Changes To Qualifying

[henry]

I agree reversing the grid would be an overreaction to a problem that actually seems to be solved for the moment. F1 is quite competitive the last few races and it gives more than enough decent racing that we for now don't need something radical to spice things up.

It would be nice to have reverse grids for a second sprint race which is not part of the official championship. It would definitely throw a lot of monkey wrenches in race strategy too. I just don't find it fit or fair for what we have now on the table.

As I’ve said a few times. The reason the racing right now, last few races, is good is because the car/driver combo that is fastest in the short time trial on Saturday is not the one that is fastest in the long time trial on Sunday. Part of the entertainment value on Sunday is seeing the faster car wrestling with the problem of getting close enough to overtake whilst hampered by the wake and hot air from the slower car in front.

Fast forward to 2021. IF they have achieved what they have set out to do the wake problem will be very much reduced. So the fast Sunday car will cruise up to and pass the fast Saturday car and they’ll all be in speed order by the pit stop.

As for fair, it depends how things get implemented. If everyone is subject to the self same rules it is, by definition, fair. Different sure, but fair.

[turbof1]

I agree reversing the grid would be an overreaction to a problem that actually seems to be solved for the moment. F1 is quite competitive the last few races and it gives more than enough decent racing that we for now don't need something radical to spice things up.

It would be nice to have reverse grids for a second sprint race which is not part of the official championship. It would definitely throw a lot of monkey wrenches in race strategy too. I just don't find it fit or fair for what we have now on the table.

As I’ve said a few times. The reason the racing right now, last few races, is good is because the car/driver combo that is fastest in the short time trial on Saturday is not the one that is fastest in the long time trial on Sunday.

Exactly. There is variance of competition where teams are more and/or less competitive depending on the situation. That is something the sports needs... in a none-artificial way like it is happening now.

You can encourage that through other means than throwing around the grid. For instance, introduce regulations where you get to spend a certain amount of points on certain levels of performance. You might end up with one team spending more points on engine, and another team more on aerodynamics, a bit like we actually have now.

Having the most competitive teams out of order is good, as long as it happens due performance deficits on behalf of the team.

[izzy]

I agree reversing the grid would be an overreaction to a problem that actually seems to be solved for the moment. F1 is quite competitive the last few races and it gives more than enough decent racing that we for now don't need something radical to spice things up.

It would be nice to have reverse grids for a second sprint race which is not part of the official championship. It would definitely throw a lot of monkey wrenches in race strategy too. I just don't find it fit or fair for what we have now on the table.

well most of what we have now is tension. in Sochi it didn't look like racing even when Charles on better tyres caught Valtteri. And there were some terrible races earlier in the season

of course the cars need fixing and they're going to be, hopefully. But atm we're depending on 3-4 cars being out of position speed wise, as Henry says, when all we have to give us that is parc ferme and setup, whereas with a reverse grid we have all 20 cars out of position

[izzy]

Exactly. There is variance of competition where teams are more and/or less competitive depending on the situation. That is something the sports needs... in a none-artificial way like it is happening now.

You can encourage that through other means than throwing around the grid.

The only reason the race starts in speed order is safety, from way way back. there's nothing artificial about inverse success order. There has to be an order, so what basis should be chosen on? The original reason is gone so why not start afresh? If you were looking for the least sane order to start a RACE in, what would it be? Right!! Speed Order

[dans79]

The original reason is gone so why not start afresh?

Missed the spa weekend did you?

[izzy]

The original reason is gone so why not start afresh?

Missed the spa weekend did you?

that was because they started in reverse championship order? or a pace difference between the cars in any way whatsoever?

[dans79]

The original reason is gone so why not start afresh?

Missed the spa weekend did you?

that was because they started in reverse championship order? or a pace difference between the cars in any way whatsoever?

It's because they where bunched up. They we're bunched up because it was lap two of a spec series.

A reverse grid formula 1 race will have the exact same effect; cars bunched up for far longer, and thus a much higher chance of a collision.

have you not even considered why in f2 they only reverse the first eight positions?

[izzy]

It's because they where bunched up. They we're bunched up because it was lap two of a spec series.

A reverse grid formula 1 race will have the exact same effect; cars bunched up for far longer, and thus a much higher chance of a collision.

have you not even considered why in f2 they only reverse the first eight positions?

watch this

when Hubert is up in Raidillon Correa is still down in Eau Rouge, behind King. it had nothing to to with being bunched up. Okay? Now watch this

and tell me F1 is not bunched up

[dans79]

when Hubert is up in Raidillon Correa is still down in Eau Rouge, behind King. it had nothing to to with being bunched up. Okay?

You literally haven't though about this at all have you.

A marshal can't even begin to pick up a yellow flag and start waving it in the time it takes to get from Eau Rouge to Raidillon. Not to mention the reaction times of the marshals, or the drivers, or the time it takes to drastically slow down an f2 or an f1 car.

[izzy]

You literally haven't though about this at all have you.

A marshal can't even begin to pick up a yellow flag and start waving it in the time it takes to get from Eau Rouge to Raidillon. Not to mention the reaction times of the marshals, or the drivers, or the time it takes to drastically slow down an f2 or an f1 car.

the gap has nothing to do with a reverse grid, that grid, qualifying or the series

[turbof1]

Look, it would be hugely unfair and unrespectful to put Hubert's death in this discussion. There are too many factors involved in that. Let us please refrain from using his death as an argument here. He deserves better!

Exactly. There is variance of competition where teams are more and/or less competitive depending on the situation. That is something the sports needs... in a none-artificial way like it is happening now.

You can encourage that through other means than throwing around the grid.

The only reason the race starts in speed order is safety, from way way back. there's nothing artificial about inverse success order. There has to be an order, so what basis should be chosen on? The original reason is gone so why not start afresh? If you were looking for the least sane order to start a RACE in, what would it be? Right!! Speed Order

That's certainly not the reason now. If it was in the past or not (I honestly don't know nor care) is not relevant. We have qualifying now to determine the starting order. You want to get rid of qualifying? Be my guest. You want it random? Make the starting positions literally a lottery. I am all for that. But, don't ask teams to qualify as high as they can just to have their order reversed. We've seen well enough from Monza teams and drivers will just go as slow as they possibly can. Reverse grids will not only remove any incentive to qualify as high hey can, it will also give an outright incentive to qualify as low as possible. Yes, you can fix that with points. The question is: how many. If it is just 5 points for the highest qualifier, teams will still prefer to qualify lower. 25 points and qualifying takes away a lot of the emphasis that is on the race. You would need to fully introduce a format like in F2. But then we are again dealing with the issue of needing more engines, changing up the program, etc.

Also, the practice of intentionally putting the best performer at the rear of the grid, is artificial. Artificial is the practice of trying to change the natural, competitive order. In my eyes doing a lottery than is much saner, because you are atleast leaving it to chance then.

And ultimately, what will be the result? You'll have each race williams car falling down the grid and top teams eventually getting stuck behind a renault or a haas, which is clearly a slower car, but also just about good enough to stay ahead on a number of circuits. And that would be fine for me; having a midfield car fending off a top car is a nice proposition, however I don't find it appealing that the midfield car was just handed that position, instead of having to gotten there through racecraft, strategy, failure of the big teams or even just pure dumb luck.

That's why I think you need to both close up performance across the field, and introduce performance variances. Create situations where cars are diverging and have strength and weaknesses, create unreliability, create unknowns. Embrace the chaos that way.

[izzy]

But, don't ask teams to qualify as high as they can just to have their order reversed. We've seen well enough from Monza teams and drivers will just go as slow as they possibly can. Reverse grids will not only remove any incentive to qualify as high hey can, it will also give an outright incentive to qualify as low as possible. Yes, you can fix that with points. The question is: how many.
Also, the practice of intentionally putting the best performer at the rear of the grid, is artificial. Artificial is the practice of trying to change the natural, competitive order. In my eyes doing a lottery than is much saner, because you are atleast leaving it to chance then.
That's why I think you need to both close up performance across the field, and introduce performance variances. Create situations where cars are diverging and have strength and weaknesses, create unreliability, create unknowns. Embrace the chaos that way.

The order (proposed) is reverse Championship order 100km race, rather than a qualifying, on Saturday. Then on Sunday it's the finishing order carried straight over from Saturday. So to win they have to overtake, and they get 2 chances over the weekend, to get as high up as they can. It's a system, and it defines what the competition is - it's a racing, overtaking, contest.

Cars and drivers that can't overtake cleanly won't thrive in this system, the winner will be the supreme racer, either winning races or over the season getting the most points, or most likely some of each

100% agree about Hubert/Correa and fixing the cars. i was just trying to make the point that the current qualy, tho it's great to watch, isn't something fundamental about F1. The Saturday race idea is for 2021 really, when hopefully the cars will be a lot better at following, next year is just maybe 3 trial Saturdays (i will be glued and who won't be?!!)

[dans79]

i was just trying to make the point that the current qualy, tho it's great to watch, isn't something fundamental about F1.

Define fundamental.

Something they have been doing since literally the very first race in 1950 sure seems like it's a fundamental part of F1.

[strad]

Personally I'd go back to the one hour shoot out we used from 96-02.
The only reason for the change was for TV. I don't care if TV audiences were bored till the last 15 minutes to a half hour because that period was super exciting.

[Phil]

Every race is a Grand Prix. A Grand price.

To win it, you must be the best [team combo]. Whoever sits on top of the podest on Sunday when the race is finished has earned it one way or another. Not speaking about the driver, but as him representing the team, the car, the entire organisation behind him. One might like this or not, but it's as it has always been in F1.

Every event is unique, because it's different, or at least, it used to be before most tracks became "tilke-designed". Some are street circuits where the emphasis is on being fastest on Saturday and not making any mistakes (Monaco), other circuits require hugh amounts of downforce for high speed cornering, others, like Monza, emphasize pure grunt and straight line performance with as little drag as possible. Every track is unique and poses a unique challenge - hence, why winning some tracks are perhaps more prestigious than others.

What is being discussed here, is changing this in favor for something entire different where the focus isn't in winning the grand prix on merit, but more in focus of a long running championship by artificially prolonging it's conclusion.

It won't work as people here are predicting, because there will always be some kind of required delta to fullfill a successfull overtake. If the pack moves closer together as a result of budget cap and more shared components, the performance differential between cars should in theory decrease. Yet the tracks will stay the same. Even if you reduce the penalty you get by following another car closely, most overtakes will still be confined to few parts on a track. You will still have a required delta for a successfull overtake. My guess is, if the cars are closer in performance, it will be more difficult to overtake.

If someone does "dominate" the championship for the first half of the year, he will slowly drop back in positions and as a result of that, be less likely to extend his lead. As a result, we will 'artificially' have multiple drivers be puddling around the same number of points, cancling each other out. Better position in this race will set you back one more the next one and so fort. The problem arises when factoring in that every track is different. To be in a certain position at race X could be a decisive advantage. Either way, it'll all end up in some lottery until the last race, when the best canditate for the championship will probably be the one starting somewhere in the middle.

This is not the essence of racing or motorsport. It also takes a way the shine of winning an event by being the best. And in the end, in favor for what? That people will be more excited about who might win the championship? If you create this kind of championship, you will devalue what it means to win it in the first place.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd much rather see utter dominance and tip my hat to that driver and that team for being the best. To change it for this artificial spectacle is essentially dumbing down the sport and devaluing it on a grand scale. You'll risk losing the hardcore in favor of people who might tune in for a while until they see that there's no substance to it.

People become fans because they want to see the merit behind it and see the best win.