Reverse grid gimmick is go!

[Wass85]

One issue I see with the sudden desire for reverse grids based on one race result, is that we've been here before. Remember the Canada race where there was lots of tyre changing because of conditions. Everyone said it was a great race and we should force more tyre changes. Result? Seasons of ridiculous tyre issues and everyone moaning about tyres designed to wear out quickly to ensure multiple tyre changes. And then the teams figured it out and they all drive like a Sunday afternoon family drive in order to preserve the tyres.

For a bunch of otherwise clever people, F1 is really rubbish at seeing the big picture and following through the possible/likely bad consequences of their ideas.

If they want to "shake it up" and "improve the show", why not just scrap qualifying altogether. Replace it with a drawing of numbers by the drivers. Each driver draws his grid slot from a hat. No driver is allowed to be in any grid slot more than once in a season. So if you draw pole this week, you can't be on pole again. You've just saved a load of expensive tyres and car wear so fits in with the cost cutting mantra too. And it can't be gamed by the teams. The only way to maximise good results is to have cars that can follow each other in the corners. Dump Friday practices, run practice on Saturday, draw the grid on Sunday morning, race on Sunday afternoon. Job done, move on to the next race.

That is one option I was thinking of to sort the grid out but I know we would be crying fix when certain teams or drivers kept getting convenient grid positions.

I've also in the past tried thinking of ideas that prevent lacklustre pairings in a team for any length of time, I think a promotion and relegation system would work well.

[notsofast]

I would like to see this done once, just once. Bahrain #2 would probably be a good one for this.

And no sprint race please. If I want to see a sprint race, I'll watch F2. No, let's just do Bahrain #2 in reverse order of WDC standings, and then never again.

[Phil]

What’s the point of a championship if one or more races are done differently from the rest?

The worrying thing about this is, that the lower end of the grid is so starved for money, points and success, that they’d take anything that could net them > 0 points.

[RZS10]

It's funny that an extremely boring procession of a race with a surprise winner prompted the reconsideration of this nonsense ... and reading comments about it on social media by let's say "non enthusiast" F1 viewers the general tone seems to be "who cares if the race wasn't any different - at least driver X did not win" .. and that's probably the general idea behind this

[Just_a_fan]

That is one option I was thinking of to sort the grid out but I know we would be crying fix when certain teams or drivers kept getting convenient grid positions.

I've also in the past tried thinking of ideas that prevent lacklustre pairings in a team for any length of time, I think a promotion and relegation system would work well.

You can't get favourable grid slots. Every driver uses each grid slot once.

The drivers are employed by the teams. Their money, their choice. Trying to force teams to accept certain drivers in order to create a new "Senna and Prost" relationship will just have the teams saying "no thanks".

[Wass85]

That is one option I was thinking of to sort the grid out but I know we would be crying fix when certain teams or drivers kept getting convenient grid positions.

I've also in the past tried thinking of ideas that prevent lacklustre pairings in a team for any length of time, I think a promotion and relegation system would work well.

You can't get favourable grid slots. Every driver uses each grid slot once.

The drivers are employed by the teams. Their money, their choice. Trying to force teams to accept certain drivers in order to create a new "Senna and Prost" relationship will just have the teams saying "no thanks".

In theory though the best team will get the best driver because he will get promoted to that team.

[Big Tea]

It's funny that an extremely boring procession of a race with a surprise winner prompted the reconsideration of this nonsense ... and reading comments about it on social media by let's say "non enthusiast" F1 viewers the general tone seems to be "who cares if the race wasn't any different - at least driver X did not win" .. and that's probably the general idea behind this

Then, Possibly a better option would be (say) 25 races all drivers drive 20 only count top 18.

(I am not in favour of this, just to ensure different winners)

[NathanOlder]

That is one option I was thinking of to sort the grid out but I know we would be crying fix when certain teams or drivers kept getting convenient grid positions.

I've also in the past tried thinking of ideas that prevent lacklustre pairings in a team for any length of time, I think a promotion and relegation system would work well.

You can't get favourable grid slots. Every driver uses each grid slot once.

The drivers are employed by the teams. Their money, their choice. Trying to force teams to accept certain drivers in order to create a new "Senna and Prost" relationship will just have the teams saying "no thanks".

In theory though the best team will get the best driver because he will get promoted to that team.

The best team already has the best driver

[JordanMugen]

Some people seem to fail to understand the proposal:

FP1-FP3: As current.
Session 4: The qualifying race. A race on Saturday of 155km, with a grid set by the reverse of the championship order. NO points are paid. You may use one compound, i.e., no pitstops for leaders to easily drop back and hot lap to an undercut.
Session 5: The Grand Prix of 305km which awards points. The grid is set by the results of the qualifying race. You must use two compounds in a dry race.

There will be no "gamesmanship" as it is your best interests to finish AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE in the qualifying race. There is no incentive to finish lower than possible... It should be maximum attack with clean, fair racing.

If reverse grid is good enough for F2 and produces fantastic close racing action, there is NO reason it cannot be good enough for F1! It could be a lot of fun indeed, and is worth a try for selected races IMO.

[Wass85]

You can't get favourable grid slots. Every driver uses each grid slot once.

The drivers are employed by the teams. Their money, their choice. Trying to force teams to accept certain drivers in order to create a new "Senna and Prost" relationship will just have the teams saying "no thanks".

In theory though the best team will get the best driver because he will get promoted to that team.

The best team already has the best driver

Maybe yes maybe no, we will never know will we with this format.

All we know atm is that he's better than Bottas, something we've known for a while now.

At least with my proposal this season we would have Hamilton vs Leclerc at Mercedes and Verstappen vs Bottas at Ferrari.

I'd rather the sport stay as it is really but I have a feeling that change is coming.

[Zynerji]

You can't be serious. I really expected more of Brawn. And if this race (Monza) was anything to go by, it showed a train full of cars with practically no overtaking, except Lewis Hamilton overtaking a bunch of much slower cars. Pretty much everyone else was neutralized. If you have reverse grids and they line up in the reverse order of their ultimate speed, there will be no overtakes, because the time delta gap between the cars in contention to another will be too little. You'd be daft to want it. Artificial excitement. I get people are bored with Hamilton/Mercedes dominating, but in order to value the achievements in sport and over time, you first need the basis of a genuine championship. Hamilton/Mercedes dominating is a result of them as a team doing the best job under the current rules and producing the best package. Gasly's win was a legitimate win. If you fall down to reverse style grids, you are devaluing the achievement.

I'd be baffled if they go through with something like this.

That race in Canada a few years ago, and the tyre issues, has led to us being stuck with the mandated garbage Pirelli tyres for years...

[JordanMugen]

What’s the point of a championship if one or more races are done differently from the rest?

Reverse grid qualifying races are to set the grid, they are not for points. It is a replacement for time trial qualifying.

Of course if you DNF in the qualifying race you will start the Grand Prux last, so it is in everyone's interests to race clean and fair in the qualifying "heat".

[JordanMugen]

That race in Canada a few years ago, and the tyre issues, has led to us being stuck with the mandated garbage Pirelli tyres for years...

An open tender was held for 2020-2022 and the other proposal from Hankook was rejected, so that is what it is, but that's another topic.

[Big Tea]

Some people seem to fail to understand the proposal:

That would be me

[Wass85]

Some people seem to fail to understand the proposal:

FP1-FP3: As current.
Session 4: The qualifying race. A race on Saturday of 155km, with a grid set by the reverse of the championship order. NO points are paid. You may use one compound, i.e., no pitstops for leaders to easily drop back and hot lap to an undercut.
Session 5: The Grand Prix of 305km which awards points. The grid is set by the results of the qualifying race. You must use two compounds in a dry race.

There will be no "gamesmanship" as it is your best interests to finish AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE in the qualifying race. There is no incentive to finish lower than possible... It should be maximum attack with clean, fair racing.

If reverse grid is good enough for F2 and produces fantastic close racing action, there is NO reason it cannot be good enough for F1! It could be a lot of fun indeed, and is worth a try for selected races IMO.

Isn't that going against their cost saving obsession though?