Head wants reverse grids

[Mark]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7282861.stm

A radical idea to improve the spectacle of Formula One and make overtaking easier has been proposed by Williams team co-owner Patrick Head.

The veteran says races can be boring and wants the fastest cars to start at the back and the slowest at the front.


"I would like to see the grids in reverse order of championship position," Head told BBC Sport.


"It's the same for everybody, and over a whole season the right guy would still win the championship."

[ArrowsFA1]

Well he's right that the idea would "upset the purists", but the reason he's suggested it is his view that current proposals to facilitate overtaking and improve the spectacle were unlikely to work :dozey:

[ShiftingGears]

Band-Aid solutions never work.

[F1boat]

This is ridiculous. I would not watch such travesty. If rain makes a weird grid, it's OK. But to make fixed spectacles is wrong.

[ioan]

Utter bull$hit.

[leopard]

The idea is great, we might not need to adopt the whole concept that reversal. It's kinda obvious that the back runner are the slower car, but those finished in top 8 are drivers and cars have shade difference of performance and have the slightly different opportunity to win.

The problem may arise how to judge the order considering F1 has only a single race? It'd be difficult to determine position from qualifying, driver might want to finish 8th in each qualifying.

I think the idea would be applicable once the rule said F1 has two series of race.
I can't believe that Ananda Mikola can stand up in the same podium with Jean Alessi ;)

[maxu05]

I think it would be cool. It would be the only chance for Toyota and Honda to start at the front :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

"If you allow the guys to do all this practice and testing and then you line them up with the fastest at the front and the slowest at the back, why should there be any overtaking?"
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65623

You can kind of see his point... :dozey:

[Mark]

You could also have a situation where the leaders will get blocked, or even taken out by other cars as they make their way through the pack. Potential for lots of trouble!

[ShiftingGears]

Reverse grids were canned in V8 supercars because it was just an utter catastrophe.

[Tazio]

Even if this Idea accomplished what it is proposed to accomplish. I would object to it because it would make all previous records and winning streaks too unfairly comparable! And I don't and will not buy the reconciliation of a travesty like this to be written off as simply a new era, which we can't compare anyway. It would be to F1 What the Designated Hitter is to Baseball. Or worse yet It would skew the records in the same way that introducing aluminum, graphite, ceramic, and carbon fiber baseball bat's, which all exist. I haven't mentioned a single one that I haven't personally used. And are allowed in non-professional Baseball. (Personally I prefer the ceramic coated bats They are hard well balanced, but more importantly contact with the ball produces a sound almost Identical to wood). It may work! But the implications to the legacy are catastrophic from a purist’s perspective

[ioan]

We had plenty of overtaking with the current system for decades.
What destroys F1 is this stupid race fuel qualifying strategy.
Another sh!tty idea dreamed up by a certain Ecclestone to make the show more interesting and subsequently earn him more money!

[keysersoze]

If the formula wants more spectacle, the most sporting way to do it, IMO, is to place spending caps on teams, since there is a strong correlation between a team's spending and their likelihood of success.

And to make it fair and reasonable, make the spending cap be relatively low, like, say $100 million. Then teams with Ferrari-like bank accounts can't justify spending 50 million to gain an extra three-tenths. With this sort of proposal I'm very inclined to think that the difference between rows 1-5 to be less than .8 of a second, and that the field would be covered by less than 1.5.

Here's another interesting proposal, that I haven't completely wrapped my head around, although it has less to do with the number of passes in a race: the NASCAR model of a de facto "playoff system." After, say 10-12 races, the top 6-8 cars are equalized (to a degree), then these get on with their championship, while the others have their own.

On principal, I'm opposed to it, but in NASCAR the winners do tend to emerge nonetheless.

[dime3]

Disaster of an idea. I hate the thought of artificial grids if F1. Fastest cars first, let the rest fight it out. Any change to this time honoured system will end in cat calls of cheating, or worse, championships been won based on who doesn’t get crashed into making their way from the back… :mad:

[Mark]

A better idea than reverse grids is success ballast. Note I said better not good, it's still a very bad idea :p

[gloomyDAY]

Reverse grids are stupid. I'm a rally fan and many of us on the other board were pretty upset when the FIA decided to re-introduce reverse grids in the WRC. Doesn't make any sense to punish a team for excelling! Also, keep in mind that some teams might revert to using tactics. If this is implemented we could see Kimi stop his car for a few seconds just before the white line during qualifying and get a front start on the grid.

The idea of top teams purposely underachieving to get on the front of the grid is already making me laugh. Not my idea of fun!

[Mark]

It's rather different in rallying where quite often starting first is a massive disadvantage!

[Kevincal]

Hmm, how about RANDOM reverse grids during the season? ;) Like say, the fastest teams are WAY faster than everyone else in qualifying, or maybe just 1 team or driver is WAY faster than anyone, then a reverse grid may make a BORING race EXCITING! I agree it wouldn't work to do this every race. And maybe even then, not a FULL reverse grid, but only partial. :D After I typed this, it does seem rather riduculous to have such a thing in the pinnacle of motorsports... :P

[keysersoze]

I'm not sure how GP2 qualifying goes these days, but in F3000 in the 90s, qualifying would be in two groups, with each group lining up on a given side of the grid. Now that could spice things up.

[gloomyDAY]

It's rather different in rallying where quite often starting first is a massive disadvantage!
Correct. I was just trying to show that in any case a reverse grid is a mistake. Having the slow cars go first in rally allows the leaders to have a clean road during gravel events. Now in F1 having the leaders in clean air and a better a stake at the front for a win is advantageous.


Hmm, how about RANDOM reverse grids during the season? ;) Like say, the fastest teams are WAY faster than everyone else in qualifying, or maybe just 1 team or driver is WAY faster than anyone, then a reverse grid may make a BORING race EXCITING! I agree it wouldn't work to do this every race. And maybe even then, not a FULL reverse grid, but only partial. :D After I typed this, it does seem rather riduculous to have such a thing in the pinnacle of motorsports... :P
LOL! Yeah, then we could guess which race would be in reverse order in FGP.

[wmcot]

How about doing away with qualifying and just draw grid positions out of a hat? Makes about as much sense.

[fugariracing]

Not a fan of the idea. F1 has always been a performance sport where the cream rises to the crop, the fast guys start at the front and the slower ones at the back. Has the potential to turn races into lotteries as opposed to strictly based on performance.

Although this wouldn't hurt at places like Barcelona or Hungary where overtaking opportunities are limited to begin with and it would really spice up those events.

[JSH]

Only reverse grid races I've seen have been with touring cars. In that case the races were complete demolition derbies. But at least with a touring car you can get away with a bit of contact.

Can you imagine the carnage in an F1 race?!?! You'd be left with people like Sato out in front...until he spins off and then you'd have a race in which nobody finishes!

[Osella]

Well what Head says makes no sense whatsoever as in the same article he said it was a shame that faster cars have in the past got held up badly at Monaco.

Well what does he think reverse grids will bring...?

[ioan]

Well what Head says makes no sense whatsoever as in the same article he said it was a shame that faster cars have in the past got held up badly at Monaco.

Well what does he think reverse grids will bring...?

He might not think at all. Or he has a disastrous memory! Age is catching up with him, it seems.

[jens]

On a circuit with passing opportunities the race might turn out to be very interesting (recall 2005 Japanese Grand Prix - fastest cars started from the back, but finished nevertheless in front after a lot of exciting battles: KR 1st and FA 3rd), but it would be a farce at Monaco - all the cars running nose-to-tail without any changes during all those 78 laps? :laugh: Wow, after Lap1 first and last position separated by about 10 or more likely 15 seconds. After the final lap it's about the same. :p :

[ioan]

On a circuit with passing opportunities the race might turn out to be very interesting (recall 2005 Japanese Grand Prix - fastest cars started from the back, but finished nevertheless in front after a lot of exciting battles: KR 1st and FA 3rd), but it would be a farce at Monaco - all the cars running nose-to-tail without any changes during all those 78 laps? :laugh: Wow, after Lap1 first and last position separated by about 10 or more likely 15 seconds. After the final lap it's about the same. :p :

Don't be so sure, MS went from last to 5th in 2006, and only the SC prevented him from getting on the podium!

However Head's idea is not welcome.

[jens]

Don't be so sure, MS went from last to 5th in 2006, and only the SC prevented him from getting on the podium!

However Head's idea is not welcome.

Yeah, but he had clearly slower cars to pass in front (in the beginning Super Aguris, Midlands etc).

But in case of reverse grids the car in front is just a little bit (!) inferior to the car behind, so the pass will be a lot harder. Michael may have passed those Aguris, but would he have passed Alonso's Renault if that had been ahead of him? Also for the leader it's easier to keep the lead, he doesn't need to block a top car, it may well be his team-mate in the same worst car.

[call_me_andrew]

I forsee a qualifying session where everyone is trying to see who can go the slowest.

"Hey while you're the track, hold these lucky lead bricks for me."

[ioan]

They already made a farce of a qualifying once in Silverstone, not too long ago. The Ferraris managed to spin very artistically while the Macs and Renaults just braked before the timing line.
No more such qualys please.

[BDunnell]

Something needs to be done to qualifying, of that I have no doubt. A return to the old single hour-long session or one-lap qualifying would be my choices — anything but the current confusing farce. But reverse grids aren't the answer. I don't like them in touring cars and I hate the idea of them in F1. Surely it isn't beyond the wit of man (including marketing man) to come up with a technical formula that allows overtaking?

[cosmicpanda]

Yeah, but he had clearly slower cars to pass in front (in the beginning Super Aguris, Midlands etc).

But in case of reverse grids the car in front is just a little bit (!) inferior to the car behind, so the pass will be a lot harder. Michael may have passed those Aguris, but would he have passed Alonso's Renault if that had been ahead of him? Also for the leader it's easier to keep the lead, he doesn't need to block a top car, it may well be his team-mate in the same worst car.

To prevent farces in qualifying, give a few points out for setting the fastest time. You'd have to work out something that worked.

Are you saying that if the fastest cars are in the back, then they can't pass, because the slower cars are in the front? Imagine the following procession: Force India, McLaren, Ferrari. Just because the FI car is in front of the McLaren doesn't mean that it is not also in front of the Ferrari. If the Ferrari driver was skilful, he could even use this to his advantage in order to pass the McLaren.

And wouldn't being a little inferior to the car behind be more conducive to passing than being a little more competitive, as is currently the situation?

[cy bais]

Head wants his head examined. :)

[BDunnell]

Don't be so sure, MS went from last to 5th in 2006, and only the SC prevented him from getting on the podium!

However Head's idea is not welcome.

Doesn't mean he's losing his mind, though. He's not the first to have suggested it and he won't be the last.

I agree with you about the ease with which people can carve through the field nowadays, though. I deliberately exclude victories like those by Olivier Panis and Jenson Button where it was something of a surprise and there was lots going on, making the whole thing an entertaining race. Most of the time, the progress through the field by a Schumacher or a Raikkönen is to be expected — it's impressive, but it's not enjoyable. I'd rather there were good battles going on throughout the field.

As for awarding extra points for various things, there is maybe some merit in this, and there is an historical precedent, as Stirling Moss knows only too well. If there's one that could spice things up, it would be an extra point for leading a lap, which could encourage some more daring pit stop strategies, but this would only really work in an 'average' race if the racing was closer anyway.

[markabilly]

No more pit stops. Instead the superbike formula of two races per day. The second race has the reverse finishing order of the first race or vice versa depending on a coin toss. The alternativer is to do away or very very severeley limit wings and aero devices.

[Valve Bounce]

I have a great idea here which would increase the interest in quals as well as create a greater spectacle. Run the normal quals, then line the drivers, fastest first in front of a dartboard.

So the fastest guy gets the first shot, and if he is good at darts, he can aim for 1. If he misses, then he get's the position his dart lands on. Then the next guy get's his turn.

Now!! this is where it get's really interesting because if he hits a number that is already taken, he misses a turn and has to shout a round as well as go to the back of the queue.

Think of all the fun they will have and the opportunity to get friendly with the other racers as well as sharpen their dart throwing skills. I can see everybody getting pissed towards the end of quals and nobody will care where they start, until the next day of course.

[markabilly]

I have a great idea here which would increase the interest in quals as well as create a greater spectacle. Run the normal quals, then line the drivers, fastest first in front of a dartboard.

So the fastest guy gets the first shot, and if he is good at darts, he can aim for 1. If he misses, then he get's the position his dart lands on. Then the next guy get's his turn.

Now!! this is where it get's really interesting because if he hits a number that is already taken, he misses a turn and has to shout a round as well as go to the back of the queue.

Think of all the fun they will have and the opportunity to get friendly with the other racers as well as sharpen their dart throwing skills. I can see everybody getting pissed towards the end of quals and nobody will care where they start, until the next day of course.
Sounds good to me.....by the way you have not trade secreted, patented or copyright this concept, have you? If not, you better watch out for Nigel.....

[wmcot]

I forsee a qualifying session where everyone is trying to see who can go the slowest.

"Hey while you're the track, hold these lucky lead bricks for me."

Perhaps they could qualify in reverse gear?

[janneppi]

Something needs to be done to qualifying, of that I have no doubt. A return to the old single hour-long session or one-lap qualifying would be my choices — anything but the current confusing farce.
The answer is of course the lovable two part quali, :)
Q1 is a 20 minute free for all, with maybe two tyre sets. top 10 adwances to Q2.
Q2 is a one lap/two lap thing where only one car is on a hot lap at a time.
You'd get to see all the cars driving in the beginning and especially midfieldrs would have to make a real effort to get through. Even the top teams would have to drive almost 100%

Then you'd be able to actually see all the important laps that make up the top places, not like now(and the 12 lap 1 hour) where you see only a fraction of most laps and have to rely on commentators telling splits.

[ioan]

Doesn't mean he's losing his mind, though. He's not the first to have suggested it and he won't be the last.

I agree with you about the ease with which people can carve through the field nowadays, though. I deliberately exclude victories like those by Olivier Panis and Jenson Button where it was something of a surprise and there was lots going on, making the whole thing an entertaining race. Most of the time, the progress through the field by a Schumacher or a Raikkönen is to be expected — it's impressive, but it's not enjoyable. I'd rather there were good battles going on throughout the field.

As for awarding extra points for various things, there is maybe some merit in this, and there is an historical precedent, as Stirling Moss knows only too well. If there's one that could spice things up, it would be an extra point for leading a lap, which could encourage some more daring pit stop strategies, but this would only really work in an 'average' race if the racing was closer anyway.

Qualy needs to go back to the 1 hour 12 laps system + they should be required to do 4 laps every 20 minutes. No race fuel qualy bullsh!t, no more imposed use of both tire specifications. This way strategy will be different again through the field, unlike now. And this alone will bring some more overtaking back into the sport.

As for improving it even further, we all know that the aero rules have to be changed radically.

So, instead of comical ideas they should get serious about it.

[janneppi]

Qualy needs to go back to the 1 hour 12 laps system + they should be required to do 4 laps every 20 minutes.
That 4 laps per twenty minutes wouldn't work in real life, teams would just do two sets of ralf hearted laps and would then do the real stints in the end when track is at it's best.
It would be just like it's now, except not even the midfielders would try hard in the beginning.

[ArrowsFA1]

Surely it isn't beyond the wit of man (including marketing man) to come up with a technical formula that allows overtaking?
I think that's the point. Head's view is that the current proposals to facilitate overtaking and improve the spectacle are unlikely to work. If that's the case then they should go back to the drawing board and find something that does work before even considering at other options.

[ioan]

That 4 laps per twenty minutes wouldn't work in real life, teams would just do two sets of ralf hearted laps and would then do the real stints in the end when track is at it's best.
It would be just like it's now, except not even the midfielders would try hard in the beginning.

You think so?
What if they get hold up in their last try? They will be banking at least on their 2nd run and the first would be used to fine tune the cars before the last 2 runs.

Do not forget that even now the top teams do post excellent times in the first 2 qualy sessions even though they know that they do not need it to get in the next session because they are vastly superior to the rest of the grid.

Also the actual qualifying format is due to Bernie wanting to get cars on the track for the whole 60 minutes of the qualy session, and not with any specific sport related problems.

[janneppi]

You think so?
Yes, I'm that cynical. :)


What if they get hold up in their last try? They will be banking at least on their 2nd run and the first would be used to fine tune the cars before the last 2 runs.
If you put strict time limits on when the stints need to be done, drivers risk getting caught on every session as track conditions improve towards the end.
One positive thing for Bernard in your model is that he'd get almost ten minutes of free time for commercials every 20 minutes because no-one would be on the track in the beginning of each 20 minute period. ;)



Also the actual qualifying format is due to Bernie wanting to get cars on the track for the whole 60 minutes of the qualy session, and not with any specific sport related problems.
Indeed, and it stinks. :)

[jens]

Are you saying that if the fastest cars are in the back, then they can't pass, because the slower cars are in the front? Imagine the following procession: Force India, McLaren, Ferrari. Just because the FI car is in front of the McLaren doesn't mean that it is not also in front of the Ferrari. If the Ferrari driver was skilful, he could even use this to his advantage in order to pass the McLaren.

And wouldn't being a little inferior to the car behind be more conducive to passing than being a little more competitive, as is currently the situation?

I was talking about Monaco, where passing even a clearly slower car is difficult, not to mention a little inferior car or a similarly-paced car. :p :

On a "normal" circuit I guess the fastest cars (at least some of them) will emerge to the top by the end, but the race dynamics would be a lot different than what we have seen in the past. So far if a top car has started from the back, then it has been a lonely fast car among slow cars and therefore it's easier to gain positions. But with everyone (except the leader) having the power to gain positions, then it's gonna be a mess. Indeed a skillful driver might gain more, but also luck is needed to be in the right place at the right time in the battles.

Start would be vital - if someone can beat his main rivals into Turn1 and also get ahead of some inferior cars by the same time, then it's already a huge gain. Rivals behind have to pass those cars in racing conditions (which is harder as we know that passing before Turn1 after the start is easier than in any other situation in the race). Also I think we would see clearly more start accidents/collisions as basically everyone is trying to pass everyone.

In case of reverse grids we may start seeing interesting strategies especially from weaker teams. Imagine two Super Aguris starting from the front row. What would they do to have any hope of achieving something in the race? Of course, one of the drivers sacrifices himself and starts blocking heavily, allowing team-mate to pull away (and therefore hope his car doesn't break down).

Actually I guess midfield cars might be quite successful in such race weekend format. On the grid they are closer to the top and if someone can rise from P10 up to P4 for example during Lap1, then it would take him less time to get to the front than for the top cars, who are fighting at the back or at best someone has risen to midfield. And if a midfield car finally gets to the front, it can simply run away from the pack while for a top car it would take some time until it gets to free way and can start chasing the leader. And while by the end of the race a top car probably wins, then quite possibly we will see a midfield car on podium more often, why not almost in every race. Why? All the top cars can't get to the top simultaneously. While some gain, then others will be stuck behind slow cars and lose any hope of a decent achievement in that race.

What would be sure - we would see very different results from race to race.

[ArrowsFA1]

Are you saying that if the fastest cars are in the back, then they can't pass, because the slower cars are in the front?
Markus Winklehock at the 2007 European GP anyone? Ok, so they were freakish circumstances but we had the slowest car on the grid leading the race :D

[BDunnell]

...teams would just do two sets of ralf hearted laps...

If that's a deliberate mis-spelling, or even if it isn't, I love it!

[Valve Bounce]

If that's a deliberate mis-spelling, or even if it isn't, I love it!


I love it :p :

[BDunnell]

If you put strict time limits on when the stints need to be done, drivers risk getting caught on every session as track conditions improve towards the end.

And, again, it would require explanation. Any qualifying system that needs an explanation longer than 'the drivers have only one lap to set their best time' or 'the drivers have to set their best time using a given number of laps in a set period' is too complex.

[BDunnell]

I was talking about Monaco, where passing even a clearly slower car is difficult, not to mention a little inferior car or a similarly-paced car. :p :/QUOTE]

It can be done — it's just that people don't try as hard as they might. Olivier Panis tried in '96, passed a lot of cars and, thanks to other circumstances also coming into play, won.

But let's not forget either that there was no golden age of overtaking at Monaco. There have always been dull processions there.



On a "normal" circuit I guess the fastest cars (at least some of them) will emerge to the top by the end, but the race dynamics would be a lot different than what we have seen in the past. So far if a top car has started from the back, then it has been a lonely fast car among slow cars and therefore it's easier to gain positions. But with everyone (except the leader) having the power to gain positions, then it's gonna be a mess. Indeed a skillful driver might gain more, but also luck is needed to be in the right place at the right time in the battles.

Start would be vital - if someone can beat his main rivals into Turn1 and also get ahead of some inferior cars by the same time, then it's already a huge gain. Rivals behind have to pass those cars in racing conditions (which is harder as we know that passing before Turn1 after the start is easier than in any other situation in the race). Also I think we would see clearly more start accidents/collisions as basically everyone is trying to pass everyone.

In case of reverse grids we may start seeing interesting strategies especially from weaker teams. Imagine two Super Aguris starting from the front row. What would they do to have any hope of achieving something in the race? Of course, one of the drivers sacrifices himself and starts blocking heavily, allowing team-mate to pull away (and therefore hope his car doesn't break down).

Actually I guess midfield cars might be quite successful in such race weekend format. On the grid they are closer to the top and if someone can rise from P10 up to P4 for example during Lap1, then it would take him less time to get to the front than for the top cars, who are fighting at the back or at best someone has risen to midfield. And if a midfield car finally gets to the front, it can simply run away from the pack while for a top car it would take some time until it gets to free way and can start chasing the leader. And while by the end of the race a top car probably wins, then quite possibly we will see a midfield car on podium more often, why not almost in every race. Why? All the top cars can't get to the top simultaneously. While some gain, then others will be stuck behind slow cars and lose any hope of a decent achievement in that race.

What would be sure - we would see very different results from race to race.

I'm not sure about that at the moment. Last year, I think we may have seen some BMW victories, and maybe a Renault win or two, as a result, but few other differences unless it turned out that any of the front-running drivers were really rubbish at getting through traffic. The performance differential between Ferrari, McLaren and the rest except perhaps BMW and to some extent Renault was so great that, in normal race circumstances, Ferrari and McLaren would have risen to the top.

In other formulae that have tried or still use reverse grids, people are often able to carve through the field far quicker even on just the first lap than one might expect, and it isn't especially exciting to watch. It's impressive, but not exciting. This is, of course, connected with your point about racecraft at the first corner and on the opening laps. So, yes, I am sceptical about reverse grids!

My other point is that we'd be wrong to think that Formula 1 has always been as exciting as its very best races. There were boring processions in every season that produced a classic with tons of overtaking.

[DimitraF1]

the best solution is: the fastest 10 cars in qualifying to get the hard compound tyres and the rest to have the fastest medium-soft to choose...

[keysersoze]

Solution:

After practice, grid positions are determined for qualifying in order of fastest laps. Then, two groups are formed, with each group consisting of one car per team.

Group one goes out for a 10-lap qualifying session, rally style from the start/finish line, one every 5 seconds. After this "race," then the others go out. Presumably the second group will be faster than the first, as more rubber will have been laid down.

After a 15-minute break, the second group goes out for qualifying session #2, followed by the first, done the same way.

Grid positions are an aggregate of the overall time from both sessions.

In this manner, it seems, all teams will be required to fully utilize both periods, as opposed to putting in a ralf-hearted effort (love that expression) in Q1, for instance.

It is also unlikely that drivers will have to deal with traffic.

[ioan]

Solution:

After practice, grid positions are determined for qualifying in order of fastest laps. Then, two groups are formed, with each group consisting of one car per team.

Group one goes out for a 10-lap qualifying session, rally style from the start/finish line, one every 5 seconds. After this "race," then the others go out. Presumably the second group will be faster than the first, as more rubber will have been laid down.

After a 15-minute break, the second group goes out for qualifying session #2, followed by the first, done the same way.

Grid positions are an aggregate of the overall time from both sessions.

In this manner, it seems, all teams will be required to fully utilize both periods, as opposed to putting in a ralf-hearted effort (love that expression) in Q1, for instance.

It is also unlikely that drivers will have to deal with traffic.

Not bad. I like the idea!

[Rollo]

Putting slow moving objects in the way of faster cars at the start of a Grand Prix; especially when they're already in a high pressure situation is a fantastic idea and could very easily lead to this:
http://www.nsxfiles.com/images/krc_feb_02_ralf.jpg
Anything which compromises the safety of the drviers, leads to more drivers being killed is obviously a benefit to the sport.
Let's do away with seatbelts, run-off areas, tyre barriers and flag marshalls whilst we're at it as well. If more drivers and spectators die then this is a damn good idea.

Patrick Head is changing his first name to Richard at the end of the week.

[L5->R5/CR]

I didn't read the whole thread but....

Has there been a race series that has used a partial reverse grid?

Top 8 in the championship are reverse gridded at the front and then the rest of the field based on pre-race qualifying....


Would eliminate some of the risk of carnage due to utter crap cars being infront of race winning cars. It would also put the middle of the pack cars in a position to break into the top 8 while not holding up the championship leaders too much...

[Rollo]

Has there been a race series that has used a partial reverse grid?

Yep, the BTCC.

The inherant problem with F1 cars and indeed every open-wheel form of motorsport is the jump-wheel problem. When sticky rubber surfaces come into contact they do their job as intended... stick; the results are a change of momentum in a different direction to the direction of travel.

The whole point of qualifying is to reward people for building and driving faster. A reverse-grid is counter intuitive and there would be little incentive to produce a fast lap at all. If I was in an F1 car with a reverse grid, I'd go round in 15 minutes if I could.

[maxu05]

If it's extra excitement they are after, just have them drive blindfolded :D

[Whyzars]

Putting slow moving objects in the way of faster cars at the start of a Grand Prix...

Patrick Head is changing his first name to Richard at the end of the week.

That is an absolutely cracking line. :)


My feelings on this subject are to add 2 kilograms to the minimum dry weight for every WDC point scored and experiment from there.

Handicapping is done extensively in horse racing and should work for horsepower racing as well. I know handicapping has been done in other motorsport but this would be tasked for the gambling dollar not to improve the racing or the spectacle.

Even if gambling is not a primary consideration, I think that a healthier betting market will be a consequence of some thing like a reverse grid, intended or not.

JMHO of course...

[jso1985]

Reverse grids, awful idea IMO, also success ballast, I just don't like artificial measures to improve the show! I know F1 can be boring sometimes but artificial measures aren't the answer

[Whyzars]

Reverse grids, awful idea IMO, also success ballast, I just don't like artificial measures to improve the show! I know F1 can be boring sometimes but artificial measures aren't the answer

I tend to agree but I'm not sure this is driven purely by improving the show for the benefit of spectators. It carries though that, if the gambling is better, the resultant spectacle must be better for non-gamblers so everyone wins - pardon the pun.

Its just my opinion but I believe that exploring options such as reverse grids is about making the result less predictable and thus better from a gambling perspective.

Sports betting is big money so I would not be surprised to see it being a consideration for F1.

[wmcot]

My feelings on this subject are to add 2 kilograms to the minimum dry weight for every WDC point scored and experiment from there.



To the car or the driver? Where is JPM when you need him? ;)

[jens]

I'm not sure about that at the moment. Last year, I think we may have seen some BMW victories, and maybe a Renault win or two, as a result, but few other differences unless it turned out that any of the front-running drivers were really rubbish at getting through traffic. The performance differential between Ferrari, McLaren and the rest except perhaps BMW and to some extent Renault was so great that, in normal race circumstances, Ferrari and McLaren would have risen to the top.


On most occasions the top cars will rise to the top, but what I meant that generally the race results would differ a lot (a proved thing in GP3 with reverse grid method :p : ) - it's not just about the top, but the whole field.

One example. Ralf Schumacher had quite a poor season last year and therefore for the Hungarian Grand Prix he would have had quite a good grid position. Remember, in reality he finished only 7,5 seconds behind last podium position and with reverse grid method he would have taken an early lead thanks to good grid position. As for top cars passing is very hard at Hungaroring, Ralf would have almost certainly finished on podium and ... well, why not even won?!

So those may well surprise, who haven't had a good season so far and somehow get it right for a particular race. Also at the start of the season we could see some races, where the "fight" for the win is boring. :eek: For example: if a top car retires early in the opening race, then it would mean a front row position for race two and total domination in that Grand Prix, while other fast cars are fighting at the back. The battle between top cars on track would be tighter if they have about on the same level in the standings. Such reverse grid system also helps to keep WDC battle close as those, who have struggled in the season so far, have better opportunities in the next race to close the gap.

Also we would have more collisions with reversed grids, which also means we would see more safety cars sessions. And we know that the current SC rule really turns a race into lottery. Results would be quite unpredictable and even if a top car's win is more probable than any other's, it would be extremely hard to tell, which top car would win it.

[cosmicpanda]

Solution:

After practice, grid positions are determined for qualifying in order of fastest laps. Then, two groups are formed, with each group consisting of one car per team.

Group one goes out for a 10-lap qualifying session, rally style from the start/finish line, one every 5 seconds. After this "race," then the others go out. Presumably the second group will be faster than the first, as more rubber will have been laid down.

After a 15-minute break, the second group goes out for qualifying session #2, followed by the first, done the same way.

Grid positions are an aggregate of the overall time from both sessions.

In this manner, it seems, all teams will be required to fully utilize both periods, as opposed to putting in a ralf-hearted effort (love that expression) in Q1, for instance.

It is also unlikely that drivers will have to deal with traffic.

why not start them from the pit lane? It would be safer than parking everyone on the grid.

[Garry Walker]

F1 will never be about overtaking. Fast cars qualify at the front and slow ones at the back, so by default there will be no overtaking. If you want meaningless overtaking every other lap, go watch Nascrap. But if you want to see the best technology and the best drivers at their limit, then F1 is for you.

Patrick Heads idea is so menta and idioticl that he should be arrested for daring to say something like this. I am very much surprised he said this.

[Mihai]

The fastest qualifiers to start from the back ? They would'n want to be quick in qualifying!

Remember the 2003 British Grand Prix when nearly every driver wanted to be as slow as possible? Such as forgetting to push the thorottle on the straight or by making a gentle spin...

Reverse grids would create a chaos in F1 historical statistics and it would create hilarious quali sessions that nobody would want to watch. I hope Bernie E is smarter than Patrick Head.

[wmcot]

The fastest qualifiers to start from the back ? They would'n want to be quick in qualifying!

Remember the 2003 British Grand Prix when nearly every driver wanted to be as slow as possible? Such as forgetting to push the thorottle on the straight or by making a gentle spin...

Reverse grids would create a chaos in F1 historical statistics and it would create hilarious quali sessions that nobody would want to watch. I hope Bernie E is smarter than Patrick Head.

I wonder if Head would have put this idea out in 1996 & 1997???

[Garry Walker]

I wonder if Head would have put this idea out in 1996 & 1997???

Well, Head probably wasn`t senile back then :D

[BobbyC]

Club-style oval racing in the United States has partial reverse grids (4-8 cars) with a cash bonus awarded for the reverse grids. In some big-money races drivers are enticed with a big bonus if they "reverse" by starting last and if they win, collect a huge cash bonus. The format is used mostly for races without pit stops, as the early Craftsman Truck Series races used a reverse eight format after drivers ran away leading all 200 laps in the two-segment format used in the series' first three and a half seasons.

A cash bonus and bonus points would make an 8-car reverse grid interesting. Give the pole man 10,000 euros for the pole and one point, and if they can go from 8th to 5th in the first 10 laps, award them one extra point, 4th two, 3rd three, 2nd four, and take the lead, five bonus points. The driver in seventh will have the bonus for the top four (1 for 4th, 2 for 3rd, 3 for 2nd, 4 for 1st), sixth will have the bonus for the top three, and fifth two points (2nd is worth one point) if they can assume the lead within the first 10 laps. Add a 1,000 euro per position gained in the first ten laps, and 10,000 euros if the driver who starts 8th gets the lead within the first 10 laps.

The driver in eighth would have five points and 10,000 euros to come to the front. The driver in seventh would have four points and 6,000 euros, sixth three points and 5,000 euros, and fifth two points and 2,000 euros.

Imagine a championship coming down to aggressive racing in the first 10 laps of the championship race, knowing that a driver can get 16 points and 20,000 euros for a pole, leading the race within the first ten laps, and winning the race.

How would fans react to bonuses for hard racing in the first ten laps of a 70-lap race?

Oh, by the way: A 100,000 euro bonus for the most bonus passing points earned year-long and another one for most poles won, and another for most positions gained as a Top Eight Reverse Grid driver would help.

[Tazio]

I think they should go back to parking the cars diagonally have the pilots standing a pre determined distance from cars when the light goes green the one Mechanic allowed to attend the car ignites the combustible propulsion element in the same manner they do now. Cars are placed in (and I really don't think it's that important) the order they finished the last race, thus eliminating qualifying and use that time for testing. The pilots with the best wheels (of course I'm talking about running speed) have the advantage of pulling out and making an advantages start. :p :

Ron will take credit for coming up with a revolutionary training regiment so he not only has pilots with the best race craft they will be elite world class sprinters :p :


On a side note Kimi will be asked by SD to remove any tattoos that will cause unnecessary drag with the exception of a tattoo of the prancing horse via Mike Tyson style on his face, as a major intimidation factor! :beer: :p :

[wmcot]

I think they should go back to parking the cars diagonally have the pilots standing a pre determined distance from cars when the light goes green the one Mechanic allowed to attend the car ignites the combustible propulsion element in the same manner they do now. Cars are placed in (and I really don't think it's that important) the order they finished the last race, thus eliminating qualifying and use that time for testing. The pilots with the best wheels (of course I'm talking about running speed) have the advantage of pulling out and making an advantages start. :p :

Ron will take credit for coming up with a revolutionary training regiment so he not only has pilots with the best race craft they will be elite world class sprinters :p :


On a side note Kimi will be asked by SD to remove any tattoos that will cause unnecessary drag with the exception of a tattoo of the prancing horse via Mike Tyson style on his face, as a major intimidation factor! :beer: :p :

Sounds like the old "Le Mans start" to me. That is OK for sports cars with enclosed wheels, but if you watch those old races, you'll see quite a bit of contact at the starts. That would not go well in F1! Carbon fibre all over the start/finish straight...

[Tazio]

Sounds like the old "Le Mans start" to me. That is OK for sports cars with enclosed wheels, but if you watch those old races, you'll see quite a bit of contact at the starts. That would not go well in F1! Carbon fibre all over the start/finish straight...I forgot to mention that the grid positions are 25meters apart :p :

[Mihai]

The Le Mans start is dangerous because drivers used to skip the part where they buckle up their seat belts in order to have a better start. Belgian driver Willy Mairesse was crippled by a first lap incident at Le Mans in the late 60s due to the fact that he didn't closed the door properly and didn't put his belt. In nowdays F1 it takes about 15 seconds for a crew member to assist the driver in buckling up his seat belts.

[Tazio]

The Le Mans start is dangerous because drivers used to skip the part where they buckle up their seat belts in order to have a better start. Belgian driver Willy Mairesse was crippled by a first lap incident at Le Mans in the late 60s due to the fact that he didn't closed the door properly and didn't put his belt. In nowdays F1 it takes about 15 seconds for a crew member to assist the driver in buckling up his seat belts.
your right just because frank suggests something potentially dangerous doesn't mean I have to prove I can come up with one much more :p :

[Mihai]

Yep, the reverse grid is a danger itself because it puts slower/inexperienced drivers up front. Imagine a couple of them stalling their engines on the start line and being hit from behind by the top dogs while speeding from the back of the grid. I think the standing start is the most hazard-packed moment in an open-wheel race. Reverse grid might be safe only if the rolling start is previously introduced.