this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
39 points (97.6% liked)
Formula 1
8985 readers
135 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| 🇸🇬 Singapore | 20-22 Sep |
| 🇺🇸 United States | 18-20 Oct |
| 🇲🇽 Mexico | 25-27 Oct |
| 🇧🇷 Brazil | 01-03 Nov |
| 🇺🇸 United States | 21-23 Nov |
| 🇶🇦 Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| 🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know everyone likes to shit on sprints, but I'm ok with the FIA experimenting if only to avoid things getting stale. My suggestion would be to run the sprint in reverse qualifying order so even back markers get to fight for some points and you could have a ton of overtakes.
One of the biggest issues with the sprints is that many of the potential good formats are automatically off the table. We won't get something fun like reverse grids anytime soon.
At the moment it's all fairly new and constantly changing but at the end of the day it's nothing unique. It's just a shorter race.
a reverse grid is going to set up too many crash situations with all the inevitable passing. then that brings in a lot of questions about wrecking cars a day before the real race and how all this affects the budget caps
theoretically they could exclude costs related to direct contact in a sprint race from the budget
but that would mean someone has to audit costs and determine if the damage was actually related to contact on a sprint race, which seems like a headache
I don't think just because there's more passing automatically means more crashes. If anything the faster cars would take it easy on the first lap (when most incidents occur) knowing they have the speed to overtake once all the craziness is over.
All that means wasting the first few laps in a 1/3 race that only gives points up to the 8th place. The only way for the 20th to get to the points is to full throttle from the get go.
What would stop the fastest teams from doing their utmost best to qualifying last, thus getting the wanted top spot in sprint and sail away with the victory? Any metric used by FIA to identify or mitigate 'slowness' is going to be a shit-show as teams can offer up valid excuses, like 'this is not an exact science, we just had bad luck'
And then we have the biggest issue with this: this is a high performance sport, being first is literally the point. And you punish that by dropping these down the grid? You will find no driver in favour of this I would think.
I assume he meant reverse grid for sprint but normal grid for race - so you still want to qualify first to have the best chance in the race where there are more points up for grabs.
I like this, drop the sprint shootout. 1 quali, reverse sprint normal race
It would give Perez something to win each race.