Saturday sprint races

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by coppice

Oh , it will get the casual viewers tempted not to click their remote controls as their ant like attention span wanes. In the grown up enthusiast world where most of us live , we will have to tolerate another daft gimmick to court a fickle audience . So our sport will dumb itself down - yet again- to compete with such cultural gems as Strictly Come Dancing and Bargain Hunt .

I don't know if this is sarcastic or not, but if it is not, I actually agree with you, and I wrote a very long comment about it on racefans.net. It seems unfair to me that the casual fans' opinions have to be regarded more highly than the real fans, for financial reasons, because the real fans will watch F1 whatever happens, but the casual fans will only watch it if it suits their needs. In my opinion, F1 should be kept pure and simple, and casual fans who don't like it should watch different series, like the BTCC for example, which is full of gimmicks, but always has very exciting racing. Unfortunately, this can never be the case, because F1 needs the casual fans for extra income.

[chillibowl]

Deleted...my post was too argumentative. Sorry.

[S griffin]

I just wish F1 would focus more on the things that need fixing, like how to make cars be able to race much closer and overtake without an aid like DRS to help them. And making races easier to follow too

[coppice]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I don't know if this is sarcastic or not, but if it is not, I actually agree with you, and I wrote a very long comment about it on racefans.net. It seems unfair to me that the casual fans' opinions have to be regarded more highly than the real fans, for financial reasons, because the real fans will watch F1 whatever happens, but the casual fans will only watch it if it suits their needs. In my opinion, F1 should be kept pure and simple, and casual fans who don't like it should watch different series, like the BTCC for example, which is full of gimmicks, but always has very exciting racing. Unfortunately, this can never be the case, because F1 needs the casual fans for extra income.

I am no stranger to sarcasm , true , but I meant what I said . I don't even term myself as a 'fan' ,as that sometimes connotes uncritical adulation. I'm just an enthusiast of nearly all types of motorsport , and have been since the late Sixties.

I feel the cracks started to form when a breathless TV fan base was created which thought motorsport and Formula One were one and the same , instead of the latter being the pinnacle of the former .

[bathurst77]

I dont think what if they crash on saturday is a valid argument.
They crash in practice and quali now and rebuild overnight.
Yes a sprint race means more likely to crash, but isnt that part of the "team" aspect. The overnight rebuild to make the grid.. even if it is row 10

And maybe a sat arvo dash and bash might attract new eyeballs that get hooked on the sport, and so new sponsors. There are a lot of household names that dont appear or only appear 2ndary on cars. Coke, Pepsi, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon/Bezos empire, Musk empire. Facebook. BP, the list is long. New eyeballs might attract them in

I originally voted no, but now have changed my mind.. as long as its only a handful of races to mix things up a little.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Because F1 is just pure, simple Grand Prix racing, and should not be messed around with. Those other series you mentioned are maybe more about entertainment, but F1 should be pure motor racing.

it has been messed around with every time a new regulation is written banning something or a new radical idea is used and allowed to grow. The biggest thing that has messed up F1 was the invention of wings, they should have banned them when the first one was put on a car. A pure F1 is no active aero and rely on mechanical grip but that ship departed years ago.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by Casper

The biggest thing that has messed up F1 was the invention of wings, they should have banned them when the first one was put on a car. A pure F1 is no active aero and rely on mechanical grip but that ship departed years ago.

jeebus, casper... going a bit hardline purist
maybe they should go back to fred flinstone feet?

but its never been a "pure" sport. Its always been modified and played with, unless you want formula libre/can am "run what you brung" no more than x by y in size and must e wheel driven by "an engine". bring back 6 wheel ground effect fan cars with 10 litre supercharged v16s made out of super light weight unobtanium and driven by a robot
actually.... i would watch that... equip them with saws and spikes and hammers etc

[chavez]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Because F1 is just pure, simple Grand Prix racing, and should not be messed around with. Those other series you mentioned are maybe more about entertainment, but F1 should be pure motor racing.

I agree.

When they banned drivers jumping into their team mates car it was nearly the last straw for me.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

jeebus, casper... going a bit hardline purist
maybe they should go back to fred flinstone feet?

No, just a tongue in cheek response to the quoted post, to think what F1 is now can be termed pure is a bit fanciful to say the least. The link below is pure racing, downhill and no motor except gravity and the only thing that makes you go faster is skill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NC6inLFsWY

[coppice]

Originally Posted by chavez

I agree.

When they banned drivers jumping into their team mates car it was nearly the last straw for me.

I reckon we ought to re- introduce the riding mechanic , and thus dispense with the incar radio nonsense .

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chavez

When they banned drivers jumping into their team mates car it was nearly the last straw for me.

Originally Posted by coppice

I reckon we ought to re- introduce the riding mechanic , and thus dispense with the incar radio nonsense .

I think that we also need external gear shifts, so that we can really see what the drivers are doing.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Casper

No, just a tongue in cheek response to the quoted post, to think what F1 is now can be termed pure is a bit fanciful to say the least. The link below is pure racing, downhill and no motor except gravity and the only thing that makes you go faster is skill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NC6inLFsWY

Can’t be interesting it doesn’t have a V12.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Can’t be interesting it doesn’t have a V12.

V12's are so meh! Mercury have just introduced a new V12 outboard.

[S griffin]

I don't think we'll see V12s back. Shame really, seems like we will get V8s at best, but never mind

[Casper]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I don't think we'll see V12s back. Shame really, seems like we will get V8s at best, but never mind

I'll give you one thing, at least you are an optimist or is it the stuff you are smoking?

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Saturday sprint races are being put forward as though current races are a drawn out slog. Whereas in actual fact they're effectively 3 sprint races strung together.

The sprint races will be more of a MB demonstration than what the GP are!

[Born Racer]

I don't have an issue with sprint races in theory, but I'm struggling to understand why they're being put forward. I haven't seen any reference to a reason, certainly nothing related to dissatisfaction with the normal qualifying format.

As we have jested in this thread, everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes a pure Formula 1. In principle, sprint races could work as a way to sort out starting places for the big race (it's better than random drawing of lots - remember that?) and provide racing entertainment (entertainment seems to be a goal that has been mentioned - the so-called show).

However, questions will be asked if people end up preferring sprints to Grands Prix. Maybe good questions, though, e.g. do we need less fuel conservation, do we need more pit stops or no pit stops but more durable tyres, or not more durable tyres, but a free choice of compounds. Oh, how this discussion got me going in circles.

Still haven't voted.

[chillibowl]

starting to get some more details about 'sprint qualifying'.

mainly the name for it, will be held at Silverstone, Monza, and Interlagos with a normal quali session on friday to determine the sprint starting grid (so its seems more like an addition rather than a subtraction of on track activities), potential points for the top 3, and i read some changes to DRS by extending the activation distance to 2s.

tires, engines, parc ferme rules still to be decided upon.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Apparently teams are divided over the extra cost of sprint races.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/c...-plan/5769401/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Apparently teams are divided over the extra cost of sprint races.


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/c...-plan/5769401/

Its a valid concern. I tend to think they can't have it both ways (fixed budget and flexibility of the "ask" to the teams). Trying to define a tight box around spending means teams ideally will need significant predictability as to what is expected of them. So on the fly adjustment (such as experimenting with things such as sprint races) makes it hard if you have previously budgeted toward classic event structure.

I think it could be worked out, but they need to be sensitive to the cap constraints. Plus... they are just starting this era of budget caps. Now is the worst possible time to toy with things (from a budget impact perspective). Ideally, we would have a few years of experience with budget caps before we try to experiment with tweaks to event schedule (and knock-on effect to the per event budget needs)

Richard

[S griffin]

I guess they should have maybe bought it up earlier. The problem is budget caps aren’t easy to implement, I just hope the right solution is agreed. Especially given how tough things are atm

The main problem for me is that costs have got too high and more should have been done sooner, especially given the lack of new teams in recent seasons and only having 10 teams on the grid.

Certainly I think the talk of sprint races have distracted people from the bigger issues in F1 that need sorting

[chillibowl]

feels like the headline makes it sound worse?

from the article it looks like FOM is already willing to offer extra money to defer the costs (as the article states almost like an insurance pay out). the issue seems to be how much and how to prevent teams from using the extra money to pay for other work/development (so part of the normal process of maintaining and regulating a budget cap).

basically its just working out a formula if this idea proves successful in drawing in more viewers and becomes a permanent addition to the weekend format.

surprisingly, im surprised engine/PU usage and parc ferme rules isnt the bigger issue here.

[S griffin]

I think it’s a fair article. It’s right that FOM are sorting out the extra costs. After all sprint races are a big unknown and it won’t help keep costs down. There will be some logistical issues to sort out too. I just wish F1 would sort out the rules to make it exciting on a Sunday first

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think it’s a fair article. It’s right that FOM are sorting out the extra costs. After all sprint races are a big unknown and it won’t help keep costs down. There will be some logistical issues to sort out too. I just wish F1 would sort out the rules to make it exciting on a Sunday first

Teams will already be in situ, so why would there be any logistical issues to sort out?

[S griffin]

It’s just there might be some extra workload for the mechanics, but maybe I am being a bit cynical