Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
tok-tokkie wrote:
The present system is a money arms race. Reverse order starting will bring the poor teams much more into the mix and nullify much of the advantage of the rich teams.
I wouldn't envisage the reverse grid system nullifying the advantage of the top teams. They, with the fastes cars and the best drivers, will always come out on top as the system inherently rewards the best car/driver combo over the course of the season.
In my opinion, the gap between the teams needs to be addressed on a commercial level, not the sporting level.
I really like the idea of reverse starting grids. As Tim said, there is little to no racing at the top. And if we look for the question "what was good in this race" in the race threads about 90% end up with "there was good racing in the midfield".
But I see a problem with overtaking...with the current aero it will be very difficult to go from last to first, so not always the fastest driver will win. I can picture Wehrlein winning Monaco with this idea
Regarding Q: To me it looks like there is really a problem with attendance for Q. So if Q is not directly defining the starting positions, they could go for really nice prologue-like solutions for the fans. Maybe something like standard GP2 car and the drivers fighting for some grid bonus in the same car.
basti313 wrote:I really like the idea of reverse starting grids. As Tim said, there is little to no racing at the top. And if we look for the question "what was good in this race" in the race threads about 90% end up with "there was good racing in the midfield".
This is because there are 4 cars at the top and 10+ in the midfield so in the midfield it's easier to find 2-3 cars having a battle.
basti313 wrote:I really like the idea of reverse starting grids. As Tim said, there is little to no racing at the top. And if we look for the question "what was good in this race" in the race threads about 90% end up with "there was good racing in the midfield".
This is because there are 4 cars at the top and 10+ in the midfield so in the midfield it's easier to find 2-3 cars having a battle.
Your post is reflecting the usual "it is like it is" here? Do you think it is ok not to see overtakes in 90% of the races within the Top4?
basti313 wrote:I really like the idea of reverse starting grids. As Tim said, there is little to no racing at the top. And if we look for the question "what was good in this race" in the race threads about 90% end up with "there was good racing in the midfield".
This is because there are 4 cars at the top and 10+ in the midfield so in the midfield it's easier to find 2-3 cars having a battle.
Your post is reflecting the usual "it is like it is" here? Do you think it is ok not to see overtakes in 90% of the races within the Top4?
No, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic, which is a matter of statistics and probability.
Anyway where did you get that 90% statistic from, do you have a reference for that?
zac510 wrote:
This is because there are 4 cars at the top and 10+ in the midfield so in the midfield it's easier to find 2-3 cars having a battle.
Your post is reflecting the usual "it is like it is" here? Do you think it is ok not to see overtakes in 90% of the races within the Top4?
No, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic, which is a matter of statistics and probability.
Good point, well made...
[-o<
zac510 wrote:Anyway where did you get that 90% statistic from, do you have a reference for that?
Call it an educated guess. Please count if you think it is wrong.
By the way: With "overtakes" I mean "overtakes" in the way of "overtakes" being interesting, not something like P1 on 30 laps old tires and P2 flying past with DRS.
Thinking about this...is 90% not underestimated? Maybe 95% is better...
basti313 wrote:
Your post is reflecting the usual "it is like it is" here? Do you think it is ok not to see overtakes in 90% of the races within the Top4?
No, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic, which is a matter of statistics and probability.
Good point, well made...
[-o<
OK, fair enough, I didn't explain it. So let's do so.. For sake of this discussion, in the top we have 4 cars, and in the midfield we have 10 cars and each car makes on average 2 overtakes per race. Of course these numbers vary from circuit to circuit and race to race, so please don't quote these numbers as factual. They are simply for simpliicity and argument's sake. The important issue in this discussion is the number of cars, not the actual number of overtakes.
The first issue is that in the top 4, it's actually top 3. The driver in P1 can't overtake anybody because there's nobody to overtake. Only P2,3 and 4 can overtake.
In the race if a car makes 2 overtakes per race, then there'll be 6 overtakes from the top 4 cars and 20 overtakes from the 10 cars in the midfield. There are 3 times as many cars in the midfield than in the top cars. Immediately one's impression of overtakes is greater from the 20 midfield overtakes.
Thus even if Vettel overtakes 4 cars next weekend (twice the average of 2), the average is still to see 20 overtakes from the 10 cars in the midfield, then it's still 20 vs 8 overtakes from the midfield that's 3 times as large.
The real point here is that people are not judging the midfield and the top 4 cars equally because of the difference in the number of cars.
Of course I agree with you that more overtakes is better and that my example scenario of 2 overtakes per race is dismal, but remember I am try to demonstrate why it always seems like there is more action in the midfield than up front.
basti313 wrote:
zac510 wrote:Anyway where did you get that 90% statistic from, do you have a reference for that?
Call it an educated guess. Please count if you think it is wrong.
By the way: With "overtakes" I mean "overtakes" in the way of "overtakes" being interesting, not something like P1 on 30 laps old tires and P2 flying past with DRS.
Thinking about this...is 90% not underestimated? Maybe 95% is better...
The onus is not on me to count them and prove you wrong. Scientific peer review doesn't work by saying: "Here's my idea, you do the work and prove me wrong." You are expected to do the work yourself to prove it.
People are real suckers for numbers so your idea would be far better proven with real, not guesstimated statistics. Last 2 races would be a great place to start with counting all the times a top 4 qualifying car has fallen out of position on lap 1 then count how far they worked their way back up. You would start to get some representative evidence of what it would be like with the fastest cars starting out of position. The end of lap 1 after a messy first corner is about as close as you'll get to a messed up grid. You would end up with a bunch of messy first corner and non-messy first corner races, then you can compare the number of overtakes in each sample.
we used to reverse the field in the old days of Modified and Stock Cars on small ovals but for all it did or would do is make for betting on how long it would take for the top guys to work their way into the lead. . . Or for some lesser qualified car or driver to cause mayhem.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
strad wrote:we used to reverse the field in the old days of Modified and Stock Cars on small ovals but for all it did or would do is make for betting on how long it would take for the top guys to work their way into the lead. . . Or for some lesser qualified car or driver to cause mayhem.
That interval of time being longer than the current 0 seconds when the lights go out.
I was initially against a reverse grid because I was of the impression that the winning drivers should not be penalised, but after reading the posts in this thread I am now in favour of using a grid based on the championship standings in reverse order of course.
As has been said above, the eventual drivers and team champions would have deserved their trophy after showing their driving skills and team strategy decisions throughout the season. This could be introduced next year so the teams can develop their cars knowing that they are going to have to pass a lot more cars to win. Very simple and elegant solution to the sterile races we have at the moment, no one would be penalised because they all know from the beginning what is required to succeed. The current qualifying format is the direct cause of the processional nature of today's races.
A new format for Saturdays would be required, may be a sprint race for bonus points, a standard GP2 type car would add too much to the escalating costs so would probably be unworkable unless Bernie supplies the cars!!
I think todays race was a good indication on what a reverse champoinship grid order could achieve and why the current gridding method is responsible for boring races.
Rosberg proved the second point by driving off into the distance with nothing asked of his racecraft and very little asked of his outright pace as the car was reasonably easily able to lap 1 sec faster than anyone else and 2 seconds when he was pushing and in the end he finished a full pitstop ahead of everyone. And now you've got the inevitable voices now claiming he didn't deserve it and that he has it too easy.
On the other side of the spectrum, 3 drivers who were put out of position early on in turn showed pace, racecraft and tyre management which made for an extremely interesting race:
Hamilton made it up to 7th from last (+15 places)
Ricciardo made it up to 4th from 18th (+14 places)
Raikonnen made it up to 5th from second last (16 places)
The fact that all 3 comfortably passed more than half of the field shows that there is little danger of anyone except the best drivers winning a race from a reverse championship order grid.
Granted this is a good track for overtaking and today the tyres behaved quite well. This will not always be the case.
Perhaps such a system would need to have a few exceptions. Melbs being the first race would need a standard qualifying. Tracks where it's impossible to overtake would need the same e.g. Monaco, Hungary and probably Baku. The rest are all new wide tracks where if you have a car advantage you can overtake.
The system would require a rework of the points system with points being awarded for everyone otherwise you wouldn't be able to organise the grid properly beyond 10th place.
It's worth considering but would take a large shift in thinking.
Yesterday's race was the best possible advert for reverse-championship grid formations, very reminiscent of the 2005 Japanese GP.
It's actually completely crazy expecting good races under the current qualifying system. What do we expect when the cars line up in descending order of speed?
All we can hope for are mishaps which are few and far between in this age of hyper-reliability, well mannered first corners (yesterday being an exception), and cars that are practically set-up before they pitch up thanks to simulation technology.
One of the only arguments I can muster against reverse-grids is the potential for watered down sentiment for a win. For example, during the first race of the year one of the fastest cars retires, and is therefore last in the standings; for the next race it would be on pole, and likely drive away for an easy win.
Of course, completely refuting that argument is the fact that we experience these circumstances virtually every race. How much merit is there in achieving what Rosberg did yesterday? Yes, he drove a largely faultless race, but it was without pressure, without challenge whatsoever.
The points system would need to be changed. There'd be issues in the minor placings and positions that don't yield points, as I could see cars trying to finish as low as possible in an attempt to muster better grid slots for the next race.
My solution would be to have a points system based on position and time.
E.g. points by position:
100, 75, 60, 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
This compares reasonably well with the current system:
25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, , 2, 1
Points by time could be allocated by finishing time differential relative to last classified runner (non-team-mate).
E.g. 0.1 points per second. If last place finished 100 seconds behind the winner and 85 seconds behind second place, the winner would get 10 additional points, second place an extra 8 points (rounding down), or 9 points (rounding up). If last place had been lapped, each lap would constitute the fastest lap achieved by the winner, etc...
Points by time would create incentive to drive as fast as possible; it would reward dominant race wins; it would help mitigate the 'Monaco effect', where reverse grids engineer wins for 'undeserving winners'. It would also require some thought concerning safety cars, how often they are deployed, etc...
Overly complicated, and probably a bad idea, but it felt like a meritorious idea at the time, so feel free to shoot it full of holes.
Thanks, I needed a laugh.