How to decide success of sprint qualifying?

[MattWellsyWells]

I feel like a successful sprint race would be one in which there is no fuel saving or tyre management with drivers able to drive on the limit for the duration of the race. Hopefully this would also mean drivers are able to race each other hard and provide some entertainment for the fans.

However, if it enables 17 qualifying laps in a row then you could presume there wouldn't be too much disparity between the pace of drivers and those around them given that they start in qualifying order.

I also imagine there is going to have to be some level of tyre management during the sprint even if everyone starts on the hard tyre. I also can't imagine anyone is going to risk driving flat out and racing hard for 17 laps when there is a huge amount of risk to your race on Sunday and very little reward. And presuming it is gonna be a procession with the only overtaking (if any) happening at the start of lap one of the sprint then it might not be wise to start on the hard tyres anyway.

[notsofast]

It's hard to define success without discussing the format. I just don't understand what FIA/Liberty are trying to achieve.

American audiences: "F1 is 200 miles of boring racing".
FIA/Liberty: "No problem, we will make it better by giving you 300 miles."

I'm exaggerating, but this is essentially what they are doing. We're starting a 300 mile race, and then we're red-flagging it after 100 miles, followed by a standing re-start. The only thing that can "spice" things up is misfortune. It's not like a baseball double-header where you lose the first game but then put in your star pitcher to win the second game. Same car. Same driver. Parc ferme. If nothing goes wrong, it's a 300 mile race.

[El Scorchio]

However it would be awful if one of Verstappen of Hamilton (for example- just because it's the most meaningful scenario for the championship) has an off, is taken out, or DNFs the sprint race and has to start from the back on Sunday, which ruins the actual Grand Prix before it even starts.

Does it?
Its happened where these guys qualify grossly out of order and fight back to the top/near top giving a good race.

Well, it ruins it for anyone hoping for THE battle at the front of the race. You do though, as you say, get the subplot of a recovery drive from the back. I can't imagine too many people (aside from the locals) being happy with it as a format if Verstappen for example trips over or tangles with another car through and ends up starting last on Sunday. It's really just an extra thing that could go wrong for a team.

[codetower]

The fans will need to feel that they have not been short changed.

A concept of another race is always welcome but this feels like a dogs dinner. Timings are terrible, 3 points scoring positions and a lack of opportunity to make a difference by keeping same tyres etc.

Not sure I like it -if I am blown away by the action, then maybe.... Free DRS at all times would be good - a la qually..

I think it will go down like a cheap date

But how are you going to determine the success/failure other than some vague feeling?

I think a couple of things. First if nothing crazy happens (like crashes, too many safety cars, etc.), Second if nothing really changes too much such as VER or HAM starting outside the top 10. Third, if most of the drivers give it a thumbs up... and most importantly, if the viewership goes up and advertising dollars increase.

[cooken]

I feel like a successful sprint race would be one in which there is no fuel saving or tyre management with drivers able to drive on the limit for the duration of the race. Hopefully this would also mean drivers are able to race each other hard and provide some entertainment for the fans.

However, if it enables 17 qualifying laps in a row then you could presume there wouldn't be too much disparity between the pace of drivers and those around them given that they start in qualifying order.

I also imagine there is going to have to be some level of tyre management during the sprint even if everyone starts on the hard tyre. I also can't imagine anyone is going to risk driving flat out and racing hard for 17 laps when there is a huge amount of risk to your race on Sunday and very little reward. And presuming it is gonna be a procession with the only overtaking (if any) happening at the start of lap one of the sprint then it might not be wise to start on the hard tyres anyway.

There will always be fuel saving, since the teams will only put the bare minimum amount of fuel in the tank to complete the race in order to optimize lap time. Just like usual they will probably in fact under fuel.

Tyres is a more interesting one, since there is free choice. Some may opt for soft to try and make up places at the start and hope they hang on or bank on a SC. Lots of tyre saving in that case. Starting on mediums might reduce this, but that will all be highly track dependent, based on knowledge gained from FP1.


On topic I agree that for FOM success will be entirely viewership and social media engagement. For many on this forum I think it's far more difficult to define or quantify.

[theblackangus]

Well, it ruins it for anyone hoping for THE battle at the front of the race. You do though, as you say, get the subplot of a recovery drive from the back. I can't imagine too many people (aside from the locals) being happy with it as a format if Verstappen for example trips over or tangles with another car through and ends up starting last on Sunday. It's really just an extra thing that could go wrong for a team.

Sure we want THE race, but more chances for error is always better. That is part of what brings excitement.
Part of the excitement challenge with F1 is that its too rare something goes wrong and impacts the race un-expectedly, coupled with the "spend to win" mentality. (This means driver errors, parts failures, weather, bad calls, etc)
So introducing more ways for drivers to be challenged to be perfect and teams being challenged to be perfect is what will lead to some excitement/un-predicitability.

Not saying the sprint race is the way to do that... my jury is still out there. If the sprint race is exciting great, if the sprint race is just another procession, Boo.

[Ringleheim]

However it would be awful if one of Verstappen of Hamilton (for example- just because it's the most meaningful scenario for the championship) has an off, is taken out, or DNFs the sprint race and has to start from the back on Sunday, which ruins the actual Grand Prix before it even starts.

Does it?
Its happened where these guys qualify grossly out of order and fight back to the top/near top giving a good race.

It's true! The fastest guy in F1 can start dead last and still have a shot at winning the race on the right day at the right type of race track.

It's always been that way.

[NL_Fer]

This all just feels like a compromise on what it could've been. I agree that it somewhat feels like adding 100km to the race distance with a red flag in the middle that lasts 24hrs... they likely outcome is that things will just filter into their natural order more quickly, thus rendering Sunday's race more processional.

I feel the same. The race starts on Saturday, is suspended for 24hrs, than continues on Sunday.

A red flag can be exciting, especially if the restart is after 60-80% and everybody has fresh tyres. I wonder if it has the same effect if the break is already after 25% and the tyres just start to wear.

[Just_a_fan]

I expect FOM would perversely consider the latter to be a success. However it would be awful if one of Verstappen of Hamilton (for example- just because it's the most meaningful scenario for the championship) has an off, is taken out, or DNFs the sprint race and has to start from the back on Sunday, which ruins the actual Grand Prix before it even starts.

I think you're spot on there. If one or more of the front runners gets taken out in some way - could even be as simple as a puncture - and starts the race at/near the back of the grid, there will be much joy amongst the commentators etc., as "we're in for a treat watching X fight through the field". But what it really does it result in X losing out in the title race.

Yes, DNFs, punctures, etc., can all occur in the race but if you add another event then you increase the chances of damage to the car etc., which can have an adverse effect on the title race.

I think Liberty et al see the F1 season as a number of individual "shows" that must each be edge of the seat exciting. But F1 isn't that - it's a season long championship. And thus the long game is what is important, not the momentary buzz.

The official site mentions the sprint races being like T20 cricket and I think that's a good analogy. Yes, it's great fun watching a quick burst of big hitting, but if you get it at every event then it just becomes more of the same. It's like a drug addiction - you need more each time to get the same high. Test cricket, on the other hand, gives bursts of excitement with admittedly "dull" patches but the game builds over the days. Just like a season builds as it progresses.

What will F1 do when the druggies aren't getting enough buzz from the sprint race? Add in random "long laps"? Have an artificially wet track for three corners to add some risk?

There is a misplaced idea that "good racing" is all determined by lots of overtaking. It's not - good racing is drivers fighting each other for a few corners / laps. An overtake is possible but requires skill to achieve. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes not. But for those few corners / laps you are hooked on what is going on. Having everyone overtaking each other every lap will be just as boring as no one overtaking anyone. It's the "will he, won't he?" that makes racing exciting.

[Just_a_fan]

Two words.

Viewership.
Revenue.

F1 doesn't give a fig about the opinions distributed in forums.

Spot on. And they won't care about longevity either. If it gets extra viewers for a few races then tails off again, they'll just think up some new whacky idea and rinse/repeat. So long as the money is coming in, they won't care about anything else.

[Just_a_fan]

Well, it ruins it for anyone hoping for THE battle at the front of the race. You do though, as you say, get the subplot of a recovery drive from the back. I can't imagine too many people (aside from the locals) being happy with it as a format if Verstappen for example trips over or tangles with another car through and ends up starting last on Sunday. It's really just an extra thing that could go wrong for a team.

Sure we want THE race, but more chances for error is always better. That is part of what brings excitement.
Part of the excitement challenge with F1 is that its too rare something goes wrong and impacts the race un-expectedly, coupled with the "spend to win" mentality. (This means driver errors, parts failures, weather, bad calls, etc)
So introducing more ways for drivers to be challenged to be perfect and teams being challenged to be perfect is what will lead to some excitement/un-predicitability.

Not saying the sprint race is the way to do that... my jury is still out there. If the sprint race is exciting great, if the sprint race is just another procession, Boo.

You could just have random events thrown in to the race if that is what is required. Random weigh bridge call, random wet track at some corner or other, random DRS disabling / enabling, a whole raft of things if one just wants excitement from random events.

F1 is hugely professional and has a lot of money riding on the outcomes. That always leads to the state of play we have now. Happens in most sports really.

My view would be that if drivers are hit by random events in the sprint and that adversely affects their real race and thus their title chances, the whole idea will have been a failure.

[JordanMugen]

I'm not looking to discuss the merits of the format. I'm open (if sceptical) until I see it in action. I'm looking for a way to qualify the success or failure.

Maybe that's impossible.

Well, the knock-out qualifying was deemed a failure (apparently) so perhaps the same criteria should be applied?

Is it a farce? Does it bring the sport into disrepute etc?

Let's say HAAS retire at 20 km, then Williams at 40 km distance etc, until only 4 racers take the flag. That would be a failure.

But how are you going to determine the success/failure other than some vague feeling?

How about a poll and survey of test screening subjects (aka fans), the same as which is used to determine the merit (or lack thereof) of a motion picture?

If the reaction is poor, the motion picture receives further editing and objectionable elements are edited out... In some cases, even rewrites and additional filming may be required to salvage a passable motion picture.

Two words.

Viewership.
Revenue.

Certainly. Test screenings of motion pictures are specifically used as a tool to predict these items, before a motion picture is actually released.

This all just feels like a compromise on what it could've been. I agree that it somewhat feels like adding 100km to the race distance with a red flag in the middle that lasts 24hrs.

On the one hand, a 100km reverse grid race based on the reverse of the qualifying grid would have been more interesting (with qualifying still setting the standard grid race).

On the other hand, a dual 250km format as used in the Adelaide 500 touring car race often (surprisingly) produced quite varied and interesting results between the Saturday and Sunday races. Double header Grand Prixs would not necessarily produce carbon copy results from Saturday to Sunday.

A short 105km race distance, however, does limit the potential for action on Saturday compared to a full 305km distance.

[JordanMugen]

I also can't imagine anyone is going to risk driving flat out and racing hard for 17 laps when there is a huge amount of risk to your race on Sunday and very little reward.

These are racing drivers, it doesn't always work out that way.

An optimistic lunge up the inside from Tsunoda or the like, will soon provide some action.

[Andres125sx]

Is there a metric we can use which will determine the success of this weekends sprint qualifying?

Number of changes for position through the race? Does first lap count in that? Is that a bit binary? So do you scale overtakes per lap or by race distance and compare to the Sunday race?

Is it as simple as whether there is a change in start order between the Saturday and Sunday races? Do we just count top 4? Top 10?

What is the metric to determine the success of F1? If we look at audience numbers, it failed more than a decade ago with constantly decreasing numbers...

[Just_a_fan]

Is there a metric we can use which will determine the success of this weekends sprint qualifying?

Number of changes for position through the race? Does first lap count in that? Is that a bit binary? So do you scale overtakes per lap or by race distance and compare to the Sunday race?

Is it as simple as whether there is a change in start order between the Saturday and Sunday races? Do we just count top 4? Top 10?

What is the metric to determine the success of F1? If we look at audience numbers, it failed more than a decade ago with constantly decreasing numbers...

How much of that is down to the old deals made by Bernie that locked various markets in to pay-to-view contracts with local broadcasters? F1 is too niche to make people pay to view it - not even all hardcore fans will pay to watch it. I've been watching F1 for 40 years and I won't pay Sky's fee. So I find it online in various places/formats and watch it there instead. So on the official figures I'm not watching it so the official figures are incorrect.