OPINION PIT + PADDOCK18 APRIL 2019 AUTOSPORT.COM 11ualifying is rarely cited by fans as an aspect of
modern Formula 1 that needs fixing, yet for the
second time in recent years a major revision is
being mooted, the plan being to increase the
session from three to four segments.
Given what happened in 2016, when the disastrous and ill-
thought-through elimination qualifying format was hastily
introduced, met with derision and then axed after two races,
the phrase ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ springs to mind. But
there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with F1 trying to tackle
what it understands to be weaknesses.
The main criticism of the current qualifying format is actually
one of its strengths. During Q1 and Q2, the real action surrounds
those competing to avoid elimination rather than the top teams’
battle. This is what makes the hour of qualifying so compelling
for those willing to watch some of the lesser names more closely.
But much of the audience primarily has eyes for the top drivers
and teams, hence complaints from broadcasters that many only
tune in for what they see as the business end of qualifying. So
while the current format works well, and makes the qualifying
hour more gripping than the old slow-burn approach, there’s
no reason to be complacent. The proposal to bring in Q4 will
intensify what is already a good format, but the desire to
create more jeopardy for the top teams seems misplaced.
It’s true that, with three rather than two sessions to avoid
the dropzone, there is increased opportunity for things to go
wrong, but currently it’s not exactly difficult for those at the
front to advance to the final top-10 shootout.
Since three-stage qualifying was adopted in 2006, the top three
teams in the constructors’ championship have a 96.7% strike rate
of advancing to Q2 and 88.8% of making Q3 – and that’s counting
both cars rather than their stats on getting one car through.
In many cases, the failures to advance were down to mechanical
problems and incidents, meaning that the hope of a fast car being
eliminated in an earlier qualifying stage on merit is small. Adding
a fourth segment of qualifying would create greater opportunity
for this to happen, but won’t make a huge difference.
Qualifying can be difficult to get right. Before three-segment
qualifying came in, there were various experiments with
different formats. One-lap qualifying was conceived to
allow fans to see every driver’s lap in full, but actually gave
them even less of their favourite drivers and lots of time
watching those they were less interested in.
It’s tempting to suggest some kind of aggregate system
would work well. Make drivers carry their fastest laps from
each segment through so that the final order is decided by
three laps being added together, culminating in Q3. But F
tried an aggregate system before, in 2005, and it was ditched
after six races because,understandably, it was not popular.
So the segments-based qualifying approach seems the best
one, although it would be foolish to think having four of them
would be anything other than an incremental gain. But there
is one other question that arises from this desire for change –
namely the clash inherent in the fundamental basis of qualifying
and the apparent need to increase jeopardy for the big teams.
Qualifying exists with one specific objective – to arrange the
cars on the grid in pace order. This was pioneered in grand prix
racing in Monaco in 1933, yet in recent times there has been a
desperation to mix this up. It stands to reason that if you line cars
up in pace order, it increases the chances that they will all circulate
predictably in pace order. Achille Varzi took that first pole
position, and went on to win the Monaco Grand Prix.
What is puzzling is that there’s a desire for qualifying to be based
on rewarding the cars and drivers in order of pace, yet at the same
time to somehow mix this up. Suggestions of extreme solutions
such as reversed grids tend to be derided at the same time as people
call for scrambled grids for what are termed ‘natural’ causes.
It’s certainly true that mixing things up makes for great racing.
The 2005 Japanese GP is a famous example, when weather
scrambled the grid and Kimi Raikkonen surged through to win
on the last lap from 17th on the grid. There’s also an interesting
case study in Formula E, whereby the four qualifying groups are
set in championship order and the leaders go out first to run on
the track when it’s at its slowest. This has played a part in what’s
been a dramatic season to date, despite criticism in some quarters.
So the Q4 idea is not a bad one as such. It will likely make a tiny
dent in the problems F1 has detected with qualifying, even if it
won’t come close to solving them, meaning that it’s entirely
understandable that the plan has been questioned. But there
are wider questions surrounding qualifying that F1 needs to
consider. If there is a genuine desire to mix things up more,
perhaps more extreme solutions need to be conceived...
Either that, or stick with the conventional approach of
qualifying in pace order. Both approaches are valid, but
what is frustrating is the halfway-house approach.Formula 1’s desire to improve the spectacle of how grid order is decided is perfectly
laudable, but tinkering with the format won’t suddenly crank up the drama
EDD STRAWQualified approval
“If there is a genuine desire to mix
things up more, perhaps more
extreme solutions are needed”
Q