cars that need fear being “held up” or “artificially punished” are the ones who aren’t as good at overtaking. It’s at least part of the reason Valterri has struggled to come thru the field compared to Perez for the last half of this season. His racecraft just isn’t as strong.
And it’s a bunch of crazy hairless apes strapping themselves into carbon fibre road rockets to see who can go around a strip of asphalt the fastest for sport. The whole thing is artificial.
I think the artificiality point sounds a bit weird, I mean who gets to decide wether or not it's artificial if the whole thing is made up by a few people in the FIA or something. I think it would only counteract some of the mechanisms against smaller teams, like positive feedback loops (I know budget cap is inserted now but it will take some time to really take effect). As it is, the fastest teams get to start in front and have no challenges except for one their teammate and, in this years case, their respective rival (RB and Merc basically). Faster teams are quite separated from having to fight really, lapped cars for instance just have to make room for them (I don't necessarily disagree with that but it adds to the bigger picture) and after the first stint they just overcut everyone so they just have their rival in front. On that note, almost all sorts of action is artificial or influenced by artificiality, depending on the definition. Aside from the obvious punctures, weather conditions or safety cars, the concept of DRS or having to pit and their respective introduction could have been deemed as artificial, we don't need to have it for the natural flow of the race but it aids the purpose of action - the definition of artificial. To me, it just sounds like people are afraid or at least sceptical of change and trying it out, sometimes F1 has this conservative undertone in a way (thinking about the halo)
Honestly I don't understand why this argument exists. Why are Chainbear and other commentators lying about why people don't want reverse grids? Because they are lying about it, knowingly and intentionally. The issue with reverse grids is the fact that they generate crashes, as faster cars get taken out by slower cars desperately trying to hold onto a spot. That's what happens in every other reverse grid race except when it's F2/similar series that have literally identical cars. If your cars aren't identical, it results in crashes, and that's why no one wants them in F1. It has nothing to do with punishing anyone or being artificial and never has, it's just outright dangerous in F1.
I hope the FIA follows these videos, this one in particular. As a long time hard core fan I agree with almost all of these. Great job on this and thank!
2 things i would like to see.
Qualy going to single lap will mix up the grid more frequently without being artificial.
The tires you finish the sprint on are the tires you start the race on.
eh, nah i think the current system of quali is better. if it ain’t broke…
@@ahl.56 I do think the way qualy is laid out is decent and it has been a good system for a while, trumping a lot of the qualy experiments tried out on the lead up to this format, don't get me wrong.
What I am finding more and more recently is the 1st qualy session is irrelevant, the 2nd is almost as irrelevant and the 3rd can be entertaining but the grid is fairly predictable. You do sometimes get the odd surprise with where someone ends up, either dropping early or qualifying up the grid in the top 10. But then I look at how many times different drivers have messed up their banker lap and would provide such a different grid and therefore race, where with the opportunity to go again, the grids often fall in line to what we would expect.
Because you get a fairly predictable grid, you therefore get a fairly predictable race. While the sprint race currently doesn't provide a huge amount of action, it does make for a more interesting weekend, with Friday qualy and less practice sessions. So without going to reverse grid or spraying water on the track, a single lap qualy may provide a few more drivers out of position come sprint/race day, which isn't artificial as every driver had the same number of laps and had to perform on their given lap, do they risk it or play it safe? That's my thoughts behind my suggestion anyway
Nah no more 1 shot
Excellent suggestions & framing.
I’ve thought about sprint long & hard (lolz) this past year & quite enjoy them, but, as your show here, their context does not smoothly fit on the grander scheme of F1.
So here are 3 sprint formats I have come up with;
1)
5 sprint races/season
Reduce race length to ~75KM
Reverse grid start (based on quali laps times)
The last 4 to cross the checkered flag are eliminated from the following race
Top 12 get points towards DC & CC
2)
3 sprint races/season
Normal Grid based on quail times
Points for DC & CC are awarded based on your NET position changes (ex. If you gain 2 in the first, lost 1 in the second & lost 1 in the third, you would get 0 points)
3)
6 sprint races/season
Normal grid start based on quali times
Sprint race EXCLUSIVELY for reserve/junior drivers
Points awarded for each race go towards SRC (sprint race championship)
Top 10 total point finishers get points towards CC
F1 community gets to vote for “Sprint Driver of the Series” (1-2-3) (like an expanded version of driver of the day)
I think anyone of these would add an extra dimension to the sport.
3 sprints. You have to take a pit stop in one of those three across the season and you have to use all tyres across the three sprint races over the season. It brings strategy into the sprints. When to use what tyres where etc
Difficult to follow for casual fans.
cant wait for your analysis of the madness of saudi arabia
I came to this video just to see if someone was requesting this.
So perhaps start the race, have a lap, stop the race and repeat thereby having 15-20 "first laps"?
Too artificial. 20 race starts in a row gets boring.
I think it's a joke. At least I hope so. 😅
10:48 green shells and bananas! Forcing a driver ahead of you to spin out with a well-timed snipe could be super rewarding.
Thank you again for a well explained, nicely illustrated video.
I would propose:
1 detach sprints from the regular championship, as Denise suggested
2 award the old point system of 10-1 for the first 6 drivers
3 use ultrasoft tires that require 1 pitstop during the sprint
4 penalize drivers with grid drop places based on their licence point penalties since the last sprint (to help show the audience who are the cleanest drivers)
5 NO reverse grids, which are artificial, unsporty and prone to cheating
6 engine penalties are only for the race, not like HAM Brazil, so he would have "started" 25th, so effectively 20th
7 suitable tracks only; Monza was the wrong choice, though I understand the commercial aspect, better to pick another Italian race like Imola or Mugello
Honestly reverse grid and separate championship sounds pretty good to me, maybe say that it finished atleast 3 races before the end of the season.
The amount of points given could be discussed.
I’ve been thinking about this this week and here’s the best I could come up with.
I propose doing a reverse championship order grid except every driver no matter the position gets 1 championship point for each overtake they make during the sprint (except for overtakes on your team mate for obvious reasons). With the sprint result setting the grid for the race, same as the current format.
I think this addresses the issue of artificially punishing successful drivers because although starting from the back gives a disadvantage in terms of track position you gain the advantage of having the maximum number of potential points you can get from the race.
Another advantage of this is that with this point system it’s unlikely the sprint will have a huge impact on the two championships on the higher end but provides the best opportunity to gain points for the slower teams each weekend.
It also incentivises super aggressive racing throughout which would make it more of a sprint than the more processional current format.
This would obviously mean no conventional qualifying, so I would only implement this at every other race at most.
I really like the Q1 idea for setting the sprint grid and browsing through the comments section I'm not the only one. It adds an extra challenge to the overall hour of qualifying because the top teams will have to decide whether they want to use a second set of tyres or not in Q1 to improve their sprint grid position but at the cost of not having two new sets of tyres available for Q3 runs so they're put under more pressure to perform there.
Have a one lap Quali for the sprint, starting in reverse grid order. Everybody gets theyre spot in the sun and the fast cars need to go out first, hence the greener track makes them slower. Depending on Track it will be stronger or weaker, so sometimes the lower championships standings teams can get faster times. Maybe have 2 laps, first everybody once, then a second lap for everybody. If you bodge the first lap, you can still hope that somebody else does too so the second lap is the fight for the losers. I imagine it like downhill ski races were the fastest person is in the hot seat and all other trying to kick him of and that would create some excitemet. Mainly i think it serves to show drivers to the audience you usually dont see, like having an onboard of them for theyre fast lap.
I genuinely prefer the sprint races from Aarava's MyDriver career, over what we got in real life:
-Completely separate from the main Grand Prix
-Sprint tire compounds, which wear out extremely fast, adding strategy to the mix
-Points for all drivers, which encourages battling on track
It also uses shorter layouts of the tracks, which is unfortunately impossible to implement in real life (except Bahrain maybe), but it could work without them
So it has got 4 out of 6 points you mentioned at the end
Great video! The issue for me with some of the ideas you propose, while intriguing, they are overly complicated.
For example, the sprint championship then giving points to the main championship, or grids carrying over from race to race, or some of the more expensive ideas like ERS deployment rules and sprint only compounds. It makes the sport overly confusing. Not to mention the problem of these races either having too much of an effect in the championship or being worthless.
There is something about the trial this year that not enough people seem to realise. Even only having 3 sprints and them avarding very little points, Verstappen has achieved 5 more points than Hamilton across them. And given how tight the championship currently is, it could well come down to those points. Even with very little influence, these events matter a lot.
Call me a fan stuck in the past, but to me the sprints havent't worked and I would not consider it for next year. It is an overly complicated format that doesn't really work. The only positive I found is having a competitive session on a Friday. But event then I really like what we normally have and I think it works well,
BUT, if we need a competitive session, here is and idea I thought of:
-Friday: FP1 in the morning, Q1 and Q2 in the evening. Top 7/8 are locked in a Saturdays shootout, with the fastest driver in Q2 going out last to benefit from track evolution.
-Saturday: FP2 (still relevant because the fight for pole is still yet to come). Then a 10 minute Last Chance Qualifier so the Q2 drivers who didn't end in the top 8 still have a chance to enter the shootout. The fastest 2 drivers from this session move to the shootout for pole, which becomes a 1 lap attempt to get pole.
This combines a few things. FP2 remains relevant, you get competitive sessions on Friday. The Last Chance Qualifyer is inspired by MotoGP's format, which I personally like. And then you get all the excitement, pressure and intrigue from 1 shot quali
The one thing I don't like about 1 shot quali is if the conditions are changing then there's an unfair advantage to those going out in better conditions. Formula E this year had some weird grids because they qualified in groups and the last race had some strange grid positions that didn't really make sense in the overall championship. I'd still have them go out in a session together personally, the last chance qualifier is a great shout though.
One shot quali is a rubbish idea for F1, because it's really satisfying to see 5 times pop onto the board in the space of 20s, as drivers stack over and under eachother. OSQ slows it down.
@@hdr_diamondz my counter argument is that you sometimes get anticlimactic finishes when the best time is posted on the first attempt.
I love 1 shot in other series and back in the day when F1 had it. You get to see all attempts from drivers, and it puts a ton of pressure on them to deliver.
Been a big fan of the channel for a while, respect your veiws and I enjoy the way you talk about F1 .... when it comes to Sprint Qually tho, it cant fuck off quick enough. The idea's you brought are fun at least ... but I'd rather not have any of it. I'm in my 20's but I know i'll sound like a old man here, but I liked it the way it was. I feel cars that can battle better (potentially next year) resolves a lot of these sprint qually and DRS crap that gets brought in to make the sport more "exciting". If you dont like the format of F1, dont watch it .... its as simple as that. I dont see football introducing a warm up game before the real game for an extra point, or get the youth intrested. Plenty of other formula's out there with other formats. Feels like a lot of extra faffing about for no real reason.
Basically the same as having 2 football matches where one is only one half and only counts for a point instead of 3. 1 Qualy session. 1 Race. We don't need more stuff just for the sake of having more racing. Making cars easier to overtake and having budget caps are already huge improvements but we dont need mode races.
As a new F1 fan-- like so many Americans, "Drive to Survive" season 1 introduced me to the sport -- I have learned so much from you Chain Bear. Thank you for the instruction! You are always so spot on, F1 should watch your channel, and then just do everything you say. Actually, F1 should just appoint you CEO and Dictator.
Every race in F1 is a historic event, the stakes are massive and huge risks are the norm. That's why F1 is so epic.
Sprints only take away from the races and these "improvements" only overcomplicate the sprints.
My suggestion: Six sprint races that form a separate sprint championship (SC), with everyone getting WDC points depending on where they finish in the SC (with the winner of SC getting 50 WDC points). The starting grids would be formed almost as explained at 6:20, but the order of the first sprint would be the last years WDC finishing positions REVERSED (by car, not driver, so e.g. Russell would start 3rd last in 2022 if Bottas finishes 3rd in this years WDC).
Theres only 1 way to improve sprint races... Get Rid.
The 'problem' with F1 is already the procession.
Sprint + Quali = 2 Opportunites for the fastest to filter forward, before the real battle for points begin.
Currently, if a Lewis messes up quali, someone else gets a chance.
But, If there is still a sprint race to go, the Lewis (or Seb if it were his era) has a good opportunity to mitigate damage.
Research suggest you're hardly in the majority here
but what if lewis messes up the sprint?
@@TypicallyThomas That's OK
Hoping the FIA subscribed to you channel.
The most important question should be "do we need Sprint races?" Since the answer is no the solution is obvious. If you want a sprint race watch F2. More sprint races would also create a need for increased number of engines in the annual allocation.
Honestly, a straight reverse of the championship standings would be great, especially with real points for the top 6 (either the 10, 6, ... Or 8,6,...). It gives the back marker teams a real chance for points and can't be gamed by the top teams like just reversing part of the grid based on quali.
I like the idea of making them a very long race with multiple episodes. The first episode could start with a reverse grid, all the others would follow the result of the last episode. Maybe they could even keep the same tyres from the last episode, so they had some strategy to play with - in this case I think the sprint should be shorter. The objective would be to make the best position in the final episode, the only one that would count points to the world championship, the amount being similar to a normal race. Although the best cars would easily overcome the reverse grid along the way, there are many things that could go wrong with that many race starts and overtakes.
A Sprint championship detached from the race as you mentioned where they get points at the end for the real championship. Sound really intresting.
Option C, do away with sprints entirely. They are causing their own new set of problems and the proposed solutions only further muddy the understanding for fans. See NASCAR.
I think having a separate Sprint championship that has minimal or no impact on the real WDC is probably the best decision precisely because it doesn't muddy anything. It functions as essentially a support race that happens to have the top guys and cars in it, but it doesn't muddy anything and fans can choose to completely ignore it if they want to.
I really appreciate Stewart trying to think of improvements instead of just go "Boo, sprint races"
Really like your ideas in this vid, maybe some harder to follow for newcomers, but very fun. The one thing I would NOT want to see is the mgu limits. Id prefer mechanical restrictions over software restrictions any day
What I like about sprints is that we get the action straight on in Friday instead of watching the teams finding the best setup and strategy. Then I take the Sprint as the race itself, like if a normal race was red flagged and continue the next day.
I agree it hasnt been amazing this year but it was alright for me and I'll happily watch a few race weekends with this different format rather than trying to complicate it more
Maybe use high deg compounds for the sprint so that they're forced to pit or risk a puncture like at Qatar
I find that idea more palatable BUT and it is a HUGE BUT, F1 is trying to cut its carbon footprint. All these extra tyres and race laps in Sprints are going against everything it is preaching. I am not a treehugger but I don't think Sprints are necessary. F1 should ditch Friday altogether and move PR Thursday in it's place. Then one 2 hour Free practise early Saturday, with Qualis later Saturday. Races should have mandated use of all 3 (Dry) compounds with free choice to start (I think the free choice is coming in 2022 anyway).
that's literally what a normal race weekend is. if that happens, then there's basically just two normal races in a single weekend?
@@0cs025 yes but one is shorter, hence sprint and it would be closer in essence to a normal sunday race :)
Pirelli Hypersofts, lasts only 10 laps?
Every driver gets a banana skin to drop behind them
My Idea: Limit battery capacity during the Sprint according to Quali placement
P20 - P16 get 100%
P15 - P11 get 98%
P10 & P9 95%
P8 & P7 93%
P6 & P5 91%
P4 & P3 90%
P2 % P1 88%
I have no Idea how that would work out but I want to see it
The sprint races are not really for the television audience, they are more for getting more people to the track in person on friday and saturday, and in that f1 has a great idea. Having gone to a few races in person with friends who are not super into f1 it was hard to convince them to go friday and saturday morning when we knew the cars wouldnt be pushed hard for most of the day. The sprint races do just that, bring a whole new level of involvement to non-f1 people
The problem with a full reverse is that it diminishes the value of points to backmarkers.
Would you rather see Williams get their first points in an action-packed hard-fought Hungarian GP, where they took advantage of the situation, or just being gifted a front row by qualifying trash?
Reverse top 10 and 11-20 for sprints.
I like the Sprint Championship idea and of the order for the previous one ... and what about doing Friday: FP1 and Spint, Saturday: FP2, FP3 and Qualy so you concentrate the FP's more for Sunday (in this case the First Sprint will be determinate by the finals positions of the previous Sunday Race, the other Sprints will be determinate by the last Sprint positions)
How to improve f1 sprint races? Get rid of them
Not happening
I recommend that the DRS is allotted by time, for use at driver's discretion, each getting, say, 100 seconds (or whatever seems to work out) of "button time". The timer would run whenever the button was held down, regardless of whether the driver was on the brakes and thus DRS disabled, adding a skill element. Yeah, sort of like PTP in IndyCar, but pure aero. I've recommended this for the full race in the past.
What I liked about the Sprint is that it gives teams options to see how their strategy can improve over a weekend. Like Silverstone doesn’t happen if Lewis doesn’t see he can’t run the outside in trying to overtake Max at Copse in the Sprint.
1. Leave it at 3 Sprints
2. Taking the "Sprint Championchip" format you mentioned
3. Leaderboard of the Sprint Championchip at the end gets same points as one GP. (As they are 3 thirds of a full race)
4. Call it the "Aramco Sprint Challange" for extra oil money
My view on it: Ditch the sprint races. It's mostly created for the circuits but me as a TV viewer don't care for it.
It actually makes me feel more jaded about F1. They are increasing weekends (I love F1 but I don't want most weekends to be F1 weekends) and making it so some of the weekends are three days mandatory viewings. It's just getting a bit much and that is the first time I have that feeling since I started watching F1 (1987).
I felt the same on the brazil weekend. I love F1, but having to watch Friday, Saturday and Sunday evening was a bit much for me. Also I never felt like the sprint races really added anything because as explained in the video, F1 just isn't that entertaining with 20 cars going flat out the entire time. Personally, I think it was a worthwhile experiment but I prefer the classic weekend format.
Just remember what Hamilton and Vettel said during a press conference in 2019: "whoever thought of the reverse grid is just a stupid person and doesn't know what he's talking about". So I think the drivers to begin with don't want the reverse grid, especially top drivers.
I really like Tommo‘s idea of making A One-Shot Qualifying if a Sprint Race is scheduled for the weekend
How about reverse grid only for sprints but from the same qualifying as the main race? And then 1/3 of the normal points awarded. We’d get both action and motivation
Make the sprint about the constructors. Give points, but no driver points. Then you could also go as far as saying each constructor must give one seat to a rookie/test driver. So sprints become about a ‘team’ game, and maybe we get to see Oscar Piastri in an Alpine, or Kubica getting a regular sprint race slot.
I've said this before, but...
Make sprint races worth points (10 for 1st, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, ect.) and stick with the finishing order of the sprint race being the starting order of the Grand Prix. That probably makes it worth it to teams to risk accidents and allow the cars to race rather than just hold position. Further, lean into the different qualifying formats and add One-Shot quali to places like Imola or Monaco, and make sprint races features at 'Marquis' events with a history of good racing.
Another idea to spice up the sprints (and it may be so fun that the format would soon be brought to the main races): split them up into three stages. 5 laps for the 1st 2 segments and 10 laps for final segment. Standing starts for each segment, or implement a new double file nascar style rolling start at the start finish line (or 300 feet before it in a "restart zone") to start segments 2 and 3... and of course the 1st 2 segments must be worth points and the final segment worth more points.
Sprint Championship is a brilliant idea. Also make sure there's a special budget for it so same engine penalties are not applied there.
Keep it to 4 races, 25% length. Overall winner should get at least 25pts, ie winning the sprint championship should be worth a race win but points should be awarded down to 15th place to incentivize everyone.
Great idea
I really like this video! It accurately describes why i dont like sprint races right now (something i wasnt sure how to describe myself). But it also gives enough new and excitong ideas for sprints that im not chanting get rid of them! Love the chaining of sprint race ideas maybe have them in batches of 3 or 4 that at the end count as a full race points. The q1 idea is also great. And the 2nd fastest quali lap would be much fun, although i think crofty and brundle would spend more than half of quali trying to explain it.
I think there were lots of great ideas in this on how to make the sprints more interesting but I'm really struggling to see what the point is. At the moment, the sprints don't add much to the weekend. I'm struggling with the point of them at the moment.
Unnecessary and useless, and introduce more risks & potential for chaos.
How about this: the sprint grid will be defined by the REVERSE order of the q1 times. So its possible that top teams avoid beeing too fast in q1, so they wont start the sprint from p20, but take risks in beeing knocked out in q1 instead. The other way round, drivers will find themselves in q2 that would normally not get there. Also the sprint will give the classic points system from 1st to 8th but wont determine the starting grid of the grand prix. I would absolutely love this!!!
Saying that reverse grid is artificial and punishing succes is really stupid when you have DRS and a system where you can use more time in the windtunnel if you're last.
Move the sprint to the FP1 slot, make the teams make a best guess at car set up and have the drivers have to adapt to what would probably be a softer set up then ultimate qualifying or race set up would be. Teams can gamble on finer set ups if they think it worth the risk or if the driver is adaptable. Points for reward in proportion to distance travelled so ~1/3 race points to make it worthwhile for the teams.
i really like the idea of having a sprint championship which gives points to the main championship at the end, maybe that with having reverse grid order from normal qualifiying, so youd still want to quali high for the main race for the big points but still get a more dynamic sprint grid, maybe only reversing the top 10 or 15 to not make backmarkers go slow on purpose, since they likely dont have a chance at points in the main event anyways.
I really like those suggestions. The sprint championship is great because it's a low risk medium reward since losing it don't affect championship that much but can give some extra points in the figth. Or maybe give some other bonuses like free engines or a "you don't need to use 2 different compounds" ticket. Another thing they should do is remove parc fermé for the sprint.
The best way to fix the sprint race is by not having them period.
i like his ideas actually
My ideas on the spot:
1 Make points for every position gained or lost. Points stop at minus 5, so if you retire you don't drop down of too much.
2 Make everyone gain points from 1 to 21 in the sprint and double the points for each of the real races. Nobody said that we need to assign exactly 25 points for a full race win!