How to decide success of sprint qualifying?

[KeiKo403]

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.

But what if drivers are hit by random events in an actual race or normal qualifying that adversely affects their outcome?

• Russell's opportunity for a maiden win at Shakir last year - I have no words (other than those ones)

• Kimi hitting Vettel on the last lap in Austria? - Meh but it's an example, man. Things happen

• Hamilton's issues in China & Brazil 2007? - Cost Championship

• Hamilton's issues in Malaysia 2016? - Cost Championship

I don't see anything wrong with a bit of uncertainty in Sport. It's not being artificially created as it's just a consequence of increased running in a meaningful F1 session. Unlike tyres designed to degrade, that was artificial. DRS, also artificial. Some would even call them necessary evils.

I'm glad to see an increase (in time) in real on-track action at the cost of a practice session. Something where rain on any of the 3 days could lead to a better final session of the weekend.

Maybe we can't judge sprint races based on the 1st attempt either. First race in Baku was awful, other have been much more exciting by comparison.

[jjn9128]

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...

But revenue was going up, until Covid... So are pure numbers a reliable metric to success?

[El Scorchio]

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...

But revenue was going up, until Covid... So are pure numbers a reliable metric to success?

We need to know what FOM thinks about that. Ostensibly revenue going up is a good thing, but if your reach is going down at the same time (i.e. people are paying more and more but there's less and less of them) then that's unsustainable.
I expect that increasing their reach is the most important thing for them as growing the audience (particularly with younger people) is crucial so the sport doesn't die. So it makes huge sense to invest in things like Drive to Survive, and all this improved online/social media stuff, esports. The catch being that young people don't really have the means to fork out the large sums to attend races or watch on pay television/by other means. I strongly suspect FOM will have to go to a more 'sell it cheaper to far more people' type of model. But I don't see how the sprint racing helps with any of this sort of thing- it's still behind the paywall after all. All I see it doing is increasing ticketing revenues where they are trying it.

Anyway, I can see myself veering well off topic here so I'll stop

[Big Tea]

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...

But revenue was going up, until Covid... So are pure numbers a reliable metric to success?

We need to know what FOM thinks about that. Ostensibly revenue going up is a good thing, but if your reach is going down at the same time (i.e. people are paying more and more but there's less and less of them) then that's unsustainable.
I expect that increasing their reach is the most important thing for them as growing the audience (particularly with younger people) is crucial so the sport doesn't die. So it makes huge sense to invest in things like Drive to Survive, and all this improved online/social media stuff, esports. The catch being that young people don't really have the means to fork out the large sums to attend races or watch on pay television/by other means. I strongly suspect FOM will have to go to a more 'sell it cheaper to far more people' type of model. But I don't see how the sprint racing helps with any of this sort of thing- it's still behind the paywall after all. All I see it doing is increasing ticketing revenues where they are trying it.

Anyway, I can see myself veering well off topic here so I'll stop

This is a very relevant point. We were avid GP attenders until a few years back when the cost of a week inclusive somewhere that did not have the hassle of getting into and out of the circuit took over (probably partly age related). I wonder how long or how high the cost until too many others feel the same.

[NL_Fer]

To be a bit positive: The teams can find some setup advantages between the friday Q and Saturday sprintrace. Also, which tyres will they run for the sprintrace? Could be interesting if they decide to battle between medium and hard tyres on low fuel.

[El Scorchio]

To be a bit positive: The teams can find some setup advantages between the friday Q and Saturday sprintrace. Also, which tyres will they run for the sprintrace? Could be interesting if they decide to battle between medium and hard tyres on low fuel.

I would quite like it if they had to carry over for the Sunday race the set of tyres they finish Saturday on. That leads to (potentially) a lot more strategy options split over the two days- softer tyres on Saturday to gain places but potentially an extra stop on Sunday or vice versa if you opt for harder ones. Maybe you can decide whether to fuel for both Saturday AND Sunday at the same time or individually, so if you do both, you have a disadvantage on pace on Saturday but if you run low fuel you have a time/grid penalty for however much you have to top up for Sunday. However, it seems like overcomplicating things a little for a casual follower, and I'm sure with all things, the teams would quickly converge on an optimal strategy and end up running the same thing, rendering it all pointless.

[GOAT]

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

You could ‘hook up’ a wide variety of fans and measure the amount of dopamine that is being released during the race?

[Jordaann10]

I think the major challenge which may shake up the grid is the one 60 minute practice before straight into qualifying. A lot of times we see certain teams quick out the box on a Friday which could shake up the sprint race starting order and therefore the race.

[Just_a_fan]

I think success will be judged by how many Yanks tune in and make "OMG!" comments on Twitgram.

The whole thing feels USA to me.

(With apologies to our resident real F1 fans from the USA.)

[jjn9128]

I think success will be judged by how many Yanks tune in and make "OMG!" comments on Twitgram.

The whole thing feels USA to me.

(With apologies to our resident real F1 fans from the USA.)

Pitstop cheerleaders anyone?

[theblackangus]

To be a bit positive: The teams can find some setup advantages between the friday Q and Saturday sprintrace. Also, which tyres will they run for the sprintrace? Could be interesting if they decide to battle between medium and hard tyres on low fuel.

I would quite like it if they had to carry over for the Sunday race the set of tyres they finish Saturday on. That leads to (potentially) a lot more strategy options split over the two days- softer tyres on Saturday to gain places but potentially an extra stop on Sunday or vice versa if you opt for harder ones. Maybe you can decide whether to fuel for both Saturday AND Sunday at the same time or individually, so if you do both, you have a disadvantage on pace on Saturday but if you run low fuel you have a time/grid penalty for however much you have to top up for Sunday. However, it seems like overcomplicating things a little for a casual follower, and I'm sure with all things, the teams would quickly converge on an optimal strategy and end up running the same thing, rendering it all pointless.

I wonder how this would play out... it would indeed be interesting.

[notsofast]

Will the teams be able to run an old engine in FP1 like they usually do? Will they have enough time to swap out an old engine with a new one before Q1?

[JordanMugen]

I expect that increasing their reach is the most important thing for them as growing the audience (particularly with younger people) is crucial so the sport doesn't die.

Wouldn't racing in India be key to this?

So why isn't the Indian Grand Prix still on the calendar (even with no hosting fee paid), as well as adding multiple Grands Prix in China?

The whole thing feels USA to me.

(With apologies to our resident real F1 fans from the USA.)

Now, now, NASCAR is a quality racing series. Perhaps Stage Racing, Chase for the Cup and Dirt Track racing are all welcome innovations in Formula One?

Or why not a Formula One race on snow, for some Scandinavian flair?


Of course proper Pirelli studded tyres should be used, instead of silly chains.

[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...

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.

Same here, but didn´t pretend to start a debate about that, just pointing that trying to determine success is pointless. Any outcome will end up with same result, a failure for some and a success for some others. Success is too subjective, can´t be measured except if it´s a complete success, or a complete failure

[ispano6]

Will the teams be able to run an old engine in FP1 like they usually do? Will they have enough time to swap out an old engine with a new one before Q1?

According to Motohashi from Alphta Tauri Honda, yes, they can run an old engine in FP1, but they most likely won't have enough time to change it for the sprint qualifying session. If the old one is used on Friday for both sessions can a new engine be fitted for FP2 and the sprint race? That isn't clear. So basically he has said that it would likely need to be 1 PU used for the entire weekend.

“Technically it is allowed to use a different PU in FP1 and FP2 to the qualifying, sprint and grand prix. But this means we will need to switch PU after FP1 or FP2 which is going to be quite tough considering the time limitations.

https://honda.racing/f1/post/silverstone-sprint-setup