F1 Racing

No deal reached on new F1 qualifying format

By on
Photo Courtesy: BY-SA 2.5/wikipedia.org

No deal yet on the new qualifying format.

Team bosses have discussed the failure of the new qualifying format with FIA commercial boss Bernie Ecclestone and FIA governing body president Jean Todt, but no agreement has been reached.

In a report that was published in BBC, Todt and Ecclestone do not want to revert to the 2015 system, despite the team wishes to do so. Instead, a new aggregate system proposed by the FIA would have laid on the table when the FIA meets again next week.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said all parties were one in saying that the current format which was implemented on the ever of the 2016 season – where the slowest car is eliminated every 90 seconds in three sessions – was not the way forward.

“There is unwillingness from the promoter and the FIA to go back to 2015,” Horner said. A compromise has been laid on the table for now for the consideration of the teams. “Let’s have a look at what’s been out on the table today. The bottom line is if we don’t agree to a compromise, then we’re stuck with what we’ve got and everybody agrees that what we’ve got isn’t right.”

Horner and wolf both said they did not know why Ecclestone and Todt were so opposed to reverting to the 2015 system, whereby all eligible cars can run to the end of a session before the slowest few are eliminated, gradually reducing the number of running cars over the three sessions.

In a news conference Saturday, Todt revealed that race promoters wanted a new system because they feared that the 2015 system was not exciting enough. Ecclestone had long signified his desire to find a way to shuffle the grid so that the fastest cars are not always at the front.

According to Horner, a new proposal will lie on the table. It will revert to the 2015 format but each driver will have their two fastest laps being counted to their grid positions instead of just their fastest time. This new format still needed an investigation so it needs to be properly thought of and considered before being voted upon.

Photo Courtesy: BY-SA 2.5/wikipedia.org

To Top