Why settle for simplicity when you can complicate things?

The new qualifying format, intended to make this year's Australian Grand Prix more spectacular, has instead made the event less exciting. After only two races, the sport's leading figures are already calling for changes. Will those in charge listen to them?

The drivers' union has been in the spotlight this season, demanding a say in the management of Formula 1 after the resounding failure of the new qualifying format. The elimination session, imposed by the rules without prior consultation, was supposed to maintain suspense throughout the qualifying hour. Instead, in the first two Grand Prix races, the grid emptied almost immediately as teams stockpiled new tires, leaving the track deserted for most of the session.

This debacle highlights a longstanding feature of the sport: its governance often seems as unconventional as the racing itself. For three decades under Bernie Ecclestone's leadership, Formula 1 always managed to attract a considerable number of fans, even when the dominance of a single driver or team threatened to dampen enthusiasm. Whenever a monopoly seemed to take hold, promoters introduced technical or regulatory changes to revitalize the spectacle. The overhaul of tire rules in 2005, after the prolonged reign of Michael Schumacher and Ferrari, is a classic example.

But not all changes go smoothly. The latest overhaul of qualifying has been widely criticized as unnecessary, ineffective, and, to some, downright absurd. The Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) has voiced strong opposition, arguing that drivers should be involved in shaping the future of the sport. Even if the knockout format is ultimately scrapped, the pressure exerted by the GPDA could have a lasting impact. Drivers are now pushing for a say in future developments, armed with ideas that they believe could genuinely improve the spectacle. After all, who better than the men and women who live and breathe every race weekend to judge what makes Formula 1 exciting?