F1 reverse line up

[autogyro]

What do you think the top teams' arguments would be?

They would almost certainly TRY and use the "safety" argument; "its not safe having all the fast cars start behind the slow ones.

Someone in the FIA would just have to point out that their drivers just need to lift on the throttle a little bit!

It would be a shame if F1 drivers were to scared to at least try the idea but then the oval circuit boys have been doing it for years and they are drivers not primadonas.
Martin Brundel started on the ovals, so I would certainly be interested in his advice on the suggestion.

[machin]

We should all E-mail Martin Brundle at the BBC... if enough people said the same thing he'd be quite likely to mention it on the show and that would get people talking......

[readonly]

We should all E-mail Martin Brundle at the BBC... if enough people said the same thing he'd be quite likely to mention it on the show and that would get people talking......

Please do it, and give us Brundle's e-mail too. He could shurely help. I hope he wants to.

[Pandamasque]

Why not make a classic Le Mans start? All the drivers would stand next to the grandstand like warriors with starters in their hands as the lights go out. Then run, start their cars parked next to the pitwall, throw the starters over the wall and get in the car.

[readonly]

Why not make a classic Le Mans start? All the drivers would stand next to the grandstand like warriors with starters in their hands as the lights go out. Then run, start their cars parked next to the pitwall, throw the starters over the wall and get in the car.

Well this thread is about reverse line up. Your idea is of course attractive for us the expectators but you should be able to foresee the huge risk that drivers would be into. Supose a driver that is placed in one of the front slots is delayed a few seconds and when he finally starts another driver that was placed in the back is already passing in front of him at a very high speed. I can only think of Zanardi's tragic crash.

[raymondu999]

What about reversing the Q1-2-3 order? So first we have a top10 qualifying shootout, then decide 11-17, then 18-24? But still have the tyre rule, or as per last year, the race fuel rule, for the top 10 shootout? That would be fun

[Pandamasque]

What about reversing the Q1-2-3 order? So first we have a top10 qualifying shootout, then...

...the viewing figures reduce... and then some more.

[readonly]

What do you think the top teams' arguments would be?

They would almost certainly TRY and use the "safety" argument; "its not safe having all the fast cars start behind the slow ones.

Someone in the FIA would just have to point out that their drivers just need to lift on the throttle a little bit!

Yes, that would be mostly a pretext but I would ask if any of you can think of a good reason to reject the system. I can't, really.

[Twaddle]

I've had an idea for a while that would both get more out of the saturday and should give a somewhat more unpredictable grid on sunday:

Keep 3 sessions of qualifying, but change them into 10 lap sprint races (no points awarded). Q1 grid is reverse championship order, Q2 grid is finishing order from Q1 and Q3 grid is finishing order from Q2. EDIT: I forgot to explicitly say that the grid for the championship race would be the finishing order from Q3.

Saturdays should be awesome to watch and then you have the championship event on sunday that is still unlikely to start with all the fastest cars at the front. Qualifying would also place more emphasis on a driver's ability to pass and defend rather than the outright pace of the car and you'd have more incentive to design a car that's good in traffic as well as in clean air.

EDIT:
It also means that a team starts the season badly, but can win the development race during the season will find it easier to catch up in the championship. Likewise, a team that has a fast car but reliability problems will find it easier to catch up once they fix their reliability issues. Both of which should be good for the championship.

[readonly]

I've had an idea for a while that would both get more out of the saturday and should give a somewhat more unpredictable grid on sunday:

Keep 3 sessions of qualifying, but change them into 10 lap sprint races (no points awarded). Q1 grid is reverse championship order, Q2 grid is finishing order from Q1 and Q3 grid is finishing order from Q2. EDIT: I forgot to explicitly say that the grid for the championship race would be the finishing order from Q3.

Saturdays should be awesome to watch and then you have the championship event on sunday that is still unlikely to start with all the fastest cars at the front. Qualifying would also place more emphasis on a driver's ability to pass and defend rather than the outright pace of the car and you'd have more incentive to design a car that's good in traffic as well as in clean air.

EDIT:
It also means that a team starts the season badly, but can win the development race during the season will find it easier to catch up in the championship. Likewise, a team that has a fast car but reliability problems will find it easier to catch up once they fix their reliability issues. Both of which should be good for the championship.

I like your idea. If that is the way the fia gets convinced then it's ok for me.

Your idea is basically to divide the race in two days. Start the race from saturday (using the reverse lineup) and continue it on sundays. The q1 q2 q3 format that you mention is equivalent of taking the pace car twice during the saturday stint.

I think it would be better to leave saturdays as they are now and use them as a driver-track confrontation competition without traffic, and reward the best driver/team on an empty track. Then on sundays the test is further stressed by the inclusion of traffic as the ability that drivers need to develop if they want to win the race.

Saturdays, I think, could be rewarded with WDC points or, better still, with a parallel championship. I would call it the "pure speed championship" or so and sundays' championship would be the "Racing Championship". How do you like this?

[Confused_Andy]

Sounds like a good idea but it gives the fans the "illusion" of racing, its not actual racing because in one way or another their spot on the grid is manipulated so that they must perform overtakes, if they are genuinely the best driver and the best car they will always be out in front, whats the point in hindering them.

[readonly]

Sounds like a good idea but it gives the fans the "illusion" of racing, its not actual racing because in one way or another their spot on the grid is manipulated so that they must perform overtakes, if they are genuinely the best driver and the best car they will always be out in front, whats the point in hindering them.

Hi Andy

For me this would not be an illusion. Drivers would still have to do what they have to do now (be faster) but with an additional requirement: to overtake (presumably slower) rivals and avoid being overtaken by (presumably faster) rivals. That is, in my humble opinion, to transform the current sport into a more sporty spot.

The rhing is that it is too easy for a driver to sit in the fastest car, get pole or p2 in qualy and then cruise to first or second place in the race. That does not sound very much like racing for me.

Under the proposed system, everyone must do a great job in order to win a race. I think.

[autogyro]

The system has worked perfectly well for over half a century in oval racing.

[machin]

There was a good reverse grid British Touring ar race at the weekend too, and the British F3 Championsip features reverse grid races now too....

[WhiteBlue]

Three weeks and five pages later it is still Briatore Humbug IMO.