How reviving legendary names could help F1's return

Formula 1 aims to hold 15-18 races in the rest of 2020, should global progress and recovery from the coronavirus pandemic allow a revised schedule of events to take place.

The 'targeted' calendar, with the uncertainty understandably emphasised, would take the teams from a European season in July/August, eastwards to Asia in September/October, to the Americas in October/November, and them, ideally, to the Middle East for a December conclusion.

Problems are already arising. The UK government's decision to impose a 14-day quarantine period for any new arrivals (beyond a list of exemptions that is generally dedicated to emergency and security workers, plus those whose jobs are key to keeping the economy working as much as it can given the current restrictions) has hit Silverstone's hopes of holding two races in late July/early August hard.

It is far from certain that this means there will be no British GP in 2020. Firstly, the government's policies are regularly changed (for right or wrong, depending on your political persuasion!), and secondly it's pretty damn hard to predict just what the world will look like in two months' time. The unexpected can never be ruled out.

But, so far at least, nothing has scuppered F1's plan to start its delayed 2020 season with two races at the Red Bull Ring in Austria. The draft calendar circulated to F2 and F3 teams earlier this month indicated that those events would take place on 3-5 July, and then a week later on 10-12 July. The following Silverstone 'double-header' was slated for two weeks afterwards, but Hockenheim and the Hungaroring are already being lined up as potential replacements for those slots.

No one can predict the future, but we can at least wonder about one very specific issue - and given many of us still have lots of time to consider the charmingly trivial, let's do that in genteel style.

So-called double-header events can be problematic for motorsport teams. While they make considerable sense in terms of logistics (if all the necessary kit and personnel is being hauled to a far-away location, getting two events out of that effort makes a lot of sense), they are not loved by those charged with generating corporate messages from motorsport.

Now, yes, that is a hideously unsexy argument, but those with money and power often make their voices heard in such a way, and get results.

By way of a case in point, let's consider the 2018-19 Formula E finale in New York (above) last summer. While Jean-Eric Vergne was crashing (and controversially shouting) his way to a second title in two years, the double-header's races were won by Sebastian Buemi and Robin Frijns. So, who won the 2019 New York E-Prix - Nissan e.dams or Envision Virgin Racing? The answer is both, which is where the problem arises.

The slated one-week gap would provide some relief for the winner of the opening 2020 Austrian GP, but 'The Austrian Grand Prix 2' is not a good title. Nor is 'The Austrian Grand Prix 2: This-time-Leclerc-won't-leave-the-inside-open'.

As ever in F1, what sounds simple conceptually is much more complex in reality

This, and we appreciate it is a very minor issue, could be solved by selling the race's name. After all, F1 is right up there when it comes to commercialising competition. There's even a historical precedent, albeit in non-championship form, with the 1971 Questor Grand Prix pitting F1 drivers and machinery against US-based Formula A racers to inaugurate the Ontario Motor Speedway.

The Questor Corporation's bosses wanted to use the race to bring its name to a new audience, an approach that still fits F1's sponsorship model. The problem will be that in early July the initial phase of the pandemic is unlikely to be over, and the economic shock will be biting. Autosport has been told that sponsorship deals are still being done (after all, those budgets have to be spent or they won't be given again, as the understanding goes), but this is far from guaranteed.

So, as uncertainty is already playing havoc with F1's plans to get the 2020 season going, perhaps it would be wiser to just pick a race title and stick to it.

There are plenty of historical throw-backs that could be used. Some are practical but dull - such as the Monza GP that ran before the Second World War (and as an F2 race on occasion post-war).

Some are just plain geographically wrong but still went ahead - such as the Swiss GP at Dijon in 1982 (above) or the Luxembourg GP at the Nurburgring in 1997-1998. Some are iconic but problematic - such as the European Grand Prix being given to Baku's inaugural event in 2016. And some, such as the (non-championship) Grand Prix des Nations, which was held in Geneva three times shortly after WW2, are just lovely.

But perhaps an altogether more historically pleasing idea would be to revive legendary race names where appropriate, indeed, available.

The BRDC International Trophy was for so long a major non-championship F1 race at Silverstone, which could provide positive recognition to the circuit's owner if brought back in 2020. The Mediterranean GP and San Remo GP names have major significance in Italy (although, judging by the draft calendar given to the support categories, it's not a country currently in line for a double-header). Reviving the Eifelrennen title would be interesting if a German venue is required to host more than one race - if somewhat problematic given that event took place at the Nurburgring and not Hockenheim...

As ever in F1, what sounds simple conceptually is much more complex in reality.

So, perhaps an easier and more satisfying solution would be to name the second leg of the F1 double-headers in memory of legendary drivers from the countries involved. Taking Austria and Britain again as examples, 'The Niki Lauda GP' and 'The Stirling Moss GP' seem like acceptable ways to honour two great drivers we have recently lost.

Of course, any such consideration would have to be done with suitable sensitivity and gravitas, but it could just provide a positive and appropriately no-nonsense touch in times of overwhelming uncertainty.