GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Andy B on September 19, 2019, 08:10:29 AM
-
I'm not making it up!
https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/9521/why-f1-teams-should-back-the-reversed-grid-revolution
Why would they turn F1 into a farce especially after qualifying in Italy what would go on to get yourself further up the grid when reversed?
When I started watching F1 it was about the fastest cars and the skill of the drivers not reverse grids and flappy rear wings.
I'm afraid its bring back Bernie and get rid of Liberty.
-
I can't read the article, so I don't know what incentive the teams would have to qualify "last" so to speak. Points would have to be close to those gained for winning the actual race, but that would make the race far less important. And the tactics would be stupid. You'd have teams aiming to be 10th in qualifying or something like that.
If they want go in this direction, just scrap qualifying and base the starting grid on the reverse finishing order in the previous race!
But I agree with your sentiment. F1 should be about the fastest car/driver combination winning. Full stop. If they want to equalise things they can do this in the technical regulations by standardising components far more, not by gimmicks.
-
Formula One has changed dramatically.
It's no longer a handful of garagistas and a gentlemen racer having some fun.
The cars are super reliable, and computer designed to the nanometer, the drivers are as fit as any athlete on the planet, and have simulated hundreds of laps before even showing up at the track.
If you put the fastest driver/car at the front, they're very likely going to win, and it's not going to encourage passing. The sport is basically designed to create a procession. NOW, if you're a fan of design and technical driving, the sport is at its pinnacle. I love seeing the engineers push the rules, or drivers shave fractions of a second by cutting a curb or braking late.
So, we can go back to hand made cars and leave computers out of it. Let the drivers only experience the track on the race weekend. That will create variability, suspense and surprise.
Or we can invert the grid, put the fast cars at the back, watch the top teams back rules that encourage passing and put on a spectacle.
I know I've mentioned the NFL before, but... they're the best sport at making money. They're aware that people want to watch good games, and don't give a **** about tradition. They create a schedule to ensure that games are interesting: strong teams play strong teams, weak teams play weak teams, so the games themselves are close and entertaining.
-
Except for the Miami Dolphins! :DD :DD
-
Or we can invert the grid, put the fast cars at the back, watch the top teams back rules that encourage passing and put on a spectacle.
Tell me how that works at Monaco, Baku, Singapore and all the tracks that overtaking is a problem it would falsify the result and probably create carnage in the process.
-
Or we can invert the grid, put the fast cars at the back, watch the top teams back rules that encourage passing and put on a spectacle.
Tell me how that works at Monaco, Baku, Singapore and all the tracks that overtaking is a problem it would falsify the result and probably create carnage in the process.
Seems fairly trivial to me. Ferrari with their famous veto and ambition to win will ensure that the rules favour cars at the back cutting through the field. Narrower cars perhaps. Wider racing lines. Suspension and wings that can with stand a few bumps.
If you want to get crazy... maybe 'double chicanes': two identical racing lines, one swerving left, one swerving right, a faster car can overtake by taking a completely different path.
-
It seems you want Carnage Jeri!
-
Not sure about reverse grids at all races, that could be tricky as already suggested at places like Monaco.
However the current trend towards more and more restrictions on what, where and how aero can be added to cars, more standard parts and less budget means there'll be even less scope for new original thought and unique engineering than we've seen in the last few years; and that's not exactly been a great deal.
This being the case something has to change to keep F1 as the darling premier motorsport, more mixed up podiums from reverse grids might be an answer.
Having said all that I rather think the only reverse grids we might actually see next year will be occasional trials of Sprint races on Saturdays. Liberty are desperate to find more interest for casual viewers, and fill up stadia for race promoters.
Having been at Silverstone on 4 Saturdays of F1 races in the last 10 years (only one Sunday race - but that's another story), I found it hard to keep up with how practice and Quali was progressing, and I'm well versed in F1 Quali method. Races are much easier to follow at trackside so Sprint races - reverse grid or not - may hold a key to better attendance at some tracks, and who knows this might be a way of getting more people into the F1 habit.
-
Go back to one lap quaili.
Scrap driver aids such as computer-aided starts etc. The man in the race-seat should be making decisions on shifting, braking etc.
Scrap aero and only allow downforce.
Allow the track promoters to keep on-track advertising revenue and all gate receipts.
Reduce how much Liberty charges the tracks to help out the venues and pay for upgrades for safety and general fan enjoyment.
-
Go back to one lap quaili.
Scrap driver aids such as computer-aided starts etc. The man in the race-seat should be making decisions on shifting, braking etc.
Scrap aero and only allow downforce.
Allow the track promoters to keep on-track advertising revenue and all gate receipts.
Reduce how much Liberty charges the tracks to help out the venues and pay for upgrades for safety and general fan enjoyment.
Several things wrong here Willy!
One lap qualifying was a turn off and the most boring trial ever seen.
There is already limitations on starts such as no launch control so the driver has more input but there is still some wizardry going on its the policing of it that's the issue.
Scrap aero and only allow downforce." These are one and the same but I assume you mean only allow mechanical grip which would make the cars so slow.
Liberty are in it for the money so the change in any dramatic way to how the circuits make their money is unlikely to happen.
Investment at some circuits is poor Germany being a prime example but with so many willing to join in they'll be lucky to get some help.
If anyone knows the answers to F1's problems they could become very rich!
-
The first thing that would happen is everybody sandbagging in quali.
I raced on many dirt ovals that had reverse starting. Most would decide how many positions to reverse (usually 2 to 9) by a blind draw before the start of the feature race. Can anybody picture Chase Carey and Michael Masi walking on to the stating line at Monaco, shaking up a little plastic bottle of pool (snooker) dice & dumping one out?
-
Reverse grids are fine for some series - ones that aren't about finding the best car/driver competition in the world, and aren't full of people who will manipulate everything in sight to their advantage. Since F1 features both, it's not a good thing to apply here. Otherwise we'll be getting repeats of Silverstone 2004 (where people threw qualifying 1 in the hope of benefitting in a qualifying 2 where rain was predicted for the faster half of running. In the event, Silverstone had the last laugh because qualifying 2 was dry and people started about where qualifying 1 suggested they would be - minus a few places for the Minardi who had provisional pole in the slowest car at the place).
-
Reverse grids are, along with the infamous drivers changing teams every weekend proposal, the two worst ideas ever dreamt up for Formula 1. Formula 1 is about purity of speed. Qualifying is all about finding out who is the fastest on low fuel, in a pressurised time situation, at any given circuit. It is not about tinkering with the starting order to try to artificially spice up the racing. We already have enough problems with determining the grid with all these ill conceived engine and gearbox penalties, so let's not make this even more daft by implementing reverse grids.
If they want to fix Formula 1, they need to look at when it was exciting and revert back to how the rules and cars used to be. In essence, everything that has been changed during the last ten years has not worked. DRS, Pirelli tyres, turbo engines, sanitised circuits, virtual safety cars, excessive use of the safety car, and ultra reliable cars have all, to varying degrees, made the sport boring, predictable, and lacking those edge of the seat moments that used characterise it. Even Murray Walker couldn't make most of these dull races sound interesting. They also need to get rid of all the computer game style graphics and bring back a sensible car numbering system.
-
I don’t think anyone is interested in the cost of turning the clock back. It would be hundreds of millions to do it and the manufacturers would be gone in a second.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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. :'(
-
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)
-
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.
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'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.