The inspiration for F1's proposed qualifying shake-up

The debate over a possible switch to a four-part Formula 1 qualifying system for 2020 represents something of a test case as the championship heads towards potentially much bigger format changes for '21 and beyond.

This time last year we had an example on the technical regulations side. After an Australian Grand Prix that featured little overtaking, an initiative started by Jean Todt to help the cars follow more easily was discussed by the FIA, F1 and the teams, and aero changes were eventually pushed through. The consensus was it was better to try something new now rather than wait for wholesale changes a couple of years down the line.

That philosophy has now been applied to the sporting regulations, but with a few differences. Instead of starting with Jean Todt and the FIA, the impetus for four-part qualifying came from F1's owners. And unlike last year, when time was short and the aero changes had to be fast-tracked, this time discussions have been underway for a while.

The four-part concept has been bounced back and forth between the team bosses in the Strategy Group, and the team managers of the Sporting Working Group.

The latter body, which has the specific remit of debating the detail of proposed regulation changes, met in Shanghai last week. The team representatives were joined by Steve Nielsen - former Tyrrell and Renault team manager, and now sporting director of F1 with a focus on rule changes - and FIA technical boss Nikolas Tombazis.

What's the debate about? In essence, F1 has been looking for ways of spicing up qualifying, and that quest - like other proposed sporting regulation changes for 2021 that we don't yet know about - has been driven by market research conducted with groups of fans worldwide.

Liberty set up a special department to do that research, and the results have become increasingly important in terms of determining the direction F1 will take in years to come.

Market research suggests fans want a more exciting system. F1 has learned many only tune in for the battle for pole. That's bad news for broadcasters, who have a one-hour slot to sell

"Because it's never been done before we don't have lessons learned yet," Ross Brawn told Autosport recently. "We haven't done the full cycle in terms of changing things in response to the market research and seeing were it goes.

"We have in smaller areas. And it is all about what questions you ask. If you ask a fan, 'Do you want to see closer racing and more overtaking?', the answer is a clear yes.

"No-one is ever going to say no to that. But then it's getting deeper than that. What aspects do they love, is it about the drivers, is it about the teams, is it the combination, is it the tracks, the format of the racing?

"And there's a lot of very useful stuff coming out of the market research. We've got some very experienced people in the company, but it's a new thing for F1, so we need to just proceed a little bit cautiously. But there's a lot of good stuff."

In terms of qualifying, that market research has suggested that fans want a more exciting system, which is no surprise. More specifically, F1 has learned many people only tune in for the final segment, to watch the battle for pole. That's bad news for broadcasters, who have a one-hour show to sell to their advertisers.

The idea for four segments is a simple one - it adds more "jeopardy" by ensuring that the top guys have to get over three hurdles just to make it into the battle for pole in Q4, and it gives them more opportunity to stumble.

In addition, the current Q1, Q2 and Q3 session timings of 18, 15 and 12 minutes would be replaced by four shorter sessions of 12, 12, 10 and 10 minutes - making the whole process move along a lot faster, while giving teams less thinking time and less opportunity to react to changing circumstances.

Overall track time would drop from 45 to 44 minutes, so in that sense fans won't lose out much, at least in terms of how long the circuit is officially green. How busy the track will be when it's open, especially in the all important final session, is another matter.

The way teams will make use of their tyre allocation in a switch from three sessions to four is a key issue, because Pirelli has made it clear that it is not keen to provide any extra sets. The Italian company's F1 boss Mario Isola points out that even one extra set per car won't be decisive.

"Now we have quali in three parts," Isola explains. "And they reach the quali sessions with seven sets of tyres in total - they start with 13, they return six, they have seven. In these seven they have usually one hard and one medium, that are the two mandatory sets for the race, and five softs. With these five softs they do the three segments.

"But if you want to do two runs per segment, you should need six sets. So they are already short by one, making a very basic calculation. If you add Q4, and you want to run two sets per segment, you need eight sets of softs, not just one additional.

"So which is the target? To have one run, two runs, a mix of one and two? You want to add unpredictability limiting the number of tyres? Or you want to give everybody the possibility to run two sets per segment?

"It's important to define the target. If we understand better the target then we can work for a solution that's in line with the target. Otherwise we add one set of tyres.

"OK, it's a set of softs of course, because it's based on quali. That means they have eight sets in total, but still one of hard and one of medium, so in terms of the race it is not going to change anything, strategies and so on. And then they have six sets of softs for four segments, so in theory, they are short by two..."

The other novel element of the four-part system is that the mandatory starting tyres will be the compound used in the final Q4 session, and not as now, in the penultimate Q2 session.

Behind the big three teams, the other two drivers who make Q4 have very little incentive to go out - which will detract from the final session track action

The general idea is to move away from the frustrating current situation where the top teams are so fast that they can get through Q2 on the medium tyre, and then have an in-built advantage over the rest of the top 10, who invariably use the softest tyre in Q2, and have to start the race on it.

Last weekend in China the top five qualifiers were able to start on mediums, while those starting sixth to 10th were on softs. As the race was to prove, some of them were vulnerable to those with a free choice behind, who could start on mediums.

The theory is that the top eight qualifiers will use softs in Q4 and therefore have to start on them, leaving the rest with a free choice so they are likely to be on the more race-friendly mediums. However, there are two issues with that assumption.

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff has suggested the pacesetters are likely to come to the conclusion that they have to start on mediums, and will opt to use them in Q4 anyway, on the basis that it will be a strategy no-brainer - even if it means putting a lot of faith in the fact a team's rivals will make the same choice. That might not happen at Monaco or a few other places where track position is everything but, in general terms, it makes sense.

Secondly, there's the issue of seventh and eighth places. On 2019 form we can assume that the top six slots will usually be filled by the six cars from the top three teams.

The other two drivers who make Q4, knowing that they will almost certainly start from seventh and eighth unless something unexpected happens to the big boys, have very little incentive to go out - which will detract from the final session track action.

You could argue that that is the case now with Q3, but there are four cars battling for seventh to 10th, and that's a big spread. If it's just seventh and eighth at stake, why would you make a serious attempt on the soft tyre? Especially if both 'midfield' cars that make it through are from the same team.

"I'm not convinced qualifying is the biggest issue in F1 today" Alfa Romeo team boss Frederic Vasseur

Those are the sort of issues that have been batted around in the various meetings. The key thing about the most recent gathering in Shanghai was that two teams, Williams and McLaren, had undertaken some extensive simulation work, which suggested the changes would not create the extra excitement that Liberty wants to see.

"We have a good format, if we want to change it, we have to pay a lot of attention not to make a mistake," says Isola. "I'm not saying that the current format is perfect, there are some details that can be improved.

"I know that nobody wants to see part of the quali where we have no cars running on track for example, it's quite boring. But if we want to change it, we need to pay attention, because at the moment we have something that is working."

Enthusiasm among the teams for change is limited, to say the least, especially after the embarrassing failure of the elimination system approved at the last minute on Bernie Ecclestone's watch for 2016, and dropped almost immediately. It goes back to the old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

"Some people obviously think we can do better," says Haas team principal Gunther Steiner. "But the consensus is we need to be sure that it's better. We had this scenario a few years ago when we changed it, and then we changed it back, so I think people are looking into it and then by talking and putting all the possible scenarios in place there will be a solution.

"Is it worthwhile to go there, or should we stay with something that's not broken? There is more than one thing, it's very complex. There's always risk, and nobody wants to the risk, so like I said, it isn't really broken, so why should we fix it?"

Alfa Romeo's Frederic Vasseur adds: "They want to have more of a lottery. But we have to take care also, because I'm not sure that it will happen like this. As always after one or two events we will reach a convergence and the normal situation, and it won't change any more.

"There is no perfect solution. And imagine that you have two Renaults, two McLarens or two Alfa Romeos in Q4. It can happen that seventh and eighth, they won't be part of the quali. And in this case it will probably be the opposite of the target.

"Anyway, I'm not convinced that qualifying is the biggest issue in F1 today."

"It doesn't make a lot of sense to us," says Racing Point technical director Andy Green. "There's a lack of tyres, and it seems to promote the top three teams even further ahead. That to me doesn't seem like closing the field up and making for better racing.

"Qualifying is probably one of the least broken parts. For the moment the qualifying spectacle works, and it does what we set out for it to do all those years ago. We've tried tweaking it a few times, and it hasn't really made it any better."

In the Shanghai discussions, the team that showed the most enthusiasm for the change was Renault. A cynic might suggest the Enstone outfit has more to gain than anyone else, and it was with appropriate timing that - two days after the meeting - its two cars ended up seventh and eighth on the grid.

To get there they had to use soft tyres, and the drivers were at the sharp end of the group stranded between the medium starters ahead and behind. However, as noted with a four-part system, the last couple of cars to make Q4 could routinely opt out of the fight for position, make a token effort to qualify, and start on the mediums. Renault could very often be in that position.

"First it's a change that the commercial rights holder is massively supporting," says Renault team boss Cyril Abiteboul. "We don't see any major downside to it. On that basis we have no reason not to be supportive.

"Secondly, we've seen that part of the plan was a change of race tyre regulation, whereby you have to start from your qualifying tyre from Q4, rather than the tyre that you used in the previous session. We think that's good for the sport. It's sorting the problem that we had in a race like Shanghai.

"But even if I take a little bit of distance from that particular set of circumstances I think it's good because it will mix things up a little bit. So we are supportive on that basis. The problem is that it's a project that was kicked off a while ago with Charlie [Whiting], and with his passing it is now being picked up by other people, there is still a little bit of dialogue."

Isn't Renault behind it largely because it expects or hopes to be the team that can target seventh and eighth, and reap the benefits? Abiteboul smiles.

"I see your point. But you're referring to a bigger problem, which is the problem F1 is facing with the two-tier situation. And anything you will do will just be cosmetic in relation to that bigger problem.

"It's something that can easily be changed or modified, because maybe there is an attractiveness to try and do something. But I think we should focus all our energy and effort in fixing the bigger problem of F1.

"We need to be clear that it's not going to address all the problems of F1, so we need to manage expectations in relation to a change of qualifying format. Having said that, if there are simple tricks to make it look a little bit better, why not?"

Abiteboul and the others are right - qualifying is just a small part of a very big picture.

However, at least F1 and the FIA are exploring new ways of doing things, and doing it with some thought. As noted, qualifying is something of a test case in terms of a sporting regulations change inspired by Liberty's market research working its way through the system, and undergoing thorough debate. There will be much more to come.