Q: No one seems to be able to agree on how the sprint races should be run. No matter what F1 does, it seems fans, journalists and drivers find a way to criticize them. I don’t like them myself, but if we have to have them, I think I’ve come up with an idea.
How about making the sprint races completely separate from the world championship? Call it the F1 Sprint Series. It will be its own championship with points awarded for every position, so drivers down the field have motivation to attack. You can have bonus points if you want to, as well. Go the whole hog and make it as different as possible from the Grands Prix.
The weekend format would look something like this:
FRIDAY – Sprint practice 30 minutes, one-lap sprint qualifying, sprint race 75 km
SATURDAY – Grand Prix practice 60 minutes, Grand Prix qualifying
SUNDAY – Grand Prix
This means Friday is “Sprint day” and then once Friday is over, we can focus on the main event. The result of all this is that everyone gets what they want. Purists like myself and Verstappen don’t see the championship get tainted by the sprints, but race promoters and Domenicali get their action-packed weekends.
Please appreciate this idea is in its embryo stages and needs fleshing out, but what do you think of it as an initial plan?
Jordan, Warwickshire, UK
CHRIS MEDLAND: I don’t think it’s bad as an initial plan, although I imagine teams and drivers will still say they won’t take risks because they want to prioritize the main championship. That’s part of the issue with the change, in that it slightly dilutes the main grand prix (not ideal) but not enough to have people give it everything if they’re outside the points, because there’s so little riding on it.
We might see the final sprint of the year take on more significance in a season when teams are tied in the constructors’ standings and countback could come into play, but other than that I think it’s never going to be universally loved because it won’t provide a big enough reward.
To your original point though, I don’t know if F1 will push in the direction of a standalone championship or full doubleheader race weekends, but the baby steps with the sprint so far have brought us to a point that teams were against a few years ago, so I imagine this isn’t the final iteration…
Q: Pierre Gasly’s car caught fire in Baku FP1. Are there on-board fire suppression systems in the F1 and Indy cars? Thirty years ago I raced a Caldwell D13 Formula Vee and that car has a fire system. It’s hard to believe, with all the money invested in the race cars, that they don’t have fire systems.
Jim Doyle, Hoboken, NJ
CM: Yes, they’re in F1. There’s actually a full article on fire extinguishers in the technical regulations that states: “All cars must be fitted with a fire extinguishing system which will discharge into the cockpit and into the engine compartment.”
These systems have to be from an approved FIA list, and must work even when the car is upside down. The regulations also say that “the fire extinguishing system must discharge 95% of its contents at a constant pressure in no less than 10 seconds and no more than 30 seconds,” with the driver needing to be able to manually trigger it when sat in the car with the steering wheel on. But if the fire is outside the engine compartment, then it will need fire marshals to address it externally. The main intention is to prevent large fires or anything that can threaten the driver in a cockpit.
Q: Long-time Mailbag reader, first-time writer here. What is the point of NASCAR’s competition cautions? I’m watching the Dover race now and hear that because of the green track, there will be a comp yellow after 20 laps. Larry Mac says some teams might gamble and only change two tires. If the caution is for safety to check tire wear, why isn’t it mandatory for all cars to change four tires? Also, why are these cautions competitive? Since it’s NASCAR’s caution for safety, why don’t they line up for the restart in the order at the time of the caution? That way there is nothing to gain by taking only two or no tires, so it’s safer, right? The way it is, these cautions seem to be pointless.
Scott Chatman, Wisconsin
KELLY CRANDALL: The point of the competition caution is exactly as you understand it, which is to give Goodyear and the race teams a chance to check tire wear. Because the track is clean after all the rain and there is no rubber laid down, officials don’t want to put competitors in a position where tires are cording and wearing, and it’s going to become a big issue. So, very early in the race, a caution will be thrown. But if teams aren’t concerned based on what their driver was feeling in that first run, they won’t pit.
It’s not mandatory as you mentioned, which has always struck me as odd but NASCAR hasn’t gone down that road. Since pitting isn’t mandatory, NASCAR isn’t going to freeze the field so drivers don’t gain or lose positions. Certainly, these cautions can seem pointless but it’s something the sport has done for quite a while and again, it makes them feel comfortable giving the teams an option to see where they are at with a clean racetrack.
THE FINAL WORD
From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, May 8, 2014
Q: You actually said something nice about Ayrton Senna this week! Maybe because of the 20th anniversary of Imola. Anyway, sticking to this side of the pond, do you have any inside information from The Captain or Emmo or The Chrome Horn about Senna’s famous (but secretive) Indy car test at Firebird in 1992?
Larry Parker, Miami, FL
ROBIN MILLER: There’s no denying his ability and I’ve changed my feeling since watching the “Senna” documentary again. After the hosing he got from Balestre, I don’t blame him for taking out Prost at Suzuka in 1990. As for the Firebird test, Emerson encouraged Senna to do it because Indy cars were more race cars than all the active suspension stuff in F1. Senna was damn fast in that test — faster than Emmo — and he loved the fact the car wasn’t over-teched but he didn’t like the thought of ovals.