UNDER THE HOOD
Pat Symonds on format changes for F1
One of the most emotive topics of this unusual season has been the debate surrounding the introduction of sprint races. It is not a new topic, and in fact F1 commissioned research among fans in 2018 to solicit views on the subject.
The top-level aim of such a proposal is to deepen engagement with existing fans while enticing new fans into Formula 1. The idea of a sprint race, with a grid where the cars line up in an order where the fastest is not necessarily at the front, is to generate an exciting spectacle in itself while also increasing unpredictability for the main event on Sunday.
In doing this caution needs to be exercised because all sport should maintain meritocracy in deciding its victors, and it is even more important that the integrity of the competition is never compromised. That said, there are many examples where sports exist in an open knowledge of bias away from reward of excellence. Your golf handicap when playing your friends is one example. Horse racing is also a handicap event, where each horse is given weight, according to its ability, in an attempt to ensure each competitor has an equal chance of winning.
The research done in 2018 revealed some interesting facts. Fans were generally in favour of sprint races and this support was relatively similar between avid fans and those who were not quite so engaged. There was also a reasonably even split between those who thought it should form part of the qualifying procedure, those who thought it should have a subset of the points system to count towards a single world championship, and those who felt there should be a stand-alone sprint championship in addition to the familiar world championship. Bearing in mind that initially the awarding of a point for fastest lap got a lukewarm reception at best, but once introduced became rather popular with fans and competitors alike, the support for a sprint race is encouraging.
One may ask why we need a sprint race at all. Is not the grand prix and qualifying format exciting enough already? And if we introduce new formats will they not detract from the main event? These are very valid questions and I have long argued, when new qualifying procedures are discussed, that we must not spoil the main event for the sake of the ‘side-show’.
But a sprint race is not a side-show. It is an event in itself, and other sports, such as cricket, rugby and others, have shown shortform sports can happily co-exist alongside their thoroughbred ancestors. T20 cricket, for example, has led to a $2.55bn increase in revenue for the Indian Premier League with no detraction from other series.
A number of different formats have been proposed. A first suggestion was that the sprint race starting positions should be in reversed world championship order, and finishing positions of the sprint race should then determine starting positions for the main race. This had approval from the majority of teams if not, initially, from all drivers. The format has been debated at length since and has developed toward having a regular qualifying session on Friday with the order from this determining the grid for Sunday and then a separate sprint race, for a reduced number of world championship points, held on Saturday.
The starting positions for the sprint race could encompass some form of reversed grid, as is seen in F2 where the top eight cars start in reversed order with the others forming up behind them in the order in which they finished the feature race.
The sprint race would probably be around a third of the length of a grand prix but points awarded need not be reduced by a similar amount – maybe 50% points would be the correct amount.
Whatever final format may be determined, there are certainly advantages in looking at a new format. Currently, although cars run on Friday and promoters gain valuable and necessary income from this, the television audience is miniscule
compared to Saturday and Sunday. The running on Friday, however, does add to the predictability of the Sunday race as teams hone their already near perfect set-ups for the conditions. This only detracts from the spectacle of the race by reducing jeopardy. In spite of the cars running for three hours on Friday, the lack of true competition means only specialist press cover the results. A new format could gain additional coverage on Friday evening and further encourage viewers to engage through the weekend.
There are risks involved. While the total mileage covered by the cars over the weekend should be similar, there is a greater risk of cars being damaged by incidents in a sprint race than there is in a practice session. However, the direct and indirect benefits to the teams should offset any possible increase in costs. There is also a perception that a sprint race would reduce the significance of the main event, but experience from other sports suggests this would not be the case. In fact, the additional points available for the main race will always elevate it to the premier position.
Of course, there are circuits, Monaco probably being the prime example, where any form of grid reversal will not produce a result based on a driver’s or team’s competitiveness and will merely highlight the frustration of the difficulty of overtaking. Equally, there are plenty of other circuits where the format could work well.
There is no suggestion this format should be adopted everywhere. Part of the interest will arise from the fact it will not be universal.
Every sport needs to adapt to survive. A modern audience may require different stimuli to the audience of yesterday. Next season, the last using the current iteration of car, would be an ideal opportunity to trial a new format at three or four venues. The forced adoption of different tracks this year has refreshed F1. Why not try similar with an altered format?
A NEW FORMAT COULD GAIN ADDITIONAL COVERAGE ON FRIDAY EVENING AND FURTHER ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TO ENGAGE THROUGH THE WEEKEND