Reverse grid gimmick is go!

[Cold Fussion]

It's really hard to understand the logic for this to me. The Monza result was 'special' because it was unexpected and exceptional, if the we --- with the format to force an arbitrary amount of randomness to the results, then these results will no longer be unexpected or exceptional. Who would care if Gasly won out of no where if a result like this happens 3 or 4 times a year. Libery are making me miss Bernie it's gotten so bad.

How different 'Formula 1' would have or could have been if the FOTA split happened in 2009/2010.

[Just_a_fan]

If they're going to go with this silly idea, can we also get rid of all of the tracks where overtaking doesn't really happen? So get rid of Monaco for a start. I guess Catalunya goes too. Hungary perhaps? Melbourne is bye-bye, as is Singapore.

Monaco, especially, will just be a case of "finish as you start" as overtaking is all but impossible even with a decently quicker car.

The more I think about the idea, the more I find it annoying and not at all thought through.

[PlatinumZealot]

I say reverse grid is OK but the cars at the back must have less ballast to prevent teams from qualifying too slowly.

And points must be awarded for qualifying position.

The ballast is based on championship points to first place in WDC. And expected racetime loss due to weight. Call this the ballast function

If you qualify slowest.. Start on pole.. But if your WCC position is dead last... You get lighter or zero ballast.

Qualify slowest (on purpose).. Start on pole
But your WCC is 2nd place, 10 points behind the leader, your car is punished with a heavy ballast.

Qualify fstest time.. Car at the back of the grid... Team in 1st in WCC... You get your qualifying points.. Race Ballast is some baseline number.

Qualify fastest time.. Car at the back of the grid.. Team is 3rd in WCC... You get your qualifying points.. Race ballast is the baseline number minus whatever the function says.


The aim is to "bring cars together" by about 2/3rds of the race. It will ad some variability as teams will not have practiced with their race ballast.

[foxmulder_ms]

If this happens I will stop watching. I am fed up with everything becoming another avengers movie for teens. I am getting old I guess.

I was expecting the rules to be relaxed to attract more engine and electric car manufacturers like Tesla and Porsche not this circus tricks..

Most probably will happen though.

[Wass85]

I don't think Toto Wolff will be impressed with McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl after he said the only way to have interesting races in the next year or so will be to artificially slow Mercedes down.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/andreas-s ... -mercedes/

[BrunoH]

no need for revearse grid, just have everyone have DRS with the exception of first place.. right after lap 1, and with no need to have X seconds to activate.... its free for everyone except for the 1 place. this will mean more fuel saving for the back or less fuel to take for the race, and save more ERS etc for overtaking opportunity... it will also bunch the field right after and close to first position! done. no more building a gap for 2 laps etc so no drs is used.

[Big Tea]

I don't think Toto Wolff will be impressed with McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl after he said the only way to have interesting races in the next year or so will be to artificially slow Mercedes down.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/andreas-s ... -mercedes/

That is fair enough. Add ballast for each win, remove with each non podium. But that is honest 'you know what you have to do', get on with it racing. No faffing about with behind the scenes stuff.

I see it as being fair, as long as it is set, and applies to everyone equally. Especially if the tail end cars can reduce by the same amount

[the EDGE]

It's really hard to understand the logic for this to me. The Monza result was 'special' because it was unexpected and exceptional, if the we --- with the format to force an arbitrary amount of randomness to the results, then these results will no longer be unexpected or exceptional. Who would care if Gasly won out of no where if a result like this happens 3 or 4 times a year. Libery are making me miss Bernie it's gotten so bad.

How different 'Formula 1' would have or could have been if the FOTA split happened in 2009/2010.

Unfortunately F1 has a history of trying to replicate 1-off special scenario’s that occurred by chance

Remember Canada 2010? We’ve been paying the price of that decision ever since

It’s like they never learn from their mistakes, suddenly Bernie’s sprinkler idea seem quite sane

[Hoffman900]

I don't think Toto Wolff will be impressed with McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl after he said the only way to have interesting races in the next year or so will be to artificially slow Mercedes down.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/andreas-s ... -mercedes/

Really novel of them considering Mclaren’s history of dominate cars. I’m also saying this as a Mclaren fan!

Reverse grids are the gimmicks of all gimmicks. Even NASCAR won’t stoop to that level.

The most reliably unpredictable part in F1 is human decision making. Limit the strategy conversations between the pits and drivers, and instead of computers and teams of engineers making decisions, a lot of the decisions are made by a single person or just two (the driver and put engineer). Likelihood for a wrong decision increases dramatically.

Reverse grids with the same “drive per the strategists orders” is missing the forests for the trees.

[JordanMugen]

That is fair enough. Add ballast for each win, remove with each non podium.

It's not necessary to use ballast, you could just give more testing days to low scoring teams like in MotoGP.

It has worked a treat to make Ducati & Suzuki more competitive, and is well-worth considering.

[Hoffman900]

That is fair enough. Add ballast for each win, remove with each non podium.

It's not necessary to use ballast, you could just give more testing days to low scoring teams like in MotoGP.

It has worked a treat to make Ducati & Suzuki more competitive, and is well-worth considering.

Rewards weight is also gimmicky. That’s how you end up with champions who never win a race.

[JordanMugen]

Reverse grids are the gimmicks of all gimmicks. Even NASCAR won’t stoop to that level.

V8 Supercars had full reverse grid races, and it turned out to be a bit of disaster for actions as the races had pitstops -- so the faster cars could just pit early and then run lots of fast laps in clean air, and then emerge in front of the slower cars without ever needing to overtake them on track. BUT as long as pitstops are not mandatory, then reverse grid racing can work.

Cattach said V8 Supercar supporters had "mixed reactions to the format, with some very positive and others critical".

"What it did do was stimulate a lot of interest and provide some great scenarios each time it was contested," he said. "It certainly did not create the mass carnage that many had predicted."

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/motorsport ... dnxom.html

The overt negative reaction from some is very disappointing. FOM are looking at all means necessary to create F2-style action in F1 racing, and it must be possible. It's not like the F1 drivers lack the skills to make for such close, hard but fair racing.

[Hoffman900]

They should do what NASCAR did with the engines if they want close racing. They can have different manufacturers, but everyone can look at their competitor’s engine.

Really, F1 should just try to be a faster Indy Car at this point. That will be the best of both.

[the EDGE]

Reverse grids are the gimmicks of all gimmicks. Even NASCAR won’t stoop to that level.

V8 Supercars had full reverse grid races, and it turned out to be a bit of disaster for actions as the races had pitstops -- so the faster cars could just pit early and then run lots of fast laps in clean air, and then emerge in front of the slower cars without ever needing to overtake them on track. BUT as long as pitstops are not mandatory, then reverse grid racing can work.

Cattach said V8 Supercar supporters had "mixed reactions to the format, with some very positive and others critical".

"What it did do was stimulate a lot of interest and provide some great scenarios each time it was contested," he said. "It certainly did not create the mass carnage that many had predicted."

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/motorsport ... dnxom.html

The overt negative reaction from some is very disappointing. FOM are looking at all means necessary to create F2-style action in F1 racing, and it must be possible. It's not like the F1 drivers lack the skills to make for such close, hard but fair racing.

2022 cars are already designed to allow for close racing, is rather wait and see how that goes than try yet another artificial gimmick, thank you very much

A marathons pretty boring to watch too, doesn’t mean they start the gold medalists at the back and watch them slowly run past the competition does it?

[El Scorchio]

Reverse grids are the gimmicks of all gimmicks. Even NASCAR won’t stoop to that level.

V8 Supercars had full reverse grid races, and it turned out to be a bit of disaster for actions as the races had pitstops -- so the faster cars could just pit early and then run lots of fast laps in clean air, and then emerge in front of the slower cars without ever needing to overtake them on track. BUT as long as pitstops are not mandatory, then reverse grid racing can work.

Cattach said V8 Supercar supporters had "mixed reactions to the format, with some very positive and others critical".

"What it did do was stimulate a lot of interest and provide some great scenarios each time it was contested," he said. "It certainly did not create the mass carnage that many had predicted."

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/motorsport ... dnxom.html

The overt negative reaction from some is very disappointing. FOM are looking at all means necessary to create F2-style action in F1 racing, and it must be possible. It's not like the F1 drivers lack the skills to make for such close, hard but fair racing.

Crappy gimmicks aren't going to give us close or satisfying racing.

Actually what you suggest about testing or development time would be my preferred method of trying to equalise performance. But it needs to be coupled with much more research from F1 on how to further enforce aspects of car design so they can follow each other more closely.