792 replies to this topic

[SophieB]

Max saying it how it is:

https://x.com/espnf1...jNzYI1wHgQ5OZzw

Good lad

It’s a good thing when the WDC uses his position to speak out for the greater good and against this total cowpat of an idea.

[Gravelngrass]

Problem with this sprint were the track, not the sprint.

Exactly, people are demonizing the sprints with the argument that "they let them know in advance what will happen in the race". Come on, as if we didn't know that after qualifying already and as if races were these epic motor racing events.

 

I think sprints have turned into scapegoats for everything that's going badly in F1 and, if anything, some sprints have been better than most races because they are finally allowed to push; the variables of different tyres and strategies are all but eliminated and we finally have a speed race from flag to finish, which is what F1 and auto racing in general should be. You miss the different strategies and unpredictability of races? That's been gone from F1 for a while now, with computer modeling establishing the optimized times of stops and mechanical failures and other unpredictables a rarity. Let's face it, if we want those factors back into F1, we have to get rid of software-controlled cars, telemetry and pit to car comms.

 

I personally believe that F1 should go back to being a race of speed, not conservation. How do we achieve that? There's a number of ways, including what I stated above, no-stop races (maybe shorter or better tyres), allow spare cars, no parc ferme rules, more leniency in parts available and changing parts, among many others, but, primarily, the gist of it being racing vs conservation. F1 should abandon the current paradigm it's on now, about road and environmental relevance (in racing, not everything else of course), become a show in an on itself and divorce itself definitely from some sort of relation to transportation. It should be a spectacle, like football, not a corporate-dependent activity. 

[ensign14]

I would suggest that's two Grands Prix in a row that have been turned into almost foregone conclusions because of the sprint race giving everyone a clue as to what would happen.  At Qatar everyone would have had to work out how the lunatic tyres were working during the race itself, rather than the sprint.  Similarly today the strategies would have been even more woowoo had the sprint not given clues.  In essence, the longer a race runs, the more likely the result is going to be predictable, and at two races where there might have been a new winner for the season, we get a repeat winner because of the extra 33% of race time.

[ensign14]

Because the track isn’t wide enough to start every car together.

No need to go further than that.

You do, because you have to say why line up in an order that reduces the prospect of racing.  After all fastest car is not usually on merit but on spend.  So why reward someone who has spent more than anyone else? 

[KWSN - DSM]

I would suggest that's two Grands Prix in a row that have been turned into almost foregone conclusions because of the sprint race giving everyone a clue as to what would happen.  At Qatar everyone would have had to work out how the lunatic tyres were working during the race itself, rather than the sprint.  Similarly today the strategies would have been even more woowoo had the sprint not given clues.  In essence, the longer a race runs, the more likely the result is going to be predictable, and at two races where there might have been a new winner for the season, we get a repeat winner because of the extra 33% of race time.

 

I think you are wrong in the race today being a foregone conclusion based on the Sprint yesterday - I think we had a surprisingly very good race today BECAUSE of the sprint yesterday giving some teams strategy presumptions, which did not work.

[ensign14]

It was in essence a bonus life for the fastest team to find a solution to something which had gone wrong.  And the result bears that out.  It's crazy.  And I still don't know who was saying in, say, 2010 "the one thing F1 needs is a sprint race before the Grand Prix".    The FIA.  ****ing.  Incompetent.  Arseholes.

[KWSN - DSM]

It was in essence a bonus life for the fastest team to find a solution to something which had gone wrong.  And the result bears that out.  It's crazy.  And I still don't know who was saying in, say, 2010 "the one thing F1 needs is a sprint race before the Grand Prix".    The FIA.  ****ing.  Incompetent.  Arseholes.

 

So you are in the do not like the Sprint format camp?

Edited by KWSN - DSM, 22 October 2023 - 23:36.

[Dolph]

Can we please have one thread titled "I hate sprint races".

You lot contribute nothing to the discussion byvall the time complaining how you hate it.

[JvsKVB77]

Making the sprint race reverse grid would make it MILES better. But alas, F1….

Reverse grid never make racing better. Only tight level of the teams can.

Edited by JvsKVB77, 23 October 2023 - 11:59.

[Skelly1927]

https://www.autospor...evamp/10537004/

Sprint Races were about softening the audience to more radical ideas later on, and looks like the fears were correct. These 'informal' discussions were always the end goal.

Be interesting if the resistance can hold, I doubt it can. The media circus, I guess starting to feel the heat with CTR, wouldn't mind something to spice the show up hence will throw their weight behind these awful ideas.
 

[Goron3]

The suggestion in that article of making the Sprint its own championship would make an awful lot of sense, because then they actually go be more radical.

 

The issue they've got is that the last two votes they did for reverse grids, the teams didn't vote unanimously. I believe that for 2024 changes, only a majority of votes in favour is needed, but I can't find confirmation of that.

[Risil]

Thread + poll: https://forums.autos...rate-and-slate/

[Skelly1927]

A separate Sprint Championship is one of the worst ideas - The Grand Cheapening.


I kind of want this stuff to happen so I can be released from the prison of being interested in F1. There's some semblance of self-respect one can maintain, but these ideas would just push it into the realms of embarrassment, and there is the ramp-off for anyone looking to free up their weekends.

[Anja]

A separate Sprint Championship is one of the worst ideas - The Grand Cheapening.


I kind of want this stuff to happen so I can be released from the prison of being interested in F1. There's some semblance of self-respect one can maintain, but these ideas would just push it into the realms of embarrassment, and there is the ramp-off for anyone looking to free up their weekends.

 

That can of worms has already been opened and it seems like there's no going back. Might as well make the most of sprints and make them interesting. And for that they need to stand alone as their own unique thing rather than just more of the same. 

[Skelly1927]

That can of worms has already been opened and it seems like there's no going back. Might as well make the most of sprints and make them interesting. And for that they need to stand alone as their own unique thing rather than just more of the same. 

If any of these changes come in I am gone anyway. I've cancelled subscription with NowTV partially because of Sprints... I am but one insignificant person I know, but to involve myself in F1 fandom with any of these ideas... it'd be an embarrassment. yuck

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 08:47.

[Anja]

Go ahead then. For me the sprints are more cheapening right now, since they're connected to the main championship. If they're a separate thing you can just skip them worry free and not care at all - with the World Championship intact to enjoy. 

[Rediscoveryx]

I just don’t get why they are so eager for the sprints?

If anything; I think adding an endurance element would be much more fascinating - but then again, I’m not from the Tik Tok-generation.

[Skelly1927]

I just don’t get why they are so eager for the sprints?

If anything; I think adding an endurance element would be much more fascinating - but then again, I’m not from the Tik Tok-generation.

It's just about getting more engagement throughout the weekend. It means tracks can charge more for tickets, and that means Liberty can charge more for hosting fees. Same with TV as well. 

COTA was a wake up call because it appears The Sprint didn't improve tickets for Saturday, but that's partially because novelty has gone. Instead of falling back on Tradition, Liberty will push for more novelty. It's a toxic loop you can get into Introduce cheap novelty idea, views go up... people soon get bored so you need a new novel idea.

Once you break Tradition and fail to understand the long-term stability and value that provides you open a Pandora's Box. Look at the nightmare football has got into with just VAR. It has killed the flow of the game. You have to be real careful with these kind of things. 

trust me, changes for Sunday and everything else will be discussed. This is just the start.

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 09:06.

[KWSN - DSM]

The no tickets at COTA is being played as a problem - During coverage Sunday they said they had 467K spectators over the weekend, hard to sell a lot more tickets than selling out, which they must have been close to.

[Skelly1927]

The no tickets at COTA is being played as a problem - During coverage Sunday they said they had 467K spectators over the weekend, hard to sell a lot more tickets than selling out, which they must have been close to.

they didn't have 467k spectators. That's a cumulative total of tickets sold. Also, the organisers know who bought those tickets and would know the secondary market situation. They can assess demand from there. If bulk buyers lost money... then something has gone wrong. The organiser will know they will have to drop prices next year.

Never take figures from F1 has meaning much on their own.

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 09:24.

[ernestomodena]

It's just about getting more engagement throughout the weekend. It means tracks can charge more for tickets, and that means Liberty can charge more for hosting fees. Same with TV as well. 

COTA was a wake up call because it appears The Sprint didn't improve tickets for Saturday, but that's partially because novelty has gone. Instead of falling back on Tradition, Liberty will push for more novelty. It's a toxic loop you can get into Introduce cheap novelty idea, views go up... people soon get bored so you need a new novel idea.

This is the reason. But with 22 races and sprint races there are just to much races. I love F1 but even I am skipping the saterday on Sprint weekends I am just looking it before the main race on sunday.

Sprints worked because of the starting grid impact. Now it's just a stand alone day you can skip and that's what is showing in COTA.

So if were speaking about absolute redicalous ideas I alway's want to see a race where you have to overtake. So i propose the super sprint day with reverse grids based on the championship. After 5 laps the last driver has to retire afther that every 2 or 3 laps a further cars retire until you have 8 drivers left for the last 10 min. No points are rewarded but a increase in the cost cap.

[SenorSjon]

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff felt going down the reverse grid route was not right for F1, which had long been known for its purity of competition.

 

"I'm conservative in racing," he said when asked by Motorsport.com for his views on the matter.

 

"I'd rather have no sprint races than if you start to meddle. Even more with reverse grid races, we are going towards junior formulae where sport follows entertainment, while entertainment should follow sport.

 

"Creating artificial gaming around the sprint race on a Saturday is not the way that I would favour personally. But that's my opinion. All teams, together with Stefano [Domenicali, F1 CEO], we just need to think about what is best."

[ensign14]

It's just about getting more engagement throughout the weekend. It means tracks can charge more for tickets, and that means Liberty can charge more for hosting fees. Same with TV as well. 

 

And it's totally the wrong way to get more engagement.  Liberty needs to introduce new stars.  If they insist on a sprint race, make the teams all take a third car and give them to people who have never had an F1 race before.  Better for a more relevant support formula to get a bit of the attention. 

[Skelly1927]

And it's totally the wrong way to get more engagement.  Liberty needs to introduce new stars.  If they insist on a sprint race, make the teams all take a third car and give them to people who have never had an F1 race before.  Better for a more relevant support formula to get a bit of the attention. 

Stars aren't introduced, they arrive.

 

[ensign14]

Stars aren't introduced, they arrive.

There is that, but sometimes (e.g. Mansell) there is a slow burn, and, right now, how many casuals know or care about who Zhou or Tsunoda or Sargeant are?  If they're trailled with prominent support appearances then people get interested in their personas and follow them into F1. 

[Goron3]

I just don’t get why they are so eager for the sprints?

If anything; I think adding an endurance element would be much more fascinating - but then again, I’m not from the Tik Tok-generation.

By having more engagement throughout the whole weekend, they can charge an increased race fee to the circuit. So FOM make more money, and the teams like it because the viewing figures are much higher.

[KWSN - DSM]

they didn't have 467k spectators. That's a cumulative total of tickets sold. Also, the organisers know who bought those tickets and would know the secondary market situation. They can assess demand from there. If bulk buyers lost money... then something has gone wrong. The organiser will know they will have to drop prices next year.

Never take figures from F1 has meaning much on their own.

 

That I agree with.

 

I understand the 467K is accumulated over the weekend, making some counted 3 times - Does not change fact this by my failing memory is the highest number at any Grand Prix in 2023 - I attended Spa this year, they claimed somewhere between 300 and 330K - COTA managing an average of 40K more per day - Not a solid argument for blaming Sprint for any perceived ticket selling issues.

[Skelly1927]

There is that, but sometimes (e.g. Mansell) there is a slow burn, and, right now, how many casuals know or care about who Zhou or Tsunoda or Sargeant are?  If they're trailled with prominent support appearances then people get interested in their personas and follow them into F1. 

Forcing teams to run reserve drivers is lame. Only solution is more open competition and less pathetic entry restrictions that F1 has now adopted. Super Licence is terrible as well as its made F1 more expensive to get to and filtered out a tron of talent.

but this idea about forcing teams to run drivers they don't actually want to is lame and weak sauce.

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 09:56.

[Skelly1927]

That I agree with.

 

I understand the 467K is accumulated over the weekend, making some counted 3 times - Does not change fact this by my failing memory is the highest number at any Grand Prix in 2023 - I attended Spa this year, they claimed somewhere between 300 and 330K - COTA managing an average of 40K more per day - Not a solid argument for blaming Sprint for any perceived ticket selling issues.

again, this is a number. We don't know the full data. If someone bought bulk and paid a premium, then the secondary market's demand is smaller than anticipated you can say you sold x amount of ticket as an organiser but that number alone doesn't demonstrate a falling demand which is measured in price. Factor in secondary market price and the conclusions about success can change quickly, especially if these prices dictate future prices. COTA have all the information, we don't. If the organiser is saying out loud demand hasn't changed, then we can assume he's seeing something we aren't allowed to.

Price is reflective of actual demand.  So the numbers published without context are almost meaningless. 
 

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 10:01.

[PayasYouRace]

Forcing teams to run reserve drivers is lame. Only solution is more open competition and less pathetic entry restrictions that F1 has now adopted. Super Licence is terrible as well as its made F1 more expensive to get to and filtered out a tron of talent.

but this idea about forcing teams to run drivers they don't actually want to is lame and weak sauce.

The super licence filters out the lack of talent who would get a seat purely with someone else’s money. Now it means every driver, even the pay drivers, I’ve talent.

[Skelly1927]

The super licence filters out the lack of talent who would get a seat purely with someone else’s money. Now it means every driver, even the pay drivers, I’ve talent.

Speak to drivers. The prospect of having to invest millions into single-seaters has put a lot of people off. The investment burden is far too high now. SL has always been about making drivers spend more money in cars for longer. Max skipping GP3 and GP2 and saving MILLIONS in the process, didn't go down well.

You now require HUGE sums of money to ensure Super Licence points. I think motorsport fans need a bit of a reality check on how motorsport actually works.

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 10:06.

[PayasYouRace]

Speak to drivers. The prospect of having to invest millions into single-seaters has put a lot of people off. The investment burden is far too high now. SL has always been about making drivers spend more money in cars for longer. Max skipping GP3 and GP2 and saving MILLIONS in the process, didn't go down well.

You now require HUGE sums of money to ensure Super Licence points. I think motorsport fans need a bit of a reality check on how motorsport actually works.

They’ve always needed that money to reach F1. The super licence just ensures they have F1 level skills.

[Skelly1927]

They’ve always needed that money to reach F1. The super licence just ensures they have F1 level skills.

No it doesn't. The general elevation of driving standards has meant there's no one in F1 who truly shouldn't be there. Has nothing to do with SL and more to do with everything getting better and the fact drivers start at around 5 nowadays.

The SL has done nothing but ensure a small number of F3 and F2 teams are able to charge way above true market rates for the product they offer. The SL aren't a measurement of fact about a driver's talent.

Schumaacher would never had a SL in 1991, thus wouldn't have made his debut in the fashion he did. Max Verstappen, case in point. Kimi too.

I think people really are drunk on the F1 Koolaid. 

[Sterzo]

Speak to drivers. The prospect of having to invest millions into single-seaters has put a lot of people off. The investment burden is far too high now. SL has always been about making drivers spend more money in cars for longer. Max skipping GP3 and GP2 and saving MILLIONS in the process, didn't go down well.

You now require HUGE sums of money to ensure Super Licence points. I think motorsport fans need a bit of a reality check on how motorsport actually works.

Super Licence has never been about making drivers spend more money. That's complete fiction. It's about protecting F1 from drivers with wealth but no talent.
 

[Skelly1927]

Super Licence has never been about making drivers spend more money. That's complete fiction. It's about protecting F1 from drivers with wealth but no talent.
 

if it isn't about money, then why is it now not possible for a driver to spend around $250-500,000 in cars before getting a chance in F1. Now they have to invest $2-5,000,000

Nothing to do with money?           

(this view is shared by drivers)

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 10:29.

[PayasYouRace]

Schumaacher would never had a SL in 1991, thus wouldn't have made his debut in the fashion he did. Max Verstappen, case in point. Kimi too.

Actually on current rules Schumacher would have qualified easily by 1991. 3rd in F3 in 1989 gives 20 points, 1st in F3 in 1990 gives 30 points. So he’s got 50 and that covers the requirement of completing at least 80% of two seasons of a suitable single seater formula. Add another 12 for coming 5th in the World Sportscar Championship and he’s a shoe in (no pun intended). That’s 62 points in two years when 40 is required.

Kimi and Max were both argued to have been allowed to start with too little experience. Both would have undoubtedly made it to F1 sooner or later.

Other than that, they’re the exceptional cases, and worth keeping out the tuggers who never deserved to sit in an F1 car. And Schumacher shows that the bar for a talented driver isn’t that high at all. Talents aren’t being kept out because they need two good seasons experience in single seaters.

[Risil]

Super Licence has never been about making drivers spend more money. That's complete fiction. It's about protecting F1 from drivers with wealth but no talent.

 

Aren't you both right? The goal was to prevent drivers without the talent buying their way onto the grid, and since an objective measure of talent available is unavailable, they go with results outside of F1 as a proxy. In practice, this means if a driver has money and wants to access F1, they need to buy their way into the top F3 and F2 teams first (and then perform). This may not have been unwelcome to F2 and F3 team owners.

 

The superlicence system breaks down because it has to be comprehensive (i.e. to avoid mandatory F2 experience, it has to assign points for every championship in the world). But since there's no objective way of weighing up talent required to succeed in various series outside F1, it gets arbitrary and illogical quite quickly. A similar thing happened when the FIA/ACO tried to rank all drivers as Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze to help balance its pro/am sportscar categories.

 

Not sure what all this has to do with sprint races though.

[Skelly1927]

Talents aren’t being kept out because they need two good seasons experience in single seaters.

They absolutely are. You just don't see them. You don't see the drivers who now can't realistically get a chance because the cost burden is too high. So yo think think there isn't a problem because I assume you don't frequent racing paddocks and speak to drivers. There are drivers who've absolutely smashed some of modern F1's future favorites in karts, but simply can not attract the required investment because SL puts the cost burden so high that no one will risk it now.  It's always been like this to some degree, but now worse than ever.

Also, the Max and Kimi would have made it to F1. The only difference between a few teams would've pocketed an extra few million for nothing. Again.... it's about £$£$£$£

It is, and SL has always been about money. It's created a much 'tighter' ladder at the expense of affordability. F1 hated drivers skipping their 'ladder classes'.

I can edit my comment on Schumacher as you make a fair point, but he may not have been able to access F3 at his budget if competing in awarded SL points. It inflates the costs. This is without doubt.
 

Edited by Skelly1927, 24 October 2023 - 11:30.

[KWSN - DSM]

again, this is a number. We don't know the full data. If someone bought bulk and paid a premium, then the secondary market's demand is smaller than anticipated you can say you sold x amount of ticket as an organiser but that number alone doesn't demonstrate a falling demand which is measured in price. Factor in secondary market price and the conclusions about success can change quickly, especially if these prices dictate future prices. COTA have all the information, we don't. If the organiser is saying out loud demand hasn't changed, then we can assume he's seeing something we aren't allowed to.

Price is reflective of actual demand.  So the numbers published without context are almost meaningless. 
 

 

And again - This is the highest number at any race this season, all counted by same parameters and algorithms - There is nothing they can take from these numbers with The Sprint race having causality for anything spectator wise.

[KWSN - DSM]

No it doesn't. The general elevation of driving standards has meant there's no one in F1 who truly shouldn't be there. Has nothing to do with SL and more to do with everything getting better and the fact drivers start at around 5 nowadays.

The SL has done nothing but ensure a small number of F3 and F2 teams are able to charge way above true market rates for the product they offer. The SL aren't a measurement of fact about a driver's talent.

Schumaacher would never had a SL in 1991, thus wouldn't have made his debut in the fashion he did. Max Verstappen, case in point. Kimi too.

I think people really are drunk on the F1 Koolaid. 

 

Utter and complete nonsense - A F3 and F2 Champion would always be a clear candidate for F1.

[KWSN - DSM]

if it isn't about money, then why is it now not possible for a driver to spend around $250-500,000 in cars before getting a chance in F1. Now they have to invest $2-5,000,000

Nothing to do with money?           

(this view is shared by drivers)

 

$500K in 1990 is $1.2 million today - If you take a look you will not a lot of products in the Supermarket aisles have increased 50% as well, for formula cars a huge part would be the difference in technology's then and now - In 1990 you could almost build a F3 car yourself, that is impossible today.

[KWSN - DSM]

We now return to the Regular scheduled programming.

[Sterzo]

if it isn't about money, then why is it now not possible for a driver to spend around $250-500,000 in cars before getting a chance in F1. Now they have to invest $2-5,000,000

Nothing to do with money?           

(this view is shared by drivers)

You are confusing two different things. You said the FIA introduced super licences because they wanted to make drivers spend more money. Utter rubbish.

 

You also say the junior series are too expensive. Agreed. But that is a separate issue.