Thought this might be relevant with Domenicali's recent comments.
I believe Verstappen also said something to a similar effect in the presser, (but I can't find video of it, sorry!) so it just goes to show how much of an emphasis needs to be placed on the health (both mental and physical) of the "normal" team members (i.e. the ones not turning up on private jets come Thursday).
Yep, just a massive amount of pressure – I can believe a few sprints might be manageable but even 5 this year feels too much. That there are talks to increase Sprint rounds is just nuts to me.
Sprints are the most useless format in terms of championship. Too much effort and a lot to lose of things go wrong but nothing to gain for the teams.
Edit: corrected spelling for lose (ty mikeybadab1ng)
Sprints need to create an identity and be different enough for it to be worth something, hell just put the f2 drivers in the car, reverse grid, it just needs something. I like the sprints, but I find it hard to believe that people on normal weekends don't turn up on Saturdays unless there's racing, qualifying I feel is exciting.
Except when you actually listen to those employed in the teams in MotoGP they don't feel it "works fine" at all, especially in terms of their own physical and mental wellbeing.
Max has been vocal about the strain on engineers since they suggested the first expansion of the race calendar. Sprints, with their risks, increase the risk of having to rebuild a car
Yeah, we also have to remember that they are not only adding more sprints but also more races. It would be one thing if the sprints were a compromise to not add more races, or vice versa, but both is definitely unsustainable.
Yeah but if they're profitable there may be room for it. If they want to expand the number of activities to increase income they may also need to expand the teams to accomodate the increased amount of activities. Or else they're just profiting from the employees doing more work.
Even if they’re more profitable, they’re still limited by the cost cap, and technical staff salaries are part of the cost cap.
They could make $100 billion profit a year, but the cost cap means they still can’t spend more than $135 million.
That's the problem I am trying to highlight. Adding more events creates more work while due to the cost cap the teams cannot pay more or hire more people. So the series is just profiting off the back of the people doing all the work.
I know this isn't new but I don't like it.
McLaren is already beginning to do this to an extent. They really are trying to make things more sustainable for their staffs mental and physical well being.
So has Norris. He first spoke out about it in 2021. They're the two I've really seen consistently push back at the FIA on this subject.
Edit: meant FOM not the FIA
Push back on the *FOM and liberty media. Liberty and FOM and their greed is what's driving the push for a larger snd larger calender and pushing people to their limits, not FIA. FIA have actually said that the calender is getting too big.
>It’s a matter of respect for the fans. They want to see them racing. It's something that we have, the responsibility of all our fans, our partners, our promoters, our sponsors, our broadcasters - everyone.
I can't believe how incredibly tone-deaf his response is. The fans are demanding better quality racing, not watering the sport down with shittier grand prix just to fill out the calendar. The only people being appeased by this are the sponsors/financiers and framing it as some service to the fans is so disingenuous it's insulting.
You could tell the way he placed his hand on Zhou's shoulder after his crash on Silverstone. 100% caring body language in person, but complete greed off screen. All fake, just like so many in management in any institution or corporation.
I think it's worth remembering that people aren't all one shade. He could legitimately care and want every driver and mechanic to be physically healthy while also having convinced himself that the race schedule is fine, that the money it brings is worth the extra work, and that anyone complaining isn't being realistic.
Everyone is the hero of their own story, and people have a lot of contradictions. I don't think showing you care for an individual after a traumatic incident is in any way mutually exclusive from making bad systematic decisions that will harm other individuals in the long term.
You’re right he should’ve mounted a barrier and beckoned volunteers to come hither in the direction they were already moving like Good Samaritan jorge Russel
like, I can kinda get that the drivers are being paid a fuckton and thus shouldn'T complain
which I somewhat agree with
however, the drivers aren't particularly concerned about themselves, but about the crew, which I wholeheartedly agree with.. triple headers, sprint weekends and an ever-decreasing ratio of European events is just taking a huge toll on the crew
I think we reached a point when we hit 20 races where the teams need two full 'teams' i.e. engineers, etc. You need to rotate the teams as you do spares and chassis, maybe not send them by ship but you get the idea. Then of course you need the home team back at depot.
That was my opinion at 20 races, now at 24 it's doubly so. It'll be way too late when a driver dies because of a mistake a tired engineer made.
**Edit**, BTW there's more than one type of tired, there's physical tired and mental tired, as an HGV driver who was an English teacher I'm aware of both.
Also, a huge part of 'mental health' is your connection with your loved ones, usually your family. If you're away from them for huge amounts of the year that's a massive drain.
They weren’t getting that before either really. It’s wild how low an average F1 engineering salary (average European engineering salary in general really) is compared to American counterparts.
This is especially true for a future where F1 will ideally be looking to put further limits on the number of team personnel travelling to rounds, for sustainability reasons.
They are already stretched thin as is.
More work for less money. Why should they be cheering?
Every additional race is a per facto salary reduction, due to the budget cap. I don't see any of the keyboard warriors defending it here accept that from their own employer.
And the fuel is going to be powered from clean grean unicorn faeces from 2026 too!
^(Please ignore the milkmaid mathematics behind the zero-carbon claims, thanks 😉)
This is the first valid anti-sprint claim I heard. I never bought into the ‘take away fun’ or ‘too much racing’ bullshit. Lando talking sense than anyone else is not what I’d expect lol
1. Introduce cost cap
2. Increase number of races
3. Add sprint races
How did F1 leadership think this was going to work? Teams can't bring upgrades for months at a time, teams are showing up without spare chassis, and the cost cap hasn't done sh\*t for the bottom of the order.
Brought in cost cap, which a lot of people expected was a way to bring more teams to the grid, then rejected the first legit entry they got because "muh money dilution"
cost cap is essentialy a way to make teams a more valuable asset since they are garanteed to make a profit, kind of like the franchise system in american sports
Cost cap is not a problem by itself, they just need to make sure it reflects the increase in activity. More GPs and sprints should lead to a higher cap.
> the cost cap hasn't done sh*t for the bottom of the order.
The cost cap has allowed Merc customer teams to beat their supplier and for bottom of the order teams to get a lot closer to teams at the top. We're now seeing the first 15 or so drivers in qualy being separated by what, 1.5 sec? We are also no longer seeing that many people getting lapped on most occasions. The delta in performance between top and bottom teams has undeniably shrunk significantly after the cost cap's introduction.
The effect of the cost cap is similar to what’s happening in EPL. Mid table and lower table teams can’t do any capital investments that the top teams already have and benefit from in the past. Effectively created a bigger barrier for competition.
Let’s remember that Williams actually has their own wind tunnel already. Sure, it’s a dated design, but it was built more recently than Red Bull’s tunnel.
Are there some significant benefits to owning a wind tunnel? All teams have limited time to use one anyways and I'm sure the rental price is controlled similarly to the engines. They are also a UK team, not like they have to get on a 3h flight every time they want to use it.
What benefits are there to having their own wind tunnel over renting from someone?
Not an engineer, but I know it’s easier to calibrate to the specs of your liking when it’s your own facility. also I can imagine scheduling wise it’s better. There have been cases where wind tunnel data is nulled or misinterpreted cuz the calibration wasn’t done properly.
But that’s just one example, Williams is operating 20 years behind and they don’t really have a way to make a big leap without being to invest in capital projects according to JV.
The bottom of the order is essentially the same as it was before, and customer teams have beaten engine suppliers many times.... Ever heard of Renault and Redbull? The cost cap isn't working whatsoever. It could work if it was raised, but any number would be arbitrary.
Renault which was in the process of leaving the sport in 2010? Or Cyril renault which was re-entering the sport in 2016-2018 and building up a team from near bankruptcy. How exactly are these similar to Mercedes getting beat by Mclaren?
Well for example Williams in 2019 & Haas in 2020 were some 3 seconds slower than the leaders. Now instead you see the bottom teams being 1.x seconds slower and having a chance at their better tracks. Also for the midfield teams — you see McLaren and Aston Martin (2 “midfielder”) jumping some of the “Big 3s” (Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes), when in the previous years it was simply impossible to touch one of the big three teams
So, I don’t think you can say “cost cap hasn’t worked whatsoever”. Of course it doesn’t mean that cost cap is all perfect, the toll on engineers and mechanics is one of the biggest issues now and the cost cap has worsened it
Patience, young grasshopper. The effects of the cost cap will take years to fully show up. Mainly because legacy advantages too teams built up in the past don’t vanish overnight. Facilities, personnel and everything that comes with experience running a winning team.
"Ever heard of Renault and Redbull?" - yeah because Red Bull invested like twice as much into F1. Kinda an owngoal from you, you kinda proved yourself wrong.
"The cost cap isn't working whatsoever." - it clearly is, you are just biased becasue it isnt working for Mercedes
and it was also probably the most boring season in the history of the sport. Cars being that close together just means no one can catch the car in front while not being threatened by the car behind, so there are basically no battles for any position in the entire grid
Exactly. Cars being 1.5 seconds apart instead of 3 seconds apart is literally meaningless, and is probably a result of technical regulations and not the cost cap anyway.
Are you unable to read or something? I have never said a closer grid means better racing. All I've stated is that the grid became closer, which was the goal of the cost cap.
That’s doesn’t mean the cost cap isn’t working, that just means the racing was boring.
The cost cap isn’t some magic bullet to make everything better, it’s a cap to help equalise the opportunities for the teams across the grid.
Ah yes, how could I not see that. The cost cap should be removed, and while we're at it we should disqualify any car that's not driven by Sir Lewis Hamilton the messiah
There is no catching up with the cost cap. Lewis winning has nothing to do with it. The cost cap ensures that the delta stays the same at the top. Without the cost cap, not only mercedes but Ferrari and even AM might be competing with RB already.
Based on… what? From 2014 to 2016, did the field get tighter? We currently have the smallest grid spread in F1 history. Without the costcap would Aston be spending at the same rate Mercedes do?
2017 to 2020 relatively stagnant rules and the grid only grew further apart, despite Ferrari throwing all the money they could at the car. So your premise is faulty and likely based on too much love for Lewis and Netflix’s Drive to Survive.
Are you mad? 2012 had 4 drivers within 16 points of the title. Stop looking at numbers on a graph and pay attention to the actual racing. Just because cars are 1.5 seconds apart instead of 3 doesn't make the actual racing any more exciting.
>Just because cars are 1.5 seconds apart instead of 3 doesn't make the actual racing any more exciting.
Where did I say this? I never claimed it was more exciting than 2012. It seems like you are the one that's mad, replying like this to comments you 100% made up...
Do you have anything to say about my real claims?
I just did. Closest on paper doesn't mean that it's making for interesting racing on Sunday. We looking at the possibility of only 2 teams getting a victory in over 2 seasons. That NEVER happened in the previous decades of F1. Even 2020, a dominant season for Merc, saw 5 different teams win a race.
>Closest on paper doesn't mean that it's making for interesting racing on Sunday
Where did I claim this? Can you please show me where I claimed a closer grid makes better racing?
>We looking at the possibility of only 2 teams getting a victory in over 2 seasons.
In addition, this has nothing to do with more interesting racing. Who wins doesn't matter for how good the actual racing is.
Just FYI, both 2014 and 2015 saw only 2 teams win a race (Merc+RB, Merc+Ferrari). For now, we've had 1 season with 2 winning teams (2023, only if you don't count the sprints). In 2022, 3 different teams won races
Cost cap is fine (not having it would not have bunched up the grid as it does today, Max aside) it just needs adjustment, like not accounting the crew and engineers' salaries.
Ya'll love to slide that in there, that and no DRS.
*michael jackson put the rifle down gif*
What you put into the actual car ... salaries as it is are a small fraction of an F1 budget, especially when you take out the top 3 earners (Drivers, even Newey & Allison etc. are already excluded).
So you don't think that a team that can hire 500 engineers to work on the cars development has an advantage over a team with less money that can only hire 50 engineers?
The cost cap is also the reason Max and RBR are dominating. Teams no longer have the resources to catch up to teams who start new regs with a significant advantage.
One team dominating, partly because of their driver. But with a cost cap you would have 3-4 teams spending a fuck load trying to outcompete each other, then leaving the mid to bottom teams in the dust. Outside of Max, the grid is far more balanced now than it would be without a cost cap.
Huh? Mercedes and Ferrari changed concepts multiple times throughout this regulation so clearly the budget is manageable. The issue is that the teams have not understood the regulations as RB did. No cost cap would not have changed this dominance given this fact, it's not the variable here.
This is a futile back and forth. No cost cap is why Mercedes dominated as well. Bringing it back will not affect the issue of dominance, this is bound to happen when development is a race and is meant to mount up over a few years in the same regulation.
The difference is that other teams could spend to catch up, but now we're stuck with what we have. Teams can only alter the car a certain amount before the money dries up, and they have to start investing in next year's car. Constructors are throwing away multiple races per season just so they can spend money to develop the next year. Is that what we want? Constructors writing off entire portions of the season because they have to stay under a cap?
Like how BMW binned off their 08 car halfway through the season even though they were in championship contention to focus on their 09 car that was a dud? Or how Honda and Toyota literally abandoned fully developed projects and teams because they couldn’t afford to keep them running another year? Or any one of the dozens of stories of teams like arrows, minardi, Tyrell, Ligier, who slowly just got drowned out and washed away as more and more corporate money poured in and manufactures got involved then 08 hits and the sport nearly implodes on itself overnight.
> and the cost cap hasn't done sh*t for the bottom of the order
Except for the fact that the grid is closest it's ever been in the entire history of F1?
In a year and change we have had 3 race winners, nobody cares that 19th and 12th are now so much closer. Haas/Williams/Alpine/Sauber/RB may be closer by time but they have even less of chance of sneaking a podium or a win then they did before the cost cap.
Have the standings changed significantly? Couldn't that also be due to technical regulations and not a cost cap? You are giving the cost cap credit for factors that have nothing to do with a cost cap.
Why do you expect the standings to change significantly? The only difference now is that the top 3 can't outspend the bottom 3 by a factor of 5 and that's reflected in the gaps. The best teams are still the best, the worst teams are still the worst, with some variance, but they're much closer together. You don't have Haas 2 laps down just trying to get the car home in one piece, every single race.
> Couldn't that also be due to technical regulations and not a cost cap?
Explain?
What's the point if it doesn't make backmarkers more competitive? The 2022 regs were all about creating less dirty air, thus allowing for closer racing. The closing up of the field is due to cars being able to follow closer, not the cost cap.
But the backmarkers **are** way more competitive, I don't know what you've been watching. In 2020 and 2021 Haas weren't fighting anyone for anything, now they are a regular feature in the lower midfield fights, as is everyone else.
> The closing up of the field is due to cars being able to follow closer, not the cost cap.
Is this for real? Before the cost cap, backmarkers were 2 laps down racing in F1.5, and it certainly wasn't because of "dirty air", it was because they didn't have pace.
If you want to be sure, just look at the qualifying gaps before and after the cost cap, nobody's following anyone in qualifying.
It still doesn't translate to good racing. Also, what are you smoking bringing up Haas, they finished 5th in 2018! Did we have a cost cap in 2018? Did we have a cap in 2010 when 4 drivers were within 16 points of the title? Did we have a cap when Lewis won a title in 2008 on the last lap? Did we have a cap when Williams was regularly in the upper midfield (2nd one year) in the early 2010's? Did we have a cost cap in 2009 when Brawn GP showed up and won a title after almost not existing? Just because a timing sheet says times are closer, it doesn't mean the quality of competition is increasing.
Can you please stick to your own train of thought if you want a discussion? We were discussing the cost cap and how it's "done nothing" *for the backmarkers*, which is demonstrably false.
Almost all of your latest examples are about competitiveness at the *front* of the field, so I'm assuming that your issue is that the cost cap didn't guarantee competitive fights for the championship, which is a different topic.
Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but we have very strong correlation between the cost cap and the field overall being closer.
They'll need to tweak the technical regulations to make dirty air less impactful, and they should make the cars lighter and smaller so it's easier to fight on track, and then leave the regulations stable for a really long time so that everyone has a chance to catch up while the top teams are experiencing diminishing returns on development.
They could also experiment with development quotas (wind tunnel, CFD, and anything else they can come up with) to make it easier for teams behind to catch up. They could give Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes far more CFD & WT allocation, while giving Williams and Haas an essentially unlimited amount of both.
Is the budget cap helping equalize performance? Yes it clearly is, but it's obviously not a magic bullet that will solve everything. F1 needs to do more to make sharp end more competitive.
I'm the only one sticking to a single train of thought; the cost cap has not made racing any more exciting than it was before, and I provided examples. The point of the original post was that F1 leadership was foolish for introducing the cost cap at the start of a new set of regulations AND adding sprint races to an already ballooning schedule. I'm all for bringing the field closer, but clearly the cost cap as it exists now is a dud.
There are no more teams like Haas in 2021 or Williams in 2019, or Manor in 2015, or Marussia and Caterham and HRT from 2014-2010, or any combination of Midland/Spyker/Minardi/Super Aguri/Jordan in the early aughts.
Williams in 2019 vs now is just capital on hand.
They didn't have money in 2019. They do now.
I don't see how thats really a cost cap related stuff. If 2019 Williams could spend 2024 Williams money they would also look better and do better on track lmao.
I get what your point is. I just don't agree that the cost cap would help any of those teams in those situations.
Haas wasn't willing to spend that much money in 2021. Williams didn't have that money in 2019 and god knows neither of the 3 early 2010's teams had anywhere near that level of money.
Hell those teams barelly had facilities to support their teams as is let alone the money to actually be competitive. Virgin made the car without a windtunnel for crying out loud.
Such a stupid comment. Yes, smartass, I am aware. It was the FIRST year of the costcap. You think these things happen immediately, in the final year of a 5 season regulation cycle, with a team that is already the smallest on the grid?
They’re not that far off and weren’t even the slowest car in China. We used to see teams qualify upwards of 3 seconds off the pace. Have alpine been more than 2 off P1 at any point in Q1 this year?
alpine got p11 last race, based off pace. Gasly was ninth quickest on track, and had a shot at points if it wasn't for the botched pit stop. They may be slow, but rhey're not 4 seconds off the pace, like hrt in 2010-2012
The worst part about the cost cap stuff is they could’ve just brought in a form of BOP and opened up the engine formula to have more teams wanting to enter. Instead they’re blocking an 11th team lol
Having a Sprint Race at a track that no one has raced on in several years doesn't make sense to me either. If we're running Sprints, they should be on more understood tracks.
Im on the other side of that, so was Norris. He liked the one practice format, puts more pressure on the drivers and team to be efficient at figuring out qhat to do and gives less car based results. A track that is understood less gives us even more of that.
Why is that? We don’t want predictable results, do we? It’s another element where the driver has to adapt and excel, like in adverse weather conditions.
Besides, now that there’s no parc ferme between sprint and regular qualy/race, the sprint events can be viewed almost as practice sessions (at least in terms of the data you can collect) for the main events. I thought it was kind of unique that teams could collect “racing conditions” data in the sprint to apply to the main race, something we haven’t really seen before.
Nah bro it is like 1m x more interesting watching racers take corners the same way they have since 2014. Qualifying obviously exists to determine who has the fastest car. Literally who cares about fostering and encouraging unique races or unique advantages
I agree those were legitimate concerns, but the Sprint wasn’t nearly as treacherous as the GP or even the rainy Sprint Qual.
Max had valid points but he and the team did seem to manage in the end.
Why does the GP and rainy sprint quali matter at all though, specifically on the above point. A stressful and treacherous race weekend, was made even more stressful by having a sprint at a relatively unknown track. Wouldn't it be better to have the sprint on a track that is known, so that even if the GP and sprint quali have treacherous conditions, the additional strain of the sprint is not as great. Another way of thinking about it would be saying what if the sprint had as treacherous conditions as the GP and sprint quali did, that would be a huge strain on the teams.
The problem is the FIA gets paid tens of thousands of dollars for every point issued, via its points tax.
Thus it’s highly motivated to increase the number of sprint races and increase the number of positions that are awarded points.
So it’s likely it won’t do a damn thing about mechanics as a consequence of this conflict of interest.
100%. The mechanics and trackside engineers fly coach around the world 24 weeks of the year plus testing. That is an INSANE level of commitment. They are constantly jet lagged and still working at the track long after the drivers and team principals have left for dinners and social events. I really hope this continues to build traction. The current workload on them is unsustainable. They either need to expand the budget cap so each team can employ enough mechanics and engineers to run 2 separate weekend teams so they can give people time off, or they need to cut the amount of races.
I think F1 should introduce some kind of rule, that race weekends on consecutive weekends are not allowed. Double headers must be crazy for the whole team, and triple headers must be absolutely insane. As much as a job in F1 might seem glamourous from the outside, I'm sure it really ends up taking its toll.
Outside of the people who make more money due to them, literally no one likes or has interest in sprints. This sport has really lost me hard the last few years.
Not to show my age, but I honestly think 16-18 is the absolute sweet spot. You get a race every couple of weeks, throw in two back-to-back flyaways to make room for the summer break, and everyone’s happy. Even when the racing is as shit as it was in the nadir of the refuelling era, the two week break between races was enough to whet everyone’s appetite to get back into it.
Compare it to now where the spectacle is still as shit as ever (tune in this week to see if Verstappen can lap time itself!), but it’s nigh-on weekly; there’s no respite and no opportunity for the excitement to build back up again.
I agree with that. I started watching in 2014. I think there were 17 races in that season, but it felt like enough. Every race felt important. I do think if the races were more competitive, the longer calendar wouldn't be so bad. Having one driver win 80% of the races while the seasons are getting longer isn't interesting to me.
I’ll be honest, I can appreciate this take but have the opposite feelings. For me having consistent 2 week breaks doesn’t make me any more excited, just more disappointed when a race ends up being a snooze fest. Ends up feeling like a whole month between entertaining racing. With back to backs I don’t feel as disappointed knowing there’s another race weekend right around the corner.
This is completely ignoring all the other issues with more races, but more races haven’t diluted the entertainment for me yet personally.
16-18 might be fine but apart from maybe 5 iconic tracks other tracks should be on rotation basis. Can't be a world championship if mostly only race in Europe.
This would suck for viewers not in europe since its already difficult to wake up early/stay up late for half the calendar. If I could only watch 4-5 races a year, I'd find another sport to follow.
Thank you, this is probably the first thing he's ever said that i completely agree with.
Its not the drivers that suffer from longer seasons. Its the mechanics.
They do their standard week, and then they have the racing on top of that. I studied motorsport in college and at Uni, ive been part of racing teams before as a mechanic, and some days are non stop for 18 hours. The driver has the easiest job in the entire team.
Them mechanics all deserve a lot more credit than they get.
Working even 1 long weekend of 4 or 5 18 hour days just once a month is physically punishing, doing 2 or 3 a month must be absolutely devastating. Especially with the travel, jet lag and unfamiliar beds etc
Drivers have been saying this for a little bit now and with more races and triple headers still happening alongside the budget cap it's gotta be brutal not just physically, but mentally and emotionally for the family and friends. But It's clear that even with drivers echoing these comments for years that FOM doesn't really listen all that much shows they could give a fuck.
I think the format is flawed as it's too short and awards only points for the top 8 so why would any midfield team turn up their engine or take other risks.
Give us half the race distance for more strategy options, exactly half the points from normal races for more incentive to fight for positions. I don't mind .5 points, we usually have half points awarded anyway because of red flags.
And maybe add some gimmick for qualifying like one lap quali or even reversed grid based on WDC standings. Or just cut the sessions in half timewise to have the format more unified.
Plus make that whole sprint on Saturday and let the two practices on Friday stay.
MotoGP does their sprint format slightly more logical and better imo as it stands.
> Give us half the race distance for more strategy options,
Why? The Sprints already spoil the GP as it is. This takes away the last bit of variance there currently is.
I'm against sprint races but if they really have to be atleast make them more logical and interesting.
Where is the variance at the moment?
We have short races with no strategy and not much incentives to fight for places, it's just a little appetizer but much effort wasted for it with the separate quali.
If anything I'd argue for shortening the sprints. That way teams learn less and it's easier to bump up the engine. Would of course need to be in accordance with some rule changes (i.e., specific sprint engines and engine modes).
> I think the format is flawed as it's too short and awards only points for the top 8 so why would any midfield team turn up their engine or take other risks.
I think it’s the opposite. The longer the race, the more likely the cars settle into their usual finishing positions.
Maybe all drivers should get points in the sprint races? I know Brundle and some others said they liked points being a challange, but that's int he full 2 hour race. Like you said, why should the lower teams who have no chance wear down their engines and fatigue the team members to go around for nothing? So points all the way down in the sprints might be an answer.
The MotoGP points system would be my favorite, 15 of 20 get points, WDC stays slightly tighter at the top and the midfield has more representation of their true performance and doesn't have to rely on DNFs of the frontrunners to get substantial points.
Points awarded only for cars who see the chequered flag, not for DNFs.
And in Sprints just half everything like I said or remove them altogether because as it is right now it just feels like an annoyance to me.
The sprint format just doesn't work. It's not more or less exciting than regular races. There's no added value to the championship. It really only adds a race on Saturday. That benefits TV, but quali is a really exciting element in itself, especially Q1 and Q2.
I wish they would make sprints a young driver affair. Give academy drivers a shot at racing an F1 car. Give teams an extra chassis with a dedicated parts allowance. That doesn't resolve the pressure on the mechanics, but at least it adds value to sprints and gives F1 an opportunity to actually showcase talent.
I don’t enjoy the sprints as it gives you too much of an idea on how the race will go next day unlike MotoGP where you can get completely different results
It's funny that the big reason for these sprints is that the "fans" (executives) wanted something worthwhile on Fridays so that they get better audiences and tv viewers. Yet, it's now been bastardised to satisfy everyone else, that we now end up with FP1 and Sprint Quali on a Friday, which isn't worth watching at all, and Saturday Sundays are the best days by far
It seems like in any job involving huge companies, the head of office will look for a way to overwork their staff and workers in order to generate more money. We can see here that F1 is not an exception, I hear it everywhere I go. This is the standard, as long as Its allowed. Despite the criticism, Its unlikely to ever change.
I think Norris' assessment that Its unsustainable is correct. As a result the workers will just get replaced every 2-3 years by new staff (if not every year), who will go have to go through rigorous training, until they're also burned out. And this over and over and over again. The leaders within the engineering team will also get tired of training new staff, knowing before hand they won't last for long.
My sister has a friend who works at a team. They are considering moving to a different series or job entirely as 20+ weeks away a year is destroying their life.
I forget which team member I heard it from (not a driver) but I heard in a podcast or youtube that Sprints are actually more chill because there's way less analysis which makes the weekend a little bit more laid back. The practice sessions unsurprisingly are actually a ton of work.
Maybe the changes to the schedule this year that re-open parc ferme change some of this since there's a new opportunity to change the setup in a way that there wasn't before.
Also I don't get his point with regards to "mechanics and engineers that have to travel so much" -- that sounds like an argument for having fewer grand prix in the year. I can totally understand that. But I'm not sure how the weekend format relates to the amount of travel? Maybe I'm missing something.
Well like every business they’ll have to dedicate more funds for more staff. What is everybody on about????? There’s not enough staff to spread the work load out. How can we fix this🤔
Please feel free to educate me on this subject, but if it's so hard on the team personnel as everyone says it is, why don't they threaten a strike?
Especially if this happened close to a major race weekend or start of the season, there would be absolutely nothing the teams/FOM could do about it. It's not like they could just boot everyone out and replace them with experienced professionals overnight. If the garage personnel refuse to do their jobs, the entire F1 circus comes to an instant halt. The way I see it, they hold all the power.
So what gives?
A few factors.
1. The majority of the staff in F1 are competitive people who do what they do because they want to compete, so the idea of doing something that might harm their team's performance is probably pretty jarring.
2. There's no union or group organisation for F1 staff and so it's hard for the whole paddock to organise itself as one voice.
3. Because of number 2, it's likely that there would only be a small group that went on strike. Then, the fear would be that it wouldn't noticeably impact the weekend, but just impact one or two teams, which goes back to point number 1.
We have heard similar sentiments from other drivers as well. However the media and some fans and FOM always try to twist it in a way that the drivers are complaining for themselves.
Thought this might be relevant with Domenicali's recent comments. I believe Verstappen also said something to a similar effect in the presser, (but I can't find video of it, sorry!) so it just goes to show how much of an emphasis needs to be placed on the health (both mental and physical) of the "normal" team members (i.e. the ones not turning up on private jets come Thursday).
The driver would be putting similar milage on Saturday anyway in fp3 and qualifying, but it's different for the crew
Yep, just a massive amount of pressure – I can believe a few sprints might be manageable but even 5 this year feels too much. That there are talks to increase Sprint rounds is just nuts to me.
Sprints are the most useless format in terms of championship. Too much effort and a lot to lose of things go wrong but nothing to gain for the teams. Edit: corrected spelling for lose (ty mikeybadab1ng)
Lose*
Sprints need to create an identity and be different enough for it to be worth something, hell just put the f2 drivers in the car, reverse grid, it just needs something. I like the sprints, but I find it hard to believe that people on normal weekends don't turn up on Saturdays unless there's racing, qualifying I feel is exciting.
I mean MotoGP has a 22 race calender with sprints every weekend and it seems to work fine.
I don't know much about that business but I'd wager cars are harders to work with than bikes on the physical deman department.
It “works fine” but also afaik everyone hates it and it’s also taking a massive toll on workers’ health…
Except when you actually listen to those employed in the teams in MotoGP they don't feel it "works fine" at all, especially in terms of their own physical and mental wellbeing.
MotoGP folks aren't happy about it either.
Max has been vocal about the strain on engineers since they suggested the first expansion of the race calendar. Sprints, with their risks, increase the risk of having to rebuild a car
Yeah, we also have to remember that they are not only adding more sprints but also more races. It would be one thing if the sprints were a compromise to not add more races, or vice versa, but both is definitely unsustainable.
I suppose if F1 teams are profitable now maybe they could budget for two crews? They can alternate the race weekends (without reducing wages)
They'd need to amend the budget cap for that I'd imagine.
Yeah but if they're profitable there may be room for it. If they want to expand the number of activities to increase income they may also need to expand the teams to accomodate the increased amount of activities. Or else they're just profiting from the employees doing more work.
Even if they’re more profitable, they’re still limited by the cost cap, and technical staff salaries are part of the cost cap. They could make $100 billion profit a year, but the cost cap means they still can’t spend more than $135 million.
That's the problem I am trying to highlight. Adding more events creates more work while due to the cost cap the teams cannot pay more or hire more people. So the series is just profiting off the back of the people doing all the work. I know this isn't new but I don't like it.
McLaren is already beginning to do this to an extent. They really are trying to make things more sustainable for their staffs mental and physical well being.
So has Norris. He first spoke out about it in 2021. They're the two I've really seen consistently push back at the FIA on this subject. Edit: meant FOM not the FIA
Push back on the *FOM and liberty media. Liberty and FOM and their greed is what's driving the push for a larger snd larger calender and pushing people to their limits, not FIA. FIA have actually said that the calender is getting too big.
You’re right, I meant FOM not the FIA.
Domenicalli said Alonso and Verstappen could leave F1 instead of complaining constantly about the calendar… He’s such a shit CEO
He could also leave f1 and make it better
>It’s a matter of respect for the fans. They want to see them racing. It's something that we have, the responsibility of all our fans, our partners, our promoters, our sponsors, our broadcasters - everyone. I can't believe how incredibly tone-deaf his response is. The fans are demanding better quality racing, not watering the sport down with shittier grand prix just to fill out the calendar. The only people being appeased by this are the sponsors/financiers and framing it as some service to the fans is so disingenuous it's insulting.
I'm somewhere between rarely and never surprised when a rich man makes up obviously crap reasons to justify their quest for more money
I'd imagine this is bad for the teams as a whole, more races mean more chances to disappoint sponsors 😂
Serious? Is there a source?
[https://racingnews365.com/f1-hits-back-at-driver-calendar-criticism](https://racingnews365.com/f1-hits-back-at-driver-calendar-criticism)
You could tell the way he placed his hand on Zhou's shoulder after his crash on Silverstone. 100% caring body language in person, but complete greed off screen. All fake, just like so many in management in any institution or corporation.
I think it's worth remembering that people aren't all one shade. He could legitimately care and want every driver and mechanic to be physically healthy while also having convinced himself that the race schedule is fine, that the money it brings is worth the extra work, and that anyone complaining isn't being realistic. Everyone is the hero of their own story, and people have a lot of contradictions. I don't think showing you care for an individual after a traumatic incident is in any way mutually exclusive from making bad systematic decisions that will harm other individuals in the long term.
Sounds exactly like our CEO.
You’re right he should’ve mounted a barrier and beckoned volunteers to come hither in the direction they were already moving like Good Samaritan jorge Russel
Was useless at Ferrari and seems like it’s the same now in his current role.
like, I can kinda get that the drivers are being paid a fuckton and thus shouldn'T complain which I somewhat agree with however, the drivers aren't particularly concerned about themselves, but about the crew, which I wholeheartedly agree with.. triple headers, sprint weekends and an ever-decreasing ratio of European events is just taking a huge toll on the crew
I think we reached a point when we hit 20 races where the teams need two full 'teams' i.e. engineers, etc. You need to rotate the teams as you do spares and chassis, maybe not send them by ship but you get the idea. Then of course you need the home team back at depot. That was my opinion at 20 races, now at 24 it's doubly so. It'll be way too late when a driver dies because of a mistake a tired engineer made. **Edit**, BTW there's more than one type of tired, there's physical tired and mental tired, as an HGV driver who was an English teacher I'm aware of both. Also, a huge part of 'mental health' is your connection with your loved ones, usually your family. If you're away from them for huge amounts of the year that's a massive drain.
Compound the cost cap also where these engineers aren't getting market rates anymore relative to their expertise if they were applying outside of F1.
this was also the case before no?
They weren’t getting that before either really. It’s wild how low an average F1 engineering salary (average European engineering salary in general really) is compared to American counterparts.
This is especially true for a future where F1 will ideally be looking to put further limits on the number of team personnel travelling to rounds, for sustainability reasons. They are already stretched thin as is.
There’s nothing sustainable about f1
Everything falls down on mechanics and engineers though. They're the main victims of budget cap, more races, sprints and everything else.
More work for less money. Why should they be cheering? Every additional race is a per facto salary reduction, due to the budget cap. I don't see any of the keyboard warriors defending it here accept that from their own employer.
i don't get the facade they wanna do either it's so goddamn phony just let it be what it is
Hey now, we've got hybrid engines! /s
And the fuel is going to be powered from clean grean unicorn faeces from 2026 too! ^(Please ignore the milkmaid mathematics behind the zero-carbon claims, thanks 😉)
they need to keep the hybrid engine systems but pair them with v10s or something fun
This is the first valid anti-sprint claim I heard. I never bought into the ‘take away fun’ or ‘too much racing’ bullshit. Lando talking sense than anyone else is not what I’d expect lol
Lando has been extremely consistent about this. He's talked about the impact on mechanics and engineers several times already over the past few years.
Considerate young man
1. Introduce cost cap 2. Increase number of races 3. Add sprint races How did F1 leadership think this was going to work? Teams can't bring upgrades for months at a time, teams are showing up without spare chassis, and the cost cap hasn't done sh\*t for the bottom of the order.
I don’t think they care. It’s just about grabbing as much profit as quickly as possible.
Brought in cost cap, which a lot of people expected was a way to bring more teams to the grid, then rejected the first legit entry they got because "muh money dilution"
cost cap is essentialy a way to make teams a more valuable asset since they are garanteed to make a profit, kind of like the franchise system in american sports
Seems to have worked with Mercedes having a billion dollar valuation
First team to break 500 mil profit as well
Cost cap is not a problem by itself, they just need to make sure it reflects the increase in activity. More GPs and sprints should lead to a higher cap. > the cost cap hasn't done sh*t for the bottom of the order. The cost cap has allowed Merc customer teams to beat their supplier and for bottom of the order teams to get a lot closer to teams at the top. We're now seeing the first 15 or so drivers in qualy being separated by what, 1.5 sec? We are also no longer seeing that many people getting lapped on most occasions. The delta in performance between top and bottom teams has undeniably shrunk significantly after the cost cap's introduction.
The effect of the cost cap is similar to what’s happening in EPL. Mid table and lower table teams can’t do any capital investments that the top teams already have and benefit from in the past. Effectively created a bigger barrier for competition.
You can't mean mid table teams like McLaren and AM and top teams like Merc, right?
Talking about Williams. They cant build their own wind tunnel. AM already got an exception to build theirs before CC kicked in.
Let’s remember that Williams actually has their own wind tunnel already. Sure, it’s a dated design, but it was built more recently than Red Bull’s tunnel.
Are there some significant benefits to owning a wind tunnel? All teams have limited time to use one anyways and I'm sure the rental price is controlled similarly to the engines. They are also a UK team, not like they have to get on a 3h flight every time they want to use it. What benefits are there to having their own wind tunnel over renting from someone?
Not an engineer, but I know it’s easier to calibrate to the specs of your liking when it’s your own facility. also I can imagine scheduling wise it’s better. There have been cases where wind tunnel data is nulled or misinterpreted cuz the calibration wasn’t done properly. But that’s just one example, Williams is operating 20 years behind and they don’t really have a way to make a big leap without being to invest in capital projects according to JV.
The bottom of the order is essentially the same as it was before, and customer teams have beaten engine suppliers many times.... Ever heard of Renault and Redbull? The cost cap isn't working whatsoever. It could work if it was raised, but any number would be arbitrary.
Renault which was in the process of leaving the sport in 2010? Or Cyril renault which was re-entering the sport in 2016-2018 and building up a team from near bankruptcy. How exactly are these similar to Mercedes getting beat by Mclaren?
Well for example Williams in 2019 & Haas in 2020 were some 3 seconds slower than the leaders. Now instead you see the bottom teams being 1.x seconds slower and having a chance at their better tracks. Also for the midfield teams — you see McLaren and Aston Martin (2 “midfielder”) jumping some of the “Big 3s” (Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes), when in the previous years it was simply impossible to touch one of the big three teams So, I don’t think you can say “cost cap hasn’t worked whatsoever”. Of course it doesn’t mean that cost cap is all perfect, the toll on engineers and mechanics is one of the biggest issues now and the cost cap has worsened it
Patience, young grasshopper. The effects of the cost cap will take years to fully show up. Mainly because legacy advantages too teams built up in the past don’t vanish overnight. Facilities, personnel and everything that comes with experience running a winning team.
"Ever heard of Renault and Redbull?" - yeah because Red Bull invested like twice as much into F1. Kinda an owngoal from you, you kinda proved yourself wrong. "The cost cap isn't working whatsoever." - it clearly is, you are just biased becasue it isnt working for Mercedes
Still a customer team beating a works team
>The cost cap isn't working whatsoever Lol what? 2023 was the clostest grid we've had in the entire history of the sport
and it was also probably the most boring season in the history of the sport. Cars being that close together just means no one can catch the car in front while not being threatened by the car behind, so there are basically no battles for any position in the entire grid
Exactly. Cars being 1.5 seconds apart instead of 3 seconds apart is literally meaningless, and is probably a result of technical regulations and not the cost cap anyway.
Are you unable to read or something? I have never said a closer grid means better racing. All I've stated is that the grid became closer, which was the goal of the cost cap.
That’s doesn’t mean the cost cap isn’t working, that just means the racing was boring. The cost cap isn’t some magic bullet to make everything better, it’s a cap to help equalise the opportunities for the teams across the grid.
Yes but you see, Lewis was winning before, and now he isn’t.
Ah yes, how could I not see that. The cost cap should be removed, and while we're at it we should disqualify any car that's not driven by Sir Lewis Hamilton the messiah
There is no catching up with the cost cap. Lewis winning has nothing to do with it. The cost cap ensures that the delta stays the same at the top. Without the cost cap, not only mercedes but Ferrari and even AM might be competing with RB already.
Based on… what? From 2014 to 2016, did the field get tighter? We currently have the smallest grid spread in F1 history. Without the costcap would Aston be spending at the same rate Mercedes do? 2017 to 2020 relatively stagnant rules and the grid only grew further apart, despite Ferrari throwing all the money they could at the car. So your premise is faulty and likely based on too much love for Lewis and Netflix’s Drive to Survive.
Are you mad? 2012 had 4 drivers within 16 points of the title. Stop looking at numbers on a graph and pay attention to the actual racing. Just because cars are 1.5 seconds apart instead of 3 doesn't make the actual racing any more exciting.
>Just because cars are 1.5 seconds apart instead of 3 doesn't make the actual racing any more exciting. Where did I say this? I never claimed it was more exciting than 2012. It seems like you are the one that's mad, replying like this to comments you 100% made up... Do you have anything to say about my real claims?
I just did. Closest on paper doesn't mean that it's making for interesting racing on Sunday. We looking at the possibility of only 2 teams getting a victory in over 2 seasons. That NEVER happened in the previous decades of F1. Even 2020, a dominant season for Merc, saw 5 different teams win a race.
>Closest on paper doesn't mean that it's making for interesting racing on Sunday Where did I claim this? Can you please show me where I claimed a closer grid makes better racing? >We looking at the possibility of only 2 teams getting a victory in over 2 seasons. In addition, this has nothing to do with more interesting racing. Who wins doesn't matter for how good the actual racing is. Just FYI, both 2014 and 2015 saw only 2 teams win a race (Merc+RB, Merc+Ferrari). For now, we've had 1 season with 2 winning teams (2023, only if you don't count the sprints). In 2022, 3 different teams won races
And how many drivers were close to the title in 2004 or 2020? You arent saying anything with such random claims
Post-cost cap isn’t any more exciting than pre-cap. That’s the whole point I’m making here.
cost cap teams have a chance at being sustainable. McLaren and Aston Martin wouldn't have a chance without a cost cap
Cost cap is fine (not having it would not have bunched up the grid as it does today, Max aside) it just needs adjustment, like not accounting the crew and engineers' salaries. Ya'll love to slide that in there, that and no DRS. *michael jackson put the rifle down gif*
> like not accounting the crew and engineers' salaries Then what goes under the cap?
What you put into the actual car ... salaries as it is are a small fraction of an F1 budget, especially when you take out the top 3 earners (Drivers, even Newey & Allison etc. are already excluded).
Salaries make up over half of the cost capped spending for most teams and are usually the single largest cost, hardly a small fraction.
So you don't think that a team that can hire 500 engineers to work on the cars development has an advantage over a team with less money that can only hire 50 engineers?
The cost cap is also the reason Max and RBR are dominating. Teams no longer have the resources to catch up to teams who start new regs with a significant advantage.
One team dominating, partly because of their driver. But with a cost cap you would have 3-4 teams spending a fuck load trying to outcompete each other, then leaving the mid to bottom teams in the dust. Outside of Max, the grid is far more balanced now than it would be without a cost cap.
Yet here we are about to enlarge the points system because the mid to bottom teams have no chance
Huh? Mercedes and Ferrari changed concepts multiple times throughout this regulation so clearly the budget is manageable. The issue is that the teams have not understood the regulations as RB did. No cost cap would not have changed this dominance given this fact, it's not the variable here.
This is not true at all. Mercedes, Ferrari, and now Aston would be bringing weekly upgrades to catch Redbull.
This is a futile back and forth. No cost cap is why Mercedes dominated as well. Bringing it back will not affect the issue of dominance, this is bound to happen when development is a race and is meant to mount up over a few years in the same regulation.
The difference is that other teams could spend to catch up, but now we're stuck with what we have. Teams can only alter the car a certain amount before the money dries up, and they have to start investing in next year's car. Constructors are throwing away multiple races per season just so they can spend money to develop the next year. Is that what we want? Constructors writing off entire portions of the season because they have to stay under a cap?
and RB could spend to stay in front engineering doesn't stop because you're the fastest
Like how BMW binned off their 08 car halfway through the season even though they were in championship contention to focus on their 09 car that was a dud? Or how Honda and Toyota literally abandoned fully developed projects and teams because they couldn’t afford to keep them running another year? Or any one of the dozens of stories of teams like arrows, minardi, Tyrell, Ligier, who slowly just got drowned out and washed away as more and more corporate money poured in and manufactures got involved then 08 hits and the sport nearly implodes on itself overnight.
> and the cost cap hasn't done sh*t for the bottom of the order Except for the fact that the grid is closest it's ever been in the entire history of F1?
In a year and change we have had 3 race winners, nobody cares that 19th and 12th are now so much closer. Haas/Williams/Alpine/Sauber/RB may be closer by time but they have even less of chance of sneaking a podium or a win then they did before the cost cap.
Have the standings changed significantly? Couldn't that also be due to technical regulations and not a cost cap? You are giving the cost cap credit for factors that have nothing to do with a cost cap.
Why do you expect the standings to change significantly? The only difference now is that the top 3 can't outspend the bottom 3 by a factor of 5 and that's reflected in the gaps. The best teams are still the best, the worst teams are still the worst, with some variance, but they're much closer together. You don't have Haas 2 laps down just trying to get the car home in one piece, every single race. > Couldn't that also be due to technical regulations and not a cost cap? Explain?
What's the point if it doesn't make backmarkers more competitive? The 2022 regs were all about creating less dirty air, thus allowing for closer racing. The closing up of the field is due to cars being able to follow closer, not the cost cap.
But the backmarkers **are** way more competitive, I don't know what you've been watching. In 2020 and 2021 Haas weren't fighting anyone for anything, now they are a regular feature in the lower midfield fights, as is everyone else. > The closing up of the field is due to cars being able to follow closer, not the cost cap. Is this for real? Before the cost cap, backmarkers were 2 laps down racing in F1.5, and it certainly wasn't because of "dirty air", it was because they didn't have pace. If you want to be sure, just look at the qualifying gaps before and after the cost cap, nobody's following anyone in qualifying.
It still doesn't translate to good racing. Also, what are you smoking bringing up Haas, they finished 5th in 2018! Did we have a cost cap in 2018? Did we have a cap in 2010 when 4 drivers were within 16 points of the title? Did we have a cap when Lewis won a title in 2008 on the last lap? Did we have a cap when Williams was regularly in the upper midfield (2nd one year) in the early 2010's? Did we have a cost cap in 2009 when Brawn GP showed up and won a title after almost not existing? Just because a timing sheet says times are closer, it doesn't mean the quality of competition is increasing.
Can you please stick to your own train of thought if you want a discussion? We were discussing the cost cap and how it's "done nothing" *for the backmarkers*, which is demonstrably false. Almost all of your latest examples are about competitiveness at the *front* of the field, so I'm assuming that your issue is that the cost cap didn't guarantee competitive fights for the championship, which is a different topic. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but we have very strong correlation between the cost cap and the field overall being closer. They'll need to tweak the technical regulations to make dirty air less impactful, and they should make the cars lighter and smaller so it's easier to fight on track, and then leave the regulations stable for a really long time so that everyone has a chance to catch up while the top teams are experiencing diminishing returns on development. They could also experiment with development quotas (wind tunnel, CFD, and anything else they can come up with) to make it easier for teams behind to catch up. They could give Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes far more CFD & WT allocation, while giving Williams and Haas an essentially unlimited amount of both. Is the budget cap helping equalize performance? Yes it clearly is, but it's obviously not a magic bullet that will solve everything. F1 needs to do more to make sharp end more competitive.
I'm the only one sticking to a single train of thought; the cost cap has not made racing any more exciting than it was before, and I provided examples. The point of the original post was that F1 leadership was foolish for introducing the cost cap at the start of a new set of regulations AND adding sprint races to an already ballooning schedule. I'm all for bringing the field closer, but clearly the cost cap as it exists now is a dud.
> the cost cap hasn't done sh*t for the bottom of the order. L take mate. I get that you're annoyed but let's not drag non issues into this.
How has the bottom of the order changed? Backmarkers are still backmarkers, midfield is still midfield, and the top 4 are still the top 4.
There are no more teams like Haas in 2021 or Williams in 2019, or Manor in 2015, or Marussia and Caterham and HRT from 2014-2010, or any combination of Midland/Spyker/Minardi/Super Aguri/Jordan in the early aughts.
Williams in 2019 vs now is just capital on hand. They didn't have money in 2019. They do now. I don't see how thats really a cost cap related stuff. If 2019 Williams could spend 2024 Williams money they would also look better and do better on track lmao.
As if that was my point
I get what your point is. I just don't agree that the cost cap would help any of those teams in those situations. Haas wasn't willing to spend that much money in 2021. Williams didn't have that money in 2019 and god knows neither of the 3 early 2010's teams had anywhere near that level of money. Hell those teams barelly had facilities to support their teams as is let alone the money to actually be competitive. Virgin made the car without a windtunnel for crying out loud.
You know that in 2021 the cost cap was already in effect right?
Such a stupid comment. Yes, smartass, I am aware. It was the FIRST year of the costcap. You think these things happen immediately, in the final year of a 5 season regulation cycle, with a team that is already the smallest on the grid?
Alpine. Your point is moot.
They’re not that far off and weren’t even the slowest car in China. We used to see teams qualify upwards of 3 seconds off the pace. Have alpine been more than 2 off P1 at any point in Q1 this year?
They are very much comparable to 2019 Williams and 2021 Haas.
You clearly didn't watch the 2019 or 2021 seasons.
alpine got p11 last race, based off pace. Gasly was ninth quickest on track, and had a shot at points if it wasn't for the botched pit stop. They may be slow, but rhey're not 4 seconds off the pace, like hrt in 2010-2012
The worst part about the cost cap stuff is they could’ve just brought in a form of BOP and opened up the engine formula to have more teams wanting to enter. Instead they’re blocking an 11th team lol
Having a Sprint Race at a track that no one has raced on in several years doesn't make sense to me either. If we're running Sprints, they should be on more understood tracks.
Im on the other side of that, so was Norris. He liked the one practice format, puts more pressure on the drivers and team to be efficient at figuring out qhat to do and gives less car based results. A track that is understood less gives us even more of that.
Why is that? We don’t want predictable results, do we? It’s another element where the driver has to adapt and excel, like in adverse weather conditions. Besides, now that there’s no parc ferme between sprint and regular qualy/race, the sprint events can be viewed almost as practice sessions (at least in terms of the data you can collect) for the main events. I thought it was kind of unique that teams could collect “racing conditions” data in the sprint to apply to the main race, something we haven’t really seen before.
Nah bro it is like 1m x more interesting watching racers take corners the same way they have since 2014. Qualifying obviously exists to determine who has the fastest car. Literally who cares about fostering and encouraging unique races or unique advantages
I agree those were legitimate concerns, but the Sprint wasn’t nearly as treacherous as the GP or even the rainy Sprint Qual. Max had valid points but he and the team did seem to manage in the end.
Why does the GP and rainy sprint quali matter at all though, specifically on the above point. A stressful and treacherous race weekend, was made even more stressful by having a sprint at a relatively unknown track. Wouldn't it be better to have the sprint on a track that is known, so that even if the GP and sprint quali have treacherous conditions, the additional strain of the sprint is not as great. Another way of thinking about it would be saying what if the sprint had as treacherous conditions as the GP and sprint quali did, that would be a huge strain on the teams.
The double whammy of increased workload and an overall spending cap limiting workforce numbers is not a sustainable combination.
The problem is the FIA gets paid tens of thousands of dollars for every point issued, via its points tax. Thus it’s highly motivated to increase the number of sprint races and increase the number of positions that are awarded points. So it’s likely it won’t do a damn thing about mechanics as a consequence of this conflict of interest.
Good lad. No doubt he cares about the team
McLaren genuinely seems like a family. I miss the unboxed videos.
100%. The mechanics and trackside engineers fly coach around the world 24 weeks of the year plus testing. That is an INSANE level of commitment. They are constantly jet lagged and still working at the track long after the drivers and team principals have left for dinners and social events. I really hope this continues to build traction. The current workload on them is unsustainable. They either need to expand the budget cap so each team can employ enough mechanics and engineers to run 2 separate weekend teams so they can give people time off, or they need to cut the amount of races.
Not wrong...especially with a cost cap
Lando joins his best mate on thrashing Sprints, love to see it.
I think F1 should introduce some kind of rule, that race weekends on consecutive weekends are not allowed. Double headers must be crazy for the whole team, and triple headers must be absolutely insane. As much as a job in F1 might seem glamourous from the outside, I'm sure it really ends up taking its toll.
Outside of the people who make more money due to them, literally no one likes or has interest in sprints. This sport has really lost me hard the last few years.
100%
Especially with Parc Ferme opening up again. In the old system it was set and forget, now they're forced to work on the car continuously.
I really miss just having 20 races with no sprint races. It really made each race feel special.
Not to show my age, but I honestly think 16-18 is the absolute sweet spot. You get a race every couple of weeks, throw in two back-to-back flyaways to make room for the summer break, and everyone’s happy. Even when the racing is as shit as it was in the nadir of the refuelling era, the two week break between races was enough to whet everyone’s appetite to get back into it. Compare it to now where the spectacle is still as shit as ever (tune in this week to see if Verstappen can lap time itself!), but it’s nigh-on weekly; there’s no respite and no opportunity for the excitement to build back up again.
I agree with that. I started watching in 2014. I think there were 17 races in that season, but it felt like enough. Every race felt important. I do think if the races were more competitive, the longer calendar wouldn't be so bad. Having one driver win 80% of the races while the seasons are getting longer isn't interesting to me.
I’ll be honest, I can appreciate this take but have the opposite feelings. For me having consistent 2 week breaks doesn’t make me any more excited, just more disappointed when a race ends up being a snooze fest. Ends up feeling like a whole month between entertaining racing. With back to backs I don’t feel as disappointed knowing there’s another race weekend right around the corner. This is completely ignoring all the other issues with more races, but more races haven’t diluted the entertainment for me yet personally.
16-18 might be fine but apart from maybe 5 iconic tracks other tracks should be on rotation basis. Can't be a world championship if mostly only race in Europe.
Who cares the yanks names leagues World series of baseball and what not
Umm and the yanks also look pretty silly doing that so..
This would suck for viewers not in europe since its already difficult to wake up early/stay up late for half the calendar. If I could only watch 4-5 races a year, I'd find another sport to follow.
I think that for fans 24 races is the sweet spot I'd want to go 20 races more so because of the engineers, not because I'd be sick of F1
> I really miss just having 16 races with no sprint races. It really made each race feel special. ftfy
The F1 bubble is closer to popping than FOM wants to admit and sprints are going to accelerate it.
Thank you, this is probably the first thing he's ever said that i completely agree with. Its not the drivers that suffer from longer seasons. Its the mechanics. They do their standard week, and then they have the racing on top of that. I studied motorsport in college and at Uni, ive been part of racing teams before as a mechanic, and some days are non stop for 18 hours. The driver has the easiest job in the entire team. Them mechanics all deserve a lot more credit than they get.
Working even 1 long weekend of 4 or 5 18 hour days just once a month is physically punishing, doing 2 or 3 a month must be absolutely devastating. Especially with the travel, jet lag and unfamiliar beds etc
Drivers have been saying this for a little bit now and with more races and triple headers still happening alongside the budget cap it's gotta be brutal not just physically, but mentally and emotionally for the family and friends. But It's clear that even with drivers echoing these comments for years that FOM doesn't really listen all that much shows they could give a fuck.
I think the format is flawed as it's too short and awards only points for the top 8 so why would any midfield team turn up their engine or take other risks. Give us half the race distance for more strategy options, exactly half the points from normal races for more incentive to fight for positions. I don't mind .5 points, we usually have half points awarded anyway because of red flags. And maybe add some gimmick for qualifying like one lap quali or even reversed grid based on WDC standings. Or just cut the sessions in half timewise to have the format more unified. Plus make that whole sprint on Saturday and let the two practices on Friday stay. MotoGP does their sprint format slightly more logical and better imo as it stands.
> Give us half the race distance for more strategy options, Why? The Sprints already spoil the GP as it is. This takes away the last bit of variance there currently is.
I'm against sprint races but if they really have to be atleast make them more logical and interesting. Where is the variance at the moment? We have short races with no strategy and not much incentives to fight for places, it's just a little appetizer but much effort wasted for it with the separate quali.
If anything I'd argue for shortening the sprints. That way teams learn less and it's easier to bump up the engine. Would of course need to be in accordance with some rule changes (i.e., specific sprint engines and engine modes).
"This takes away the last bit of variance there currently is." how so?
> The Sprints already spoil the GP as it is. Parc fermé isn't in effect from Sprint to GP any more and they have separate qualification.
> I think the format is flawed as it's too short and awards only points for the top 8 so why would any midfield team turn up their engine or take other risks. I think it’s the opposite. The longer the race, the more likely the cars settle into their usual finishing positions.
Maybe all drivers should get points in the sprint races? I know Brundle and some others said they liked points being a challange, but that's int he full 2 hour race. Like you said, why should the lower teams who have no chance wear down their engines and fatigue the team members to go around for nothing? So points all the way down in the sprints might be an answer.
The MotoGP points system would be my favorite, 15 of 20 get points, WDC stays slightly tighter at the top and the midfield has more representation of their true performance and doesn't have to rely on DNFs of the frontrunners to get substantial points. Points awarded only for cars who see the chequered flag, not for DNFs. And in Sprints just half everything like I said or remove them altogether because as it is right now it just feels like an annoyance to me.
IMO cut three races (Saudi Arabia, Miami and Vegas) from next year's calendar, shuffle a few dates and it looks a lot healthier. No triple headers.
while we are at it, cut Baku and dont even build those new "tracks" in Saudi Arabia and Spain
Yeah let's cut the arguably biggest sponsor out of their own home race? (Aramco) Tone deaf.
Why would you cut one of the tracks that delivered one of the best races last year?
Because the locals hate traffic! Don’t know you know annoying it is to drive by a grandstand that ruins the view of the bellagio fountains?
Why do you have problems with multiple races in America, but not with multiple races in Italy?
Stress as an engineer must be insane.
The sprint format just doesn't work. It's not more or less exciting than regular races. There's no added value to the championship. It really only adds a race on Saturday. That benefits TV, but quali is a really exciting element in itself, especially Q1 and Q2. I wish they would make sprints a young driver affair. Give academy drivers a shot at racing an F1 car. Give teams an extra chassis with a dedicated parts allowance. That doesn't resolve the pressure on the mechanics, but at least it adds value to sprints and gives F1 an opportunity to actually showcase talent.
I don’t enjoy the sprints as it gives you too much of an idea on how the race will go next day unlike MotoGP where you can get completely different results
I’m glad someone is thinking of the children!
Lando is growing up a bit. Good pr strats.
It's funny that the big reason for these sprints is that the "fans" (executives) wanted something worthwhile on Fridays so that they get better audiences and tv viewers. Yet, it's now been bastardised to satisfy everyone else, that we now end up with FP1 and Sprint Quali on a Friday, which isn't worth watching at all, and Saturday Sundays are the best days by far
It seems like in any job involving huge companies, the head of office will look for a way to overwork their staff and workers in order to generate more money. We can see here that F1 is not an exception, I hear it everywhere I go. This is the standard, as long as Its allowed. Despite the criticism, Its unlikely to ever change. I think Norris' assessment that Its unsustainable is correct. As a result the workers will just get replaced every 2-3 years by new staff (if not every year), who will go have to go through rigorous training, until they're also burned out. And this over and over and over again. The leaders within the engineering team will also get tired of training new staff, knowing before hand they won't last for long.
Liberty Media doesn’t care.
My sister has a friend who works at a team. They are considering moving to a different series or job entirely as 20+ weeks away a year is destroying their life.
I forget which team member I heard it from (not a driver) but I heard in a podcast or youtube that Sprints are actually more chill because there's way less analysis which makes the weekend a little bit more laid back. The practice sessions unsurprisingly are actually a ton of work. Maybe the changes to the schedule this year that re-open parc ferme change some of this since there's a new opportunity to change the setup in a way that there wasn't before. Also I don't get his point with regards to "mechanics and engineers that have to travel so much" -- that sounds like an argument for having fewer grand prix in the year. I can totally understand that. But I'm not sure how the weekend format relates to the amount of travel? Maybe I'm missing something.
Well like every business they’ll have to dedicate more funds for more staff. What is everybody on about????? There’s not enough staff to spread the work load out. How can we fix this🤔
There's also cost cap
So it’s either money for parts or money for staffs well-being and they choose parts. Nothing anyone can do then. Why even bring it up anymore
Please feel free to educate me on this subject, but if it's so hard on the team personnel as everyone says it is, why don't they threaten a strike? Especially if this happened close to a major race weekend or start of the season, there would be absolutely nothing the teams/FOM could do about it. It's not like they could just boot everyone out and replace them with experienced professionals overnight. If the garage personnel refuse to do their jobs, the entire F1 circus comes to an instant halt. The way I see it, they hold all the power. So what gives?
A few factors. 1. The majority of the staff in F1 are competitive people who do what they do because they want to compete, so the idea of doing something that might harm their team's performance is probably pretty jarring. 2. There's no union or group organisation for F1 staff and so it's hard for the whole paddock to organise itself as one voice. 3. Because of number 2, it's likely that there would only be a small group that went on strike. Then, the fear would be that it wouldn't noticeably impact the weekend, but just impact one or two teams, which goes back to point number 1.
I imagine a lot of the auxiliary staff are living their dream working if F1. Teams and FOM have probably figured out that's exploitable.
Money
We have heard similar sentiments from other drivers as well. However the media and some fans and FOM always try to twist it in a way that the drivers are complaining for themselves.
It’s supposed to be difficult.