F1 must go extreme with qualifying changes or leave it

Qualifying is rarely cited as an aspect of modern Formula 1 that needs fixing by fans, yet for the second time in recent years a major revision is being mooted - in the form of the plan to increase the session from three to four segments. This raises questions about whether F1 is willing to go far enough to achieve its objectives.

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 the fact the current system at least works well is no reason not to consider improvements, so there's nothing fundamentally wrong with F1 trying to tackle what it understands to be the current 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 battle from the top teams. This is what makes the hour of qualifying so compelling for those willing to watch some of the lesser names in detail.

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. You could argue this could be ameliorated by broadcasters focusing even more on the battle for 15th in Q1 or 10th in Q2, but that won't have much impact on the appetite of the majority of those watching at home.

The format does mean that the action is spread throughout the hour. Those who remember the days when qualifying was an hour-long, unsegmented, session on Saturday afternoon will also recall the complaints about watching just Minardis driving round while the track was at its worst in the early stages.

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 rates of getting one car through. Since the 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrid engines were introduced, the Q2 rate has remained much the same, with the Q3 separate rate up to 91.9%.

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. Prior to the three-segments qualifying coming in there were various experiments with new formats. One-lap qualifying was conceived to allow fans to see every driver's lap in full, but actually gave fans even less of their favourite drivers. At least with the current format you'll normally see a minimum of four quick laps - one in each of Q1 and Q2, and two in Q3 - from the big guns.

The question of reverse grids is a thorny one. But provided these are on an equitable basis rather than based on lottery they are perfectly valid

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 F1 tried an aggregate system before, in 2005, and it was ditched after six races and understandably proved not to be popular. It works well in the World Endurance Championship, but that is a multi-driver series.

There had been criticism of qualifying even before that. The one-hour qualifying session on a Saturday format was introduced in 1996, following a period when qualifying started to be shown live with increasing regularity. Qualifying for the '95 British Grand Prix was a factor in this decision, as the grid was set by Friday's session given poor conditions expected the next day and the BBC audience tuning in next day had little to watch. The change in format for 1996 ensured that there was a climactic battle on Saturday.

So currently 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 to 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 at Monaco back 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 they will all circulate predictably in pace order. Achille Varzi took that first pole position, and went on to win the Monaco Grand Prix - although it should be noted that this was after an epic battle with Tazio Nuvolari. Given 42% of world championship races have been won from pole, and 24% from second place, it's not an unreasonable objective to want to mix things up to make the racing more dramatic.

What is puzzling is that there is a desire for qualifying to be based on rewarding the cars and drivers in order of pace, yet at the same time to somehow disrupt this. Suggestions of extreme solutions such as reverse grids tend to be derided at the same time as people call for scrambled grids to be achieved by what are termed 'natural' causes.

The need to create more jeopardy for top teams is one of those. Given that luck often plays a part in teams that should advance falling, rather than the simple question of doing a good job, there's a certain cognitive dissonance in wanting the fastest to be rewarded with advantageous starting positions but also wanting to make it less likely they will be. There seems to be a desire for creating more random starting orders but somehow by non-random means.

The question of reverse grids is a thorny one. But provided these are on an equitable basis rather than based on lottery they are perfectly valid - even if it does run the risk of robbing us of qualifying laps. If you base it on championship position, which is logical, then qualifying is rendered defunct unless you opt to award points for it, and at that point things start to get very messy.

But just because it's dignified by time doesn't mean that starting cars in pace order is a fair or balanced way either. It's certainly the case that mixing things up makes for great racing. The 2005 Japanese GP is the most famous example, when weather scrambled the start order 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 now 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 - provided the problem of needing to make Pirelli supply extra tyres to make it works is addressed, that is. 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 because it's very much fiddling around the edges.

But there are wider questions surrounding qualifying and its place 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.