collapse

* Welcome

Welcome to GPWizard F1 Forum!

GPWizard is the friendliest F1 forum you'll find anywhere. You have a host of new like-minded friends waiting to welcome you.

So what are you waiting for? Becoming a member is easy and free! Take a couple seconds out of your day and register now. We guarantee, you wont be sorry you did.

Click Here to become a full Member for Free

* User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Newsletter

GPWizard F1 Forum Newsletter Email address:
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly

* Grid Game Deadlines

Qualifying

Race

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Wizzo: :good:
    March 05, 2024, 11:44:46 PM
  • Dare: my chat button is onthe bottom rightWiz
    March 03, 2024, 11:58:24 PM
  • Wizzo: Yes you should see the chat room button at the bottom left of your screen
    March 02, 2024, 11:39:55 PM
  • Open Wheel: Is there a Chat room button or something to access “Race day conversation”
    March 02, 2024, 02:46:02 PM
  • Wizzo: The 2024 Grid Game is here!  :yahoo:
    January 30, 2024, 01:42:23 PM
  • Wizzo: Hey everybody - the shout box is back!  :D
    August 21, 2023, 12:18:19 PM

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 366
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 0

There aren't any users online.

* Top Posters

cosworth151 cosworth151
16143 Posts
Scott Scott
14057 Posts
Dare Dare
12983 Posts
John S John S
11253 Posts
Ian Ian
9729 Posts

Poll

Would you be in favour of reverse grids?

Yes everywhere.
Yes at some circuits.
No its not for me.
If this happens I'm off.

Author Topic: Reverse grids?  (Read 8703 times)

Offline Jericoke

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2019, 02:00:04 AM »
Manufacters should only be allowed to supply engines and not run teams (Ferrari can be an exception because they always have been) because manufacturers are only interested in profits and selling road cars at the end of the day and they will come and go from Formula 1 as they please according to sales and board decisions.  Their domineering presence is one of the reasons that Formula 1 is in such a sorry state, so I'd rather get rid of them and revert back to independent teams.

Historically Grand Prix cars were a whole package, with the engine and car coming together.

I'm no F1 historian, but it wasn't really until the 70s that the idea of mixing and matching engines/chassis came into vogue, wasn't it?

I don't have a problem with the 'big' manufacturers being involved in the sport.  I don't feel like Mercedes or Renault are 'soulless' teams only motivated by the bottom line.  Toto and Cyril are working just as hard as Claire or Gunther with the resources they have.  Sure, they could lose their backers any moment, but that could happen to anyone.  We've seen the carpet pulled out from Sauber, Williams and Force India just as much as we've seen Toyota, Honda and BMW cut and run.

Solving the 'problems' in F1 is quite simple.  The hardest part is defining the problems.  If we want passing, we can have passing.  If we want lots of teams, we can have lots of teams.  If we want a lot of suppliers, we can have a lot of suppliers.  We just can't have all of them without some seriously political and financial will.  That's the beast that Bernie created, and we must live with.

Offline Irisado

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2019, 04:48:35 PM »
The 1950s was initally dominated by manufacturers, but they came and went rather as they tend to now.  Aside from Ferrari, it was indepedent teams which came to the fore and tended to stay for as long as they had the finance to do so.  Consider that Lotus, Tyrrell, and Brabham, for example, were three such teams that contested Formula 1 for decades, ultimately out of passion for the sport, rather than any realistic chance of winning as the years went on.

More independents certainly turned up in the 1970s, this is true, but it was hardly a new phenomenon and nor was it unexpected.  Essentially, Cosworth engines were so effective come the late 1960s and into the 1970s that providing you had a decent chassis, you could expect to regularly challenge for victories and points finishes.  You still had a meritocracy, as Formula 1 always should be, but the barrier to entry was nowhere near as problematic as it is now.

My argument  is that most of the current teams are soulless because, despite the best efforts of individuals they are either only there at the behest of the board or they are B teams, whose existence is guaranteed by the big teams and who are used as nothing more than test teams for their drivers and as customers for their parts.  This is not how Formula 1 was when I started watching it and nor is it how it should be in my opinion.

Here is the entry list from 1995:

Williams-Renault
Benetton-Renault
Ferrari
McLaren-Mercedes
Jordan-Peugeot
Ligier-Mugen Honda
Sauber-Ford
Tyrrell-Yamaha
Footwork (Arrows)-Hart
Minardi-Cosworth
Simtek-Cosworth
Pacific-Cosworth
Forti-Cosworth

Aside from Ligier being owned by Benetton (Flavio Briatore) and some smaller teams, notably Simtek, using a very limited range of components from larger teams, these were all independent outfits.  You will note the distinct lack of manufacturer owned teams and the fact that all 26 slots on the grid were filled.  Not since the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix have 26 cars been on the grid, and for much of the 2000s, the grid has been restricted to 20 cars, most of which are not independent and are 'hollowed out' teams (this idea comes from the hollowing out of the state and public-private partnerships).  I have yet to read of hear any convincing arguments to persuade me that the current entry list of teams is better or more diverse than the 1995 entry list.  Formula 1 has improved in other ways, most notably the television coverage, but that's pretty cold comfort from where I am sitting.  The rules package announced about changing the cars and tyres seems positive, but what are they going to do about stopping the manufacturer dominance of Formula 1 team ownership and how are they going to get more independent teams on the grid?  As usual, the silence on this matter from the FIA is deafening.
Soņando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline cosworth151

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2019, 02:45:24 PM »
It actually goes back to the 50's. Lotus used Coventry Climax engines from the 50's until the Ford-Cosworth DFV arrived in 1967. Scarab even used an offshoot of the Offenhauser Indy car engine.
“You can search the world over for the finer things, but you won't find a match for the American road and the creatures that live on it.”
― Bob Dylan

Offline John S

  • F1 Legend
  • ****
  • Date Registered: Jan 2007
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
  • Posts: 11253
  • 11550 credits
  • View Inventory
  • Send Money To John S
  • Max for 3rd title! - to see more Toto apoplexy.
Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2019, 04:07:08 PM »


I have yet to read of hear any convincing arguments to persuade me that the current entry list of teams is better or more diverse than the 1995 entry list.

From my viewpoint you're asking a question that can really only have a subjective answer, rather like the perennial old chestnut about who is the best all time driver in F1.

Quote
Formula 1 has improved in other ways, most notably the television coverage, but that's pretty cold comfort from where I am sitting.  The rules package announced about changing the cars and tyres seems positive, but what are they going to do about stopping the manufacturer dominance of Formula 1 team ownership and how are they going to get more independent teams on the grid?  As usual, the silence on this matter from the FIA is deafening.

The season you've picked as a comparator 1995, as far as I can remember was dominated by Renault powered cars to such an extent that it was almost embarrassing for any running anything else - Ferrari included. Over half the field failed to get a single podium and the odd outliers were just that outliers. Even then there was a huge gulf between the front few and the rest. 

The other point I dispute is the Manufacturers stranglehold currently versus bygone times. In the early part of this new century 02 to 04 there was more manufacturer involvement with direct team ownership [Ferrari, Jaguar, Renault & Toyota] along with exclusive manufacturers works engine deals from BMW and Mercedes. Again we saw the same result over half the field never got the sniff of a podium all year.

Currently there are fewer manufacturers involved in F1, could this is a problem in itself, limiting options for independent teams to make strides? Perhaps, but I think it's more a symptom of the wider motorsport scene where open competition has become such an arms race that more money is going into either new tech or 'more bang for your buck' racing series.

My favourite quote/saying that fits F1's dilemma best is:- "you can't unlearn things".
Surely having developed F1 cars to be the fastest racing machines with the most fuel efficient carbon burning engines on the planet we can hardly say that F1 has gone far off script. However some things like budget caps and occasional reverse grids might just keep the circus grounded as a proper competition.   

 
Racing is Life - everything else is just....waiting. (Steve McQueen)

Offline Irisado

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2019, 05:29:20 PM »
From my viewpoint you're asking a question that can really only have a subjective answer, rather like the perennial old chestnut about who is the best all time driver in F1.

It's also a generational question, which adds to its subjectivity even further, so I do not dispute what you are saying.  There is no reliable way of objectively measuring this issue though.

Quote
The season you've picked as a comparator 1995, as far as I can remember was dominated by Renault powered cars to such an extent that it was almost embarrassing for any running anything else - Ferrari included. Over half the field failed to get a single podium and the odd outliers were just that outliers. Even then there was a huge gulf between the front few and the rest.

The teams which finished on the podium at least once in 1995 were: Williams, Benetton, Ferrari, McLaren, Sauber, Jordan, Ligier, and Footwork (Arrows), so more than half ;).  The only teams which failed to obtain a podium finish were: Tyrrell, Minardi, Simtek, Pacific, and Forti.  For the midfield teams to obtain a podium finish in the current era of Formula 1 requires a six car pile up at the first corner to take out the top three teams.  In the past, unreliability, collisions, and driver error made it easier to hang in there and pick up points if you had a decent driver and a reliable car.  These days, this is impossible and that, to my mind, is a serious problem.  In addition, had the current points system been applied in 1995 all of the teams and the vast majority of drivers would have scored points.

It is correct that the field spread was higher in 1995, but there had been a significant series of rule changes over the winter, and whenever this happens field spread always increases.  It is also the last season in which there were two qualifying sessions held on different days.  Field spread was higher during this era of qualifying than the one hour system (I exclude one lap qualifying from 2003-2005, as this is not representative) which has been used, in various guises, since 1996.

I agree that Renault engines dominated and that Williams and Benetton took the lion's share of the wins, but that is no different to McLaren and Ferrari dominating in the late 1990s or Mercedes and Ferrari taking most of the victories in the last three years.  The battles for victory have sometimes been closer, but that closeness has been artificial because of lousy tyres and DRS.  The quality of the racing is, in my opinion, worse.

Quote
The other point I dispute is the Manufacturers stranglehold currently versus bygone times. In the early part of this new century 02 to 04 there was more manufacturer involvement with direct team ownership [Ferrari, Jaguar, Renault & Toyota] along with exclusive manufacturers works engine deals from BMW and Mercedes. Again we saw the same result over half the field never got the sniff of a podium all year.

In 2002 there were 11 teams, until Arrows ran out of money, and the only full manufacturers during the period that you cite (I do not count Ferrari, as it has always been a special case) were Jaguar, Renault, and Toyota.  Exclusive manufacter engine deals has never bothered me, as many engine suppliers supplying fewer teams is much better than a few engine suppliers supplying multiple teams.  It increases competition and improves diversity.  The current grid has very poor diversity, both in terms of the teams and engine suppliers.

2002 and 2004 were extreme cases of Ferrari domination.  Not only did Ferrari develop the fastest car, the team also had the best reliability.  Combine those two factors together and add to the fact that there was nobody who was capable of challening Schumacher in 2002 and that the only two drivers capable of operating on his level (Alonso and Raikkonen) in 2004 had far inferior equipment, it was always going to be thus.

The reaction to Ferrari's 2002 dominance is where Formula 1 lost its way and has been going wrong ever since.  Long-life engines and gearboxes, grid penalties, and the sanitising of race tracks has meant that the cars never break down and drivers never make any mistakes.  Combine those two factors together and you get poor quality racing, which is exacerbated by nearly all the midfield teams being owned by a manufacturer team and thus not truly racing for themselves.

Quote
Currently there are fewer manufacturers involved in F1, could this is a problem in itself, limiting options for independent teams to make strides? Perhaps, but I think it's more a symptom of the wider motorsport scene where open competition has become such an arms race that more money is going into either new tech or 'more bang for your buck' racing series.

It's probably all of these factors on more.  Another important point is the loss of Cosworth.  Cosworth had become the engine supplier for independent teams.  The absence of Cosworth makes it even more difficult for new independent teams to break into Formula 1, especially because of the lack of available engine suppliers.  This just adds more to the point that I'm making though.  If manufacturers only supplied engines and genuine independent teams built and designed the cars, I think that there would be scope for more teams to be on the grid, especially if all of this were combined with a much needed budget cap.
Soņando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Andy B

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2019, 11:05:27 PM »
Ten people voted and 70% do not want reverse grids I don't think personally it achieves anything other than degrading the quality of F1. Having a back marker win because of a reverse grid does not make them worthy of a win as its a gift so I stand by what I said if this is the route that Liberty/FIA intend going I'll be off and find something else to watch.  :'(
Once you have retired every day is a Saturday!

Offline Jericoke

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2019, 12:34:41 PM »
Ten people voted and 70% do not want reverse grids I don't think personally it achieves anything other than degrading the quality of F1. Having a back marker win because of a reverse grid does not make them worthy of a win as its a gift so I stand by what I said if this is the route that Liberty/FIA intend going I'll be off and find something else to watch.  :'(

That's sort of the issue though, isn't it?  Ideally, F1 should be close enough that the car starting in last place DOES have a chance to win the race.  It's not, and while we can agree that Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes worked hard on their championship, a casual viewer is going to see they wrapped the season up early, and that there wasn't really much of a contest.

F1 needs to make the races feel like ANYONE can win.  Inverted grids isn't the best way to do that, but it's the easiest.  (I do think the only way to make inverted grids work is to award points for qualifying, so that makes qualifying far more exciting, and important)

Offline John S

  • F1 Legend
  • ****
  • Date Registered: Jan 2007
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
  • Posts: 11253
  • 11550 credits
  • View Inventory
  • Send Money To John S
  • Max for 3rd title! - to see more Toto apoplexy.
Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2019, 02:13:51 PM »
Irisado, I can accept most of your points in your 16th Nov post, although I don't necessarily agree with quite a few of them. However it's the last point about the Loss of Cosworth that I feel I must address.
Quote
It's probably all of these factors on more.  Another important point is the loss of Cosworth.  Cosworth had become the engine supplier for independent teams.  The absence of Cosworth makes it even more difficult for new independent teams to break into Formula 1, especially because of the lack of available engine suppliers.  This just adds more to the point that I'm making though.  If
manufacturers only supplied engines and genuine independent teams built and designed the cars, I think that there would be scope for more teams to be on the grid, especially if all of this were combined with a much needed budget cap.

At the risk of annoying most of the members on here I think the Cosworth era did F1 no favours, in fact it nearly turned F1 into a one engine series. Sure it allowed so called 'Garagistas' to advance and make successful teams and fortunes, it also killed off most of the other engine makers for a good while. Yes the new hybrid Regs proved a step too far for Cosworth's wallet, F1 though has always been a big money game. More than the money though Cosworth had lost the plot and other manufacturers were doing to them what Ford financial muscle had done in the first instance with the DFV.

I'm not convinced it's the lack of engine makers to blame, look at Indycars - they run a choice of two engine makes but the top funded teams still easily rise to the top over the season. Some results make it look like anyone can win a race, I think that's more to do with having so many caution periods and team strategy calls rather than pure year long pace.

Andy B, whilst I fully respect your stance that F1 should stay with fastest Quali lap car starting the race I also recognise that you & me are the older fans now. Over the time I've been following F1 plenty of things have changed - some for good and some bad - but change is inevitable.

Reverse grids was proposed on a trial basis, who knows it may have proved a big hit and younger people may have flocked to F1. More probably it would have led to a media sh*t storm and been hastily binned, however either scenario would have given F1 much media attention outside the normal channels. I prefer to see F1 with as wide a fan base as possible, even if that means swallowing some unpalatable changes from time to time.  'Viva F1 per sempre'

         
Racing is Life - everything else is just....waiting. (Steve McQueen)

Offline Irisado

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2019, 09:54:32 PM »
Not everything about the Cosworth era was fantastic, I agree, and I am not advocating a return to it.  What I would like to see is a return to multiple engine suppliers, including Cosworth, supplying thirteen teams.  At the moment we have four engine suppliers, which is insufficient to supply a twenty car grid and if, as I expect, either Renault or Honda, or even both, decides to pull out in the near future, Formula 1 is going to have a major problem.  There needs to be some kind of effort made to persuade manufacturers to supply engines and even more effort to bring independent teams into the sport.  I do not see any progress being made on these critical issues and I also see sixteen car grids imminently if the rumours about Haas and Williams not being able to continue turn out to be accurate.
Soņando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Andy B

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2019, 08:10:47 AM »
There was a time when anyone, well nearly anyone, could build an F1 engine take Judd as an example but now the current lump is so complex which makes it so expensive even the big players have doubts. It's been said that there needs to be a link to road cars which I believe is complete rubbish how many people do you know driving a turbo V6 with an electric boost topped up by kinetic energy?

I still stand by my feelings on reverse grids, along with DRS its all falsification of the result they may as well say if you win a race the next one you start at the back.

Bring back V10's they were not only cheaper and powerful but sounded great.
Once you have retired every day is a Saturday!

Offline rmassart

Re: Reverse grids?
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2019, 11:38:28 AM »
I think this is a vicious circle about costs. eg Mercedes need to justify the 100s of millions investment spent on engine development to their board. They can do this, however tenuous, by claiming that the systems they develop have real-world application in improving fuel efficiency etc. Of course, if the engines weren't so complex, maybe they'd only be talking about investments of 10s of millions...

I was looking at footage of the 80s the other day and what struck me was how much simpler the cars were - especially the front. I don't really think most of the aero package has any relevance to modern road cars, and whilst this has probably always been the case, for me aero design becomes a case of diminishing returns. It becomes so expensive to improve the existing aero packages by 1% that the investment no longer makes sense. I would like to see cars becoming visually simpler again with less bits and pieces affecting every minutiae of the air flow around the car.  I don't know if the new regs are trying to achieve this, but the whole thing needs to become simpler. I realise F1 is about technical skill as much as driving, but there's enough technical skill in setting up cars for a race, strategy and so on, that even if cars become much simpler it will still be about both driving and engineering.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
Menu Editor Pro 1.0 | Copyright 2013, Matthew Kerle