Reverse grids? Is that what you want??

[Andy B]

Its a no from me!
I hate the idea of false racing and it'll make me think long and hard about attending races or even watching F1. I have grown up with the fastest car/driver combination winning and can accept budget caps as that will show the skill of the designers and well as drivers too and should close the gap.
But what are your thoughts although I doubt RB will drop by and take a look to see what we think.

[Jericoke]

I like how some series are doing 'sprint' races and 'feature' races, one with a reversed grid, and one with a traditional grid.  Lets fans make an apples to oranges comparison and decide what is more interesting.

I do find the idea of 'pure' or 'false' racing somewhat bizarre.  F1 cars are not a naturally occurring phenomena.  It's completely man made, and completely meant to be enjoyed by spectators.  Most sports evolve over time, I'm not opposed to racing evolving as well.  Certainly change for the sake of change is a big risk.  F1 didn't become one of the most watched sports because it's 'broken'.  However, doing things the way they've always been done because it's the way things have always been done can be a bad idea too.

I suppose the main question is... what do you watch for?  Do you think the most interesting thing is the fastest driver in the fastest car should win?  Do you think the one who can pass other cars during a race?  How many races are won by a driver not making a single pass?

F1 has a 'driver of the day' vote during the race.  It's almost never the guy who leads from lights out to chequered flag who wins.  It's someone who has fought other drivers and made passes.  (I usually disagree with the fan vote myself... but Liberty can't afford to just ignore fans... can they?)

Bottom line... I've been watching racing since 1986,and F1 since 1996.  Clearly I like seeing the best driver in the best car winning starting from first and dominating the race.  BUT, if they change it, I'll still watch.

[rmassart]

Personally, I am not keen on this. Whilst I agree with Jericoke that the notions of true and false racing don't quite fit into a sport, I think there are other ways of improving the racing.  One would be to tighten the rules, make the cars more similar. Or even make them identical. Then it would be down to the driver and perhaps team strategy.  I would prefer that to reverse grids and penalising the best to spice things up.  Imagine the scenario where cars are identical, and simply badged by the manufacturers. And still Hamilton and Mercedes win every race. Would it be fair to penalise them for simply being better.  They don't do that in many other sports. In football you have the same 2-3 teams winning, but do they dock them points for being too good? In athletics did they add a couple of seconds to Michael Johnsons sprint times when he was unbeatable, or now with Usain Bolt? In Tennis do they give the first set to Federer's opponents?

Let them race and increase the spectacle by changing the technical regulations so the quality of the cars converges. And maybe so they can follow each other at full speed through a corner...

[Alianora La Canta]

It's not that it's not real racing. I simply think it'll be lesser racing, and invoke a lot of "gaming the system" in qualification.

Lesser because even now, the second-fastest team sees no point in attempting to defend against the fastest team. There will be even less point in a reverse racing situation, where the second-fastest team has been forced to run out of position (just slightly less out of position than the fastest team). And the further up the field the fastest car gets, the less ability to, and consequently motive for, resistance exists. Any attempt to deny the win to the fastest car simply wrecks the slowest car's race even more.

It's fine for the midfielders, who'll end up a bit further up the grid than otherwise. But like DRS, it devalues overtaking, nullifies defence and results in wins almost always being achieved off-track, primarily by the ability to cheat the budget cap. (We know this matters because Mercedes routinely outspend Ferrari despite the latter having all those historic payments and, Ferrari and Racing Point apart, most of the teams' competitiveness is ordered by their expenditure. In a budget cap scenario, even a small ability to find and exploit the inevitable loopholes will make a big difference).

(The budget cap will be much like the Michael Johnson situation: they don't add time. They remove the cheated results entirely when they find out how the rules were broken and most people have forgotten, or disregarded, the actual winning performance).

I have written elsewhere that unless qualifying and the race get the same points, qualifying will be gamed, because it's in the teams' interests to do so and the likelihood of the FIA being able to prevent it is negligable. Sunday was because surprises that weren't gameable in advance happened, and increasing gameability is the opposite of what Sunday's race should have taught everyone. Is it really worth effectively losing qualifying in order to have a worse race?

[cosworth151]

I've never been a fan of "gimmick racing." Things like reverse grids and NASCAR & NHRA style "playoffs" have always left me cold. I've never been big on spec racer series, either. They're fine for undercard races but not for the main events. NASCAR started it's fall from the top over here when they went to the spec racer "Car of Tomorrow."

[John S]

I think the plan is to replace Quali with a reverse grid race based on the last race result. The finishing order then makes up the grid for the main race. No team can then game Quali as has been suggested by other posts.

Unlike reverse grids in F2 & F3 the whole grid will be inverted from the last race result, so if a top team, or others, took a hit with a DNF last time out they will be starting at, or near, the front of this version of a reverse grid race.

Like others I can't subscribe to a neutered F1 field, no one make series or blatant BoP interventions please. 
Let F1 be what it's always been a contest between drivers, constructors and engines - budget cap should close up field a bit so no more fixes there please.

I can't wait for this version of reversed grid qualification race, bring it on. 

[Jericoke]

I've never been a fan of "gimmick racing." Things like reverse grids and NASCAR & NHRA style "playoffs" have always left me cold. I've never been big on spec racer series, either. They're fine for undercard races but not for the main events. NASCAR started it's fall from the top over here when they went to the spec racer "Car of Tomorrow."

There have always been different types of racing.  LeMans is about covering distance, not being fastest.  Rallying and hillclimbs are races against the clock, not an opponent.

F1 (Nascar, Indy etc.) are traditionally about getting to the finish line first, but they also exist from a time where there were many factors.  Reliability of the car, the tires, the driver, the engine, the crew were all things that could mean the difference between winning and losing.  Now that those are mostly solved by professional teams, there isn't as much variability.  If the fundamental nature of the sport can change, then why not the goals?

(I too loathe spec series at top levels.  I like that the team is a TEAM, and the guy designing (or stealing) the brake ducts is as important as the guy behind the wheel.  I wish F1 allowed more variabilty, in the power unit formula, in the overall shape and size of the chassis)

[Alianora La Canta]

I've never been a fan of "gimmick racing." Things like reverse grids and NASCAR & NHRA style "playoffs" have always left me cold. I've never been big on spec racer series, either. They're fine for undercard races but not for the main events. NASCAR started it's fall from the top over here when they went to the spec racer "Car of Tomorrow."

There have always been different types of racing.  LeMans is about covering distance, not being fastest.  Rallying and hillclimbs are races against the clock, not an opponent.

F1 (Nascar, Indy etc.) are traditionally about getting to the finish line first, but they also exist from a time where there were many factors.  Reliability of the car, the tires, the driver, the engine, the crew were all things that could mean the difference between winning and losing.  Now that those are mostly solved by professional teams, there isn't as much variability.  If the fundamental nature of the sport can change, then why not the goals?

(I too loathe spec series at top levels.  I like that the team is a TEAM, and the guy designing (or stealing) the brake ducts is as important as the guy behind the wheel.  I wish F1 allowed more variabilty, in the power unit formula, in the overall shape and size of the chassis)

Because a series putting in damaging elements with the pretence they will help will not be taken seriously - as F1 hasn't been for most of the last decade. (Even now, there's a notable gap between pre-2011 fans and post-2016/2017 fans, with little from those in between because the series wasn't attractive then. It was only when leaders stopped claming the damaging elements were there to help that things started to turn around, and even then, it's hard to disambiguate that from the fact a different set of leaders took charge).

[Monty]

I would much prefer that they find a method of making F1 a 'racing' spectacle but at the moment it isn't. With some cars being so much faster in quali and very little opportunity for overtaking we rarely see exciting 'racing'.
One thing I am clear on, if some form of handicapping is adopted it should not be at every track and it should be based on Championship position not earlier races or qualifying (let's face it; any handicapping should be an attempt to avoid run-away championship winners).
I still think four designated races should start with the grid reversed by championship position. This brings into question what purpose qualifying would have at these races but perhaps extra points could be awarded for qualifying at these events. The races would have to be based at circuits where overtaking is possible (can you imagine a reversed grid at Monaco  )

[rmassart]

I think these sort of changes would just drive the average fan even more away. They would get confused as to why in one race there is no real qualifying, or points for qualifying and in the next race there is. Races should be easy to understand and strategy as well. 

Already the tire rules are confusing and I would get rid of them. If someone wants to qualify on softs and run the race on hards without stopping, then why not. I actually think the tire rules push everyone into the same strategy, at least in the top half.  Why not have one tire guaranteed to last a whole race, but with lower grip?

One of the things that made Monza interesting was the fact that the stopped race meant everyone could put on whichever tire they wanted as far as I understood (although I admit I am not sure about this - it's all too confusing!!!).

In any case, I'm strongly against penalizing the strongest team. We need to find ways of equalising the teams. How about removing the engine manufacturers as teams. Mercedes, Renault would have to provide engines at a fixed cost to X number of teams, with no preferences (engines assigned by lottery).  Any team could buy any engine for a season etc. I know Ferrari would be awkward here. Then limit the parts of the car which are non-standard. I realise F1 is also about engineering and as someone who studied aeronautical engineering, I find this interesting. But if we want this to remain a sport with mass global following we need to avoid situations where more than half the field simply can't compete, due to costs. If fans can see that the best driver/team combination is really because of the driver's skill and team's strategy, I think people will appreciate it. Right now Lewis is winning because he is a great driver, but he is nearly unbeatable because Mercedes are the best funded team. Except perhaps Ferrari, but I'm now used to those guys going through 20 year lulls before they can achieve something again. I'm expecting them so come good sometime at the end of the decade! 

[Jericoke]

I think these sort of changes would just drive the average fan even more away. They would get confused as to why in one race there is no real qualifying, or points for qualifying and in the next race there is. Races should be easy to understand and strategy as well. 

Already the tire rules are confusing and I would get rid of them. If someone wants to qualify on softs and run the race on hards without stopping, then why not. I actually think the tire rules push everyone into the same strategy, at least in the top half.  Why not have one tire guaranteed to last a whole race, but with lower grip?

One of the things that made Monza interesting was the fact that the stopped race meant everyone could put on whichever tire they wanted as far as I understood (although I admit I am not sure about this - it's all too confusing!!!).

In any case, I'm strongly against penalizing the strongest team. We need to find ways of equalising the teams. How about removing the engine manufacturers as teams. Mercedes, Renault would have to provide engines at a fixed cost to X number of teams, with no preferences (engines assigned by lottery).  Any team could buy any engine for a season etc. I know Ferrari would be awkward here. Then limit the parts of the car which are non-standard. I realise F1 is also about engineering and as someone who studied aeronautical engineering, I find this interesting. But if we want this to remain a sport with mass global following we need to avoid situations where more than half the field simply can't compete, due to costs. If fans can see that the best driver/team combination is really because of the driver's skill and team's strategy, I think people will appreciate it. Right now Lewis is winning because he is a great driver, but he is nearly unbeatable because Mercedes are the best funded team. Except perhaps Ferrari, but I'm now used to those guys going through 20 year lulls before they can achieve something again. I'm expecting them so come good sometime at the end of the decade! 

1)  Agreed, different race rules for different weekends will be confusing for casual fans.  But that's the job of the commentators to explain what's going on in a way that informs casual fans and die hards alike.

2) Whatever they do with tires, it's not going to make our break who is or isn't watching F1.  I think the current rules are fine, two compounds per race, tires designed not to last a full race, stuck on your quali tires if you're in the top 10.  I'm not going to defend these rules, but I doubt any change will affect the fanbase.  Sorry Pirelli: no one is tuning it to watch tire management or pit stops.

3)  Ferrari is ALWAYS at the crux of any rules problems F1 has.  I never understood how McLaren didn't get into making their own engines.  They could've bought Ilmor, Cosworth or Mechachrome.  I respect that Ferrari is the crown jewel team for F1, and to a certain extent must be treated like that.  However, the better strategy is to help other teams elevate themselves instead of continuously putting Ferrari on everyone's shoulders.  Why can't McLaren and Williams become household names?

4)  I still have no idea how F1 got a legally enforceable cap, when Max and Bernie couldn't, but it should go a long way to helping teams close the performance gaps.

[Alianora La Canta]

1) The commentators are mostly not up to explaining that people are allowed to swap tyres under red flags (something that's been permitted for decades for safety reasons). I don't hold much hope for them managing to explain a completely new format, especially given that they've just told the audience that it's a 1-day event instead of the usual-to-the-audience 2-day event. (This is also why Imola is not confusing; the day being dropped is the day most casual fans ignore anyway).

2) Tyres are only make-or-break if they regularly break. Silverstone 2013 was an example of a "break" event for some people (though not necessarily a statistically-significant number). Silverstone 2020 was not, because even though tyre quality was poor, they only broke in that one race: 2013 was the culmination of a problem that had been developing through the European rounds (but only casual fans and those watching the back half of the grid seemed to notice the pattern before Silverstone).

3) McLaren didn't buy an engine in the 1995-2010 phase (covering the times Mechachrome and Ilmor were on the market) because it thought the Mercedes alliance would last forever. A Mercedes alliance was as good as an in-house engine for all practical purposes, but at much lower cost. Cosworth was out of McLaren's price range by the time it became apparent that the alliance, like all alliances, was temporary.

4) F1 doesn't have a legally-enforceable cap, they've just marketed it as such and mostly relying on honour and accounting in the hope this will patch over flawed rules.

[Jericoke]

3) McLaren didn't buy an engine in the 1995-2010 phase (covering the times Mechachrome and Ilmor were on the market) because it thought the Mercedes alliance would last forever. A Mercedes alliance was as good as an in-house engine for all practical purposes, but at much lower cost. Cosworth was out of McLaren's price range by the time it became apparent that the alliance, like all alliances, was temporary.

4) F1 doesn't have a legally-enforceable cap, they've just marketed it as such and mostly relying on honour and accounting in the hope this will patch over flawed rules.

3)  Part of my 'issue' with McLaren not making engines is they make their own street cars.  If Renault made their super car engines, I'd get it, but they don't.  If they want to build as a brand name, they should be making their own engines.

I suppose building from the ground up with Honda soured them on the idea of building from the ground up with their own programme.

4)  That makes much more sense.  I don't see that going wrong at all.   

[Willy]

I'm with Cos....not a fan of "gimmick racing" as he correctly calls it.
But I also dont like the opening of the rear wing or DRS as they call it to allow passing.
It too is a gimmick. 
Open the engineers up to allow innovation and let them find speed and ways to pass other then pitstops (or undercut as they call it).

If the teams don't have the deep enough pockets to compete then they will find other ways to get there.
Look at what Colin Chapman did with Lotus in an old woodshed. He sure scared the hell out of Ferarri.

Yes, I know corporete structure and $$$ cash changed everything but maybe that too needs to change.

[Alianora La Canta]

3)  Part of my 'issue' with McLaren not making engines is they make their own street cars.  If Renault made their super car engines, I'd get it, but they don't.  If they want to build as a brand name, they should be making their own engines.

Aston Martin doesn't make its own engines either...