Q: As I write this we are now just four weeks away from the start of the 2023 Honda Indy Toronto weekend. The 2023 race serves as the final running of the event under the current contract between IndyCar and the city of Toronto. A lot of discussion has occurred in recent years regarding the long-term future of the race. For one, Exhibition Place is becoming significantly overcrowded, presenting many challenges for race organizers. The current pit lane is filled to the brim, with some questioning whether more cars could be accommodated if the grid continues to expand. The site also has more and more events every year, meaning future races will have to compete with other happenings, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Do you believe the race will continue beyond 2023? If not, do you think IndyCar will look for alternative venues in the area (CTMP or maybe a new street course), or will the race move elsewhere? Some people believe CTMP is not suitable for IndyCar and Circuit Gilles Villeneuve looks like it will be reserving a potential second weekend for NASCAR, so I really don’t see IndyCar having a presence in Canada if Toronto is dropped from the schedule.
Dylan, Kingston, ON, Canada
MP: Anybody who knows motor racing is confident that IndyCar and Mosport (CTMP) are not meant to be combined without a ton of safety upgrades to the circuit, and to be fair, I’d hate to see the track change just for IndyCar. I’m confident IndyCar will continue racing at Exhibition Place and better pit lane solutions are forthcoming.
Q: Assuming Alex Palou’s management is hunting for a 2024 F1 seat, which teams would have the most interest? I can’t imagine McLaren cutting loose either Norris or Piastri, so it would have to be someone other than who he is contracted to currently, correct?
Would AlphaTauri pick Palou over Liam Lawson? Would Sauber replace Bottas or Zhou with Palou? Would Haas replace either Hulkenberg or Magnussen?
Is there a 2024 F1 seat for Palou?
Ed Joras, Kansas City
CHRIS MEDLAND: To answer this, I think you’ve got to look at what each team wants from more than just a driving point of view. Of the three options you suggest, I think one of them has real potential and that’s at AlphaTauri. Red Bull clearly wanted to bring an American driver into F1 with Colton Herta (through AlphaTauri last year) but he wouldn’t get a Super License, and then Williams beat them to the punch with Logan Sargeant’s promotion.
The fact it is attractive to Red Bull to have a driver who is popular in the States driving for its other team is based on the number of American sponsors it has — namely title partner Oracle — while AlphaTauri similarly launched in New York this year. Helmut Marko would gladly snatch a strong talent from Zak Brown from an F1 point of view (as he was trying to do with Herta) so I think Palou would be of interest.
The sticking point there is Liam Lawson, who is doing a good job in Super Formula and whom Marko rates. If he can win the title this year I can see him getting a seat, but if not then it could well be that he wants to take a look at Palou.
Sauber could potentially be an option if Zhou was replaced, but I think that’s a team generally happy with its lineup. The same can be said of Haas, which is more interested in doing the opposite of the other teams and prioritizing getting the Haas Automation brand grown in other markets than North America.
Q: When is F1 going to make a change to the qualifying format? I still watch qualifying since it is the only exciting part of a typical F1 weekend, and usually the jockeying for each driver to have adequate track space is slightly comical as some drivers angle for a mile of clear track ahead to set a time that gets them knocked out of Q1. But this past weekend was scandalous, and peaked when Carlos Sainz did his best impression of Eddie Cheever at the start of the 1992 Indy 500 and parked his car in the braking zone into the chicane prior to the start finish straight. Is F1 really going to wait until someone rear-ends a slower car during qualifying to make a change?
A format splitting the field into two groups based on practice times, similar to what IndyCar has had in place since 2008, would ensure that no more than 10 cars would be on track during any qualifying session and would greatly ease the track congestion issues during the first two groups.
Final question: Why didn’t Ocon get the meatball flag for a rear wing that looked like it had all the stability of the last bookshelf I tried to build?
Eric Lawrence
CM: I don’t think there needs to be a change to the format, there just needs to be a firmer ruling over the speeds drivers can drop to on any lap. As you say, it was ridiculous to have so much backing up in an area of the track where drivers are at top speed approaching the final chicane. I think the Q1-Q2-Q3 format works really well on the whole, though, so I wouldn’t want to see that change (I remember elimination qualifying, and 12 laps maximum in an hour, and one flying lap per driver, none of it was anywhere near as entertaining and effective as this solution).
That said, I don’t think the IndyCar format is bad by any stretch, I just don’t think the F1 format needs to change — only the approach to starting a lap does.
On Ocon, we’d actually noticed the wing being loose in the media center long before Lando Norris said anything, but I think race control only picked up on it due to Norris’ messages. They came late in the race and the stewards did note that his wing was loose, but since late last year the approach has been to contact the team and ask for data that proves something isn’t about to became a serious safety issue. It seems that information was forthcoming from Alpine because there was no message to pit the car and also no protest from a rival team over its state (as there was with Haas and Fernando Alonso in Austin last year, you may remember).
Q: Here’s my plan for getting more F1 teams on the grid(s):
Enter 16-20 teams. Divide them into two divisions by geography. Two Grands Prix each Grand Prix weekend: one in each division. Say a 20-race season. Then, take the top half of each division and have those teams race in a playoff series of four-six races, with the bottom two teams (or whatever) dropping out at the end of each race. The championship could be a six-eight car race.
Sure, maybe it’s a fever dream. Sure, we’d have to jiggle the points system a bit. But wouldn’t it be glorious to have two GP on a Sunday? As MTV used to put it, too much is never enough.
Brian, Los Angeles
CM: I’m all for more teams, but I’m not totally sure this is the solution! I just think a 22/24/26-car grid will always be better than 20, simply because there’s an increased chance of good racing between different cars. Not that I think we’d see such a performance divide under the cost cap, but some of the battles between the likes of Manor and Caterham were exciting given what was at stake between those teams. F1 has got itself into a place where ever more fans are invested in teams and drivers that are not fighting for wins, so it seems the perfect time to expand the grid in my book.