Formula 1 has a rare Saturday race this weekend for the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

Kimi Antonelli goes into round 15 of the season with an imposing 81-point lead in the drivers' championship over Mercedes team-mate George Russell.

What are your thoughts on having a sprint race next year at Monaco? I was very surprised to see that on the calendar, given that the race has so little chance of overtaking - Graham

Formula 1 announced the 2027 calendar last week, with the number of sprint events increased from six to 10, and one of them Monaco.

This has proved controversial with some fans.

Why pick the worst track on the calendar for overtaking to have two races in one weekend, some have wondered. What's the point of having two boring races; isn't one enough?

The thinking behind it, though, is less about the races than about qualifying, and how making Monaco a sprint could mix up the weekend.

Monaco qualifying is renowned as one of the highlights of the season. In that case, surely two great qualifying sessions is better than one?

It was also pointed out by F1 that it gives the chance of two different grid orders and therefore more variability.

There is another factor to consider, too.

Monaco is one of the most demanding tracks on the calendar, and it is renowned as somewhere drivers have to build up to the limit progressively so they can become confident with knowing how the car will behave when they get there.

Get that wrong, push too hard too soon, and the chances of an accident are considerably higher.

So asking the drivers to go straight into a qualifying after a single practice session is a really difficult challenge.

It is likely to mean more mistakes, more action, more drama, and therefore more entertainment.

The same goes for grand prix qualifying.

Yes, by then the drivers will have done a sprint race. But there are always changes made to the cars for qualifying, so again the drivers will be going in blind to some degree.

Yes, the sprint is likely to be a procession. How could it be anything else? But it adds an extra degree of jeopardy to the whole weekend.

Do you think F1 might consider the F2 approach for the virtual safety car, where drivers cannot pit under a VSC but can pit under a full safety car? As a regular viewer of both series, I think this works well in F2 and is another way to solve the jeopardy a short VSC period brings to a race. - Caroline

The VSC was discussed at the so-called FIA sporting advisory committee last week, but sources say no consensus emerged there as to potential changes.

It was also on the agenda for the F1 Commission meeting on Monday but there were no significant developments.

Lando Norris, who lost victory in Madrid by the VSC timing, said after the race that the drivers had previously discussed with the FIA the idea that the VSC should be out for a minimum of a lap so this sort of thing could not happen.

But every potential 'solution' comes with consequences. In that case, F1 might end up with a full lap of VSC just to recover a bit of debris.

The VSC was introduced so that relatively small-scale incidents could be dealt with without the lengthy disruption of a full safety car.

It's accepted that the safety car affords possibilities to gain and lose out, so why should the VSC not do the same? The argument is that, generally, these even out over the season, although the Norris case in Madrid had particularly dramatic consequences.

Antonelli benefited from this one, for example, but has lost out in other scenarios this year. For example, when the VSC gifted Lewis Hamilton the lead in Barcelona, even if that was rendered moot by Antonelli's subsequent retirement.

Why did Mercedes put George Russell on a two-stop strategy in the Spanish Grand Prix when the race has the longest pit lane of the season? George was the only driver out of the top 15 finishers on a two-stop and did this decision cost him a podium finish? - Richard

Mercedes were a bit stuck when the virtual safety car was deployed on lap 14 in Madrid.

The team had split the drivers' tyre strategies - Kimi Antonelli took the conventional strategy and started on the mediums, Russell had gone for the hards.

With overtaking so difficult in Madrid, it was always likely that one option would turn out to be sub-optimal. The timing of the VSC was very unfortunate for those who started on hard tyres because it coincided with the pit-stop window for those on mediums.

Mercedes had two choices - stay out, or pit and change tyre compound, as drivers are obligated to use two compounds during a dry grand prix.

Charles Leclerc, who also started on hards and was running immediately ahead of Russell, stayed out. Mercedes pitted in the hope of trying to beat Leclerc.

Whichever tyre Russell chose was unlikely to make it to the end, so Mercedes knew at that point they would almost certainly have to stop again.

The hard tyre was comfortably the best race tyre in Madrid, and on his mediums Russell did not have the pace to narrow the gap to Leclerc to less than it takes to do a pit stop. So there was nothing to lose by pitting again.

Team boss Toto Wolff said: "He said the tyres were not in a great shape, the mediums. We didn't think they would go to the end. (We thought) the better opportunity was not to hang out and wait for a red, but to change the tyres and get on with it."

Russell said: "Maybe I could have stayed out with Leclerc but I would have still finished behind him. Maybe I could have not pitted on to the hard again but everything I would have done would have brought us to the same position."

24-26 September

Live commentary on BBC Radio 5 Live and Sports Extra; live text updates on BBC Sport website and app

During the Madrid race, Max Verstappen was told to hand the place back to Lewis Hamilton. Which he did. However, what would happen if Lewis had fallen maybe two or three cars further back. Does Max still have to hand back the place (and lose places to other cars) or would he just have to take a penalty? - Wayne

The scenario you paint actually happened in Madrid. Verstappen also got ahead of Antonelli on the first lap, so when Red Bull told him to let Hamilton by, he also had to let the Mercedes past.

Shortly after that happened, the message "no further action" was displayed on the timing screens and television coverage over the incident.

That was because Verstappen had given the place back by then. Otherwise, he would have been penalised.

So, yes, if a driver is adjudged to have committed an offence that requires giving the place back, they must do so regardless of whether there are at that point other cars between them.

There are two examples of this from Fernando Alonso's career.

In the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix, he passed Christian Klien's Red Bull by cutting the chicane, let him by again on the straight and then passed him into Turn One.

But race director Charlie Whiting did not notice that Alonso had let Klien back past, and after some discussions with the Renault team, he demanded Alonso cede the position.

That was two laps later, by which time Alonso was seven seconds up the road.

At Silverstone in 2010, Alonso, now at Ferrari, was forced off the track by Robert Kubica when trying an overtaking move at Vale, and ended up passing the Renault driver off the track.

Because he had been forced off, Ferrari decided not to give up the position. But Whiting told them they had to, after discussions with the team.

Problem was, at exactly that point, Kubica pulled into the pits to retire, so Alonso could not give the place back - and he was given a drive-through penalty.

Before he could serve it, there was then a safety-car period which closed up the field. Penalties could not be served under a safety car, so the two situations combined dropped Alonso right to the back of the field. He ended up finishing 14th, which was a costly blow to his title hopes.