Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Circuit de Catalunya, 2020

Two teams not supporting reverse-grid race plan for double-headers

2020 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

A proposal to introduce reverse-grid races at two rounds this year will not go ahead unless two teams join the others in backing the plan.

While some reports have identified Mercedes as the only team withholding support for the proposal, RaceFans understands Racing Point is also yet to decide whether to support it. As Racing Point is Mercedes’ power unit customer, its stance may be a political move.

Formula 1 managing director Ross Brawn said a similar plan failed to gain approval last year because it was opposed by two teams. The sport trying to win fresh support for the reverse-grid qualifying race proposal as a means of adding extra interest to the second events in the two double-header rounds it is planning this year.

The championship is set to announce double header races at the Red Bull Ring in July and Silverstone in August. Under the plan, the Saturday qualifying session at the second of those two weekends would be replaced with a 30-minute race to set the grid for Sunday’s grand prix. The Saturday race starting positions would be set by reverse championship order.

This would mean the starting grids for the second and fifth rounds of the championship would be established by reverse grid races. A driver could therefore secure pole position for the reverse grid race at round two being the first to retire from the season-opening grand prix next month.

RaceFans understands Mercedes and Racing Point agreed to reconsider the latest reverse grid proposal over the weekend and a decision on whether the plan will be adopted is expected this week.

Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel derided the reverse grid races idea when it was proposed last year. “I think it’s complete bullshit to be honest,” said Vettel, while Hamilton added: “The people that are proposing this don’t really know what they’re talking about.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

96 comments on “Two teams not supporting reverse-grid race plan for double-headers”

  1. Pedro Andrade
    1st June 2020, 7:18

    Let’s hope these two teams hold their ground, I echo the words of Vettel on this topic.

    1. Matteo (@m-bagattini)
      1st June 2020, 8:54

      That was an epic interview

    2. It is silly. Of course Mercedes being the dominant force stands to lose the most from reverse grid but it is one these ideas that make racing look dumb.

      1. Indeed. But Liberty must be seen to be punishing success.

    3. Hope so. But if they going to make it, it will only work, if 8th place in main race will have more points than 1st place in second reverse race. In this case they will be pushing maximum of main race knowing that dropping to 8th in main race wouldn’t give them any advantage in the end.

  2. Thanks for giving a bit more of background / perspective to “mercedes to block reverse grid” headlines that came up yesterday evening.

    1. Indeed @bascb – it is hard to know what exactly the plan encompasses, but it sounds a bit like it is both complicated to instantly understand and too complex to be straightforward; very F1. And good to get a bit more insight in what’s at play.

      1. *too complex … -> make that ‘too simple to be seen as fair’, sorry

  3. Here we go again…..

    It was mentioned by a few that they felt that F1 was using this current situation to slip through changes whether they were warranted or not and here we are.

    Ross should be ashamed of himself.

    1. There is one emotion Ross doesn’t experience and that is shame. FTG

  4. I’ve never really been in favor of the reverse-grid idea either, so I don’t blame them. One shouldn’t get penalized for success.

    1. Great way of putting it. I think it’ll be fun to watch but it doesn’t make any sense really.

  5. ColdFly (@)
    1st June 2020, 7:54

    I think reverse grid would discredit a season more than the short lived-double points ever could.

    1. @coldfly underrated comment. It’d put a MASSIVE asterisk next to the champion this year.

      1. There will be anyway.

  6. It could present a problem for the reduced team sizes if they had a crashed car during the short race.

  7. Reverse grid in an official championship season. Seriously, what garbage.

  8. a racewin gets so much more publicity and fame than eg two 3rd places (while 30 points > 25 points), so the worst top3 team of 1st race qualifying would retire the car.

    Concrete: let;s say Red Bull would be on 3rd row with both cars. Why wouldn;t they get Albon out of first race. Normally he would finish 6th anyway. If the other cars have to start at end of grid in next race in 2nd race, Albon would be miles ahead (literally) starting from pole.

    1. It uses championship standing so getting Albon out wouldn’t help much except maybe at the first race. He woudln’t start from pole, he would start from pole in 30 minute qualifying race that sets the grid for the main race. In reality, fast cars can come up through the fields in 30 minutes.

  9. Apart from the gimmicky nature of reverse grids, with the current difference between the top three teams and the rest, I can’t see the races being very exciting: top teams just breeze past everyone with DRS, and within a dozen or so laps the running order is mostly the same as it would be in a normal race.

    1. @kaiie With or without DRS.

    2. Apart from the number of laps involved I have to agree entirely with this statement. The simple fact is we’ve seen time and again a driver from the Top Three Teams being relegated to the back of the grid because of penalties and Time and again we’ve seen it makes next to no difference: That driver finishes in the points. Maybe it makes a slight difference to everyone else, but it doesn’t make the podium places more accessible to the other teams. Especially the winning place.
      There are two historical places of importance in F1: Winning a race and Pole Position. So, my apologies to those this might offend, but Pole Position shouldn’t go to the slowest car, it should go to the fastest car.

  10. Another proposal which brings F1 into line with F2.

    Hamilton is right, the proposer either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care for the essence of F1 as this ever closer alignment to the F2 mode shows.

    Is it Liberty influenced by North American lower tech series, or a group who want to downgrade F1 for corporate convenience and profit?

  11. I can’t imagine how hard would it be to organize two (or in extreme cases three) complete grand prix weekends with their own and independent FPs, Q and R in a sequence. Just because they follow each other in quick succession, it shouldn’t mean that they are connected events. Experiments are fine under a non-championship race flag, but not really acceptable to maniulate the very core of the F1 DNA for false reasons.

  12. If we were going to have an one-off calendar this year with just 8-9 double races at each track, then it might have made more sense as each race would be run in this same (strange) format and every race would be equal.

    But applying this idea to just 2 races (Austria & Britain) and with a shorter championship which means a race win matters more this year, then it just dilutes the championship like double points in Abu Dhabi did.

  13. antony obrien
    1st June 2020, 9:05

    Its a great idea. Too many people don’t seem to understand F1 is already the most convoluted complex sport on the planet. Running a reverse grid seems simple enough to me, certainly simpler than DRS, fast decaying tyres, hybrid engines, penalties for using more engines etc etc.

    And Mercedes not agreeing to it, well really, what a surprise, they have most to lose and their car is rubbish in traffic. They need to have their grip loosened on F1 and the rule makers have consistently, historically, altered the rules to take away an advantage of a single team, whether that’s Williams in the 90s or Red Bull in the 2010s. Get on with it please.

    1. I agree. The sport has become stale since the introduction of the expensive hybrid power trains.

      Because of the wealth gap between the top 4 and the rest of the pack and also the reliability of the cars these days. It’s the same teams again and again, year after year that get all the podium places.

      I know this is a short term fix but I’d love to see a bigger variety of teams fighting for a win.

      1. antony obrien
        1st June 2020, 10:57

        Yes the engines are tedious but that’s another issue, the sport is in a poor place and yet even in an exceptional period in history people still don’t want to try something different. THAT tells you all need to know about those who run teams and a lot of those who watch.

    2. “ Running a reverse grid seems simple enough to me, certainly simpler than DRS, fast decaying tyres, hybrid engines, penalties for using more engines etc etc.”

      So, all those other rules are gonna go away in reverse grid races?

  14. A 30 minute race in August at Silverstone?? At the height of a British summer!!!.

    So 30 minutes of watching the safety car lead the pack around as its too wet to race.

    1. August isn’t considerably different from July temperature or weather-wise in general.

  15. I agree with Lewis and Seb.

    And especially now in this weird season, don’t start experementing now, just give us back the F1 as it it was, albeit without a crowd, but that is OK right now. Otherwise try to keep things intact.

    1. Joe Pineapples
      1st June 2020, 9:53


    2. @freguz I disagree. This season is absolutely shot already. It’s the perfect season to experiment because history will already mark the season with an asterisk.

      I’d much rather Brawn try out all his crazy ideas this season to get them out of his system and then next year we can resume a normal full season.

  16. I have an opinion
    1st June 2020, 9:32

    Make that two F1 teams, and all of racefans.net (with the exception of one dubious poster).

    1. Speak for yourself.

      1. cm cm, he doesn’t have to – we know that the people who frequent this site don’t like the idea because, in the poll this site ran last year, about 80% of them voted against the idea.

  17. Bruno Verrari
    1st June 2020, 10:37

    Do the teams have to agree? Didn’t they give the FIA free hands to manage such things?!

  18. There’s going to be an asterisk on this season whatever they do, I’d rather they got all their best ideas trialed and rubbished now than trying to get them in for a whole season. Ideally I’d like to see things like this trialed in a non championship race or two, like at new tracks before they get “championship status”, but that’s a non-starter also due to the costs involved. Now’s a great opportunity to take fliers, even if it’s just to confirm that the status quo is actually great.

    Also as an aside, who’s actually going to the second races? The circuits have spent the last 10 months selling tickets for one race, perhaps this is also a circuit-friendly incentive to get people to actually go to a second race in a week?

    1. As the races are closed door events, nobody is going to the circuit and no tickets are being sold. It is being put forward entirely based on what Liberty Media thinks the TV audience wants – though most surveys suggest that those viewers are against the idea as well.

      1. Most viewers are not happy with the way F1 is generally – but when they’ve got an intentionally limited choice to vote for, most people will choose what they know.

    2. ColdFly (@)
      1st June 2020, 13:45

      Why would there be “an asterisk on this season” if the rules are unchanged to previous seasons and sufficient races are held (there are seasons with 7 races which don’t have an asterisk).

      1. @coldfly I’d be very surprised if it didn’t. Maybe not the “official” records, but sites like RaceFans will always mark it for the highly unusual season it is already.

  19. I’m going to go against the grain here. You have to think reverse grids are trying to solve the problem with the second race at double headers: that there might be reduced level of interest (because the same race was run 7 days prior), and the results to the second race may end up being similar to the first.

    If you take the same quali & race format to both weekends, there’s a very good chance you end up with similar results. Presumably reverse grids are the FIA’s attempt at keeping the level of interest high for the second race of the 2 races. I’m not saying that reverse grids are necessarily the best way to increase interest, but you’d certainly watch the second race.

    Imagine, championship leader Hamilton having to start 20th for a sprint race, then partly working his way up the grid in a 30 min sprint race, starting mid-pack for the Sunday race, and then seeing how far up he can get. That would be brilliant. That would be more interesting than the first race.

    1. Exactly. It’s not full blown reverse grid race. It’s adding a short sprint reverse championship grid race to determine the grid for the Sunday race. In reality it would probably cause quite a bit of chaos and many cars would start out of position. Downside could be that the sprint race ends up being the most interesting, and that is not awarding points. Main race would probably be chaotic in first 10 or so laps until the cars go through the field.

      1. @tomcat173 I am usually quite a traditionalist but I think you make a good point here. Ross did indicate that they might want to experiment with qualifying/race format at some stage in the future. So does this not give everyone the ideal opportunity if it’s just for 2 races? At least there is a semi-decent excuse for doing it in these circumstances.

        If they do go down this route and it doesn’t work very well, then at least everyone will see the evidence of this. Reverse grids might then be easily ruled out as an idea ever to be considered again.

        1. @phil-f1-21 If it works out to be obviously flawed after the first double header of the year, F1 can do a flip and change it for the rest of the year. This is the perfect year to run such experiments.

          I think there will be an asterisk against whoever wins the championship in 2020 anyway, for a whole bunch of reasons. The fact that reverse grids were employed for some races doesn’t change much.

  20. A complete joke, if this goes ahead then I certainly won’t regard whatever takes place this year as a legitimate world championship. Hope Mercedes and Racing Point hold their ground…

    1. This year won’t be remembered as a legitimate world championship season anyway, so no problem.

  21. Richard from the Meons
    1st June 2020, 10:57

    F1 is, and should continue to be, a meritocracy.
    Reverse grid races will reward mediocrity.
    The credibility of whoever becomes champion at the end of the season will be forever called into question.
    Presumably this gimmick idea is driven by a desire to ‘spice up’ races.
    Last season provided us with some of the best races for a very long time.
    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
    As we all know the elephant in the room for more overtaking is aero.

    For that we must await 2022 (if the rule makers have any competence).

  22. I’ve said in the past that I don’t like the idea & wouldn’t watch any race weekend that features it & I still stick by that.

    But aside from that the thing i’d like to know is that those who support the idea always say ‘We need to test it & see if it works’… But we know exactly how reverse grids/sprint races work because they are used in other categories. It’s not as if this is a brand new idea that’s never been done before, We know exactly how it would work & the effect it would have on the race weekend (No low fuel runs, No laps pushing for ultimate pace & artificially mixed up grids). Yes it’s something that would be new to F1, But it’s not as if it’s going to work completely different to everything else that has done it.

    And an additional question is what is the definition of it been deemed a successful experiment & what would make them look at it as been something that didn’t work?

    1. William Jones
      1st June 2020, 12:12

      I would suggest the moment we get the no. 2 red bull, ferrari and mercedes slam on the brakes on the last lap and piddle around at 2 mph trying to be the last over the line, we will have seen them not working.

    2. @stefmeister Even if they are to do this horrible idea & it’s clear it was a failure they will push it through permanently as i think this is exactly what liberty wish to turn f1 into, an open wheel version of nascar full of artificial gimmicks and contrived sillyness that appeals to those with tiny attention spans who don’t care about the purity of the sport.

      1. Why on earth would they push through something that was found to be very unpopular after they put it into practice in a real event?

        What would make you happy with F1? If they reverted everything to 1951 rules and regulations?

      2. Jose Lopes da Silva
        1st June 2020, 15:16

        The purity of qualifying was killed in 2003.

        1. Jose Lopes da Silva, the supposed “purity” that you hark back to was itself a short lived invention contrived for TV audiences in order for Bernie to be able to up the price of TV rights, which was why it was criticised when it was first introduced in 1996.

  23. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    1st June 2020, 12:02

    I can’t agree with ‘reverse grids’ as a regular thing, but as a one-off thing for THIS year as this year’s totally unusual compared to standard F1, I think it’s a great idea. This is a great chance to experiment with different formats and concepts of a race weekend, and a reverse grid – simply from a viewer’s perspective would be quite fun.

    Given most Mercedes/Red Bull/Ferrari – and even the McLarens and Renaults generally fight back from last on a penalty and are in the top ten or round abouts before the first round of pit stops I don’t see the issue for them – just means they’ll have to fight through the pack and that’s part of the fun isn’t it?

    Boo on Mercedes/Pink Mercedes for their sour grapes.

    1. @rocketpanda A top teams driver starting at the back due to a penalty & coming through the field on his own will be much easier than a reverse grid where they will be fighting cars of similar pace as they all try & come through.

      Even if the top 3 teams do come though to the top 6 it’s likely the championship leader who started 20th ends up finishing 6th with the slowest driver of the top 3 teams (Who started 15th) wins/gets the pole.

      There is still a championship up for grabs & penalizing the championship leader arbitrarily due to an artificial gimmick simply isn’t fair.

      1. And this doesn’t even begin to consider the games that are likely to be playing with B teams.

        You really think that Alpha Tauri are going to do anything other than just out of the way of the 2 Red Bull drivers while fighting the Ferrari/Mercedes harder. It’s going to be a mess.

        Vast majority of fans have made it clear over & over that they don’t like/don’t want gimmicks. Every poll, survey & comment section likewise shows this with regards to reverse grids. Liberty claim they wish to listen to the fans & do whats best for the fans yet have consistently showed that they aren’t willing to listen & don’t care what fans think as they just want to turn F1 into an americanised artificial gimmick filled show in the style of nascar.

        they don’t care about the history of f1, they just want to gimmick it up because that seems to be what americans like doing, again see how contrived nascar has got & continues to get.

      2. You’ve sold it to me!
        The whole field of cars fighting in reverse order of pace. That sounds like something worth watching!

        If any teams don’t think it is ‘fair’ they are quite welcome to leave F1 and join DTM or something. I hear they are looking for a new manufacturer…

        Really, though – it’s only for 2 races in a championship that will be forever remembered as a (necessary) farce anyway.

      3. Adam (@rocketpanda)
        1st June 2020, 13:58

        So whenever I’ve spoken to my friends about F1, they can’t understand it. They just dismiss it as a bunch of expensive cars going round and round a track for 60-odd laps where you can only win if you’re in one of only 4-6 cars, most of the grid hasn’t got a hope and often of the races end up being processions of follow the leader. A lot of the time the ‘finishing positions’ are almost identical to the qualifying positions. Most people I talk to that don’t follow F1 have little interest in doing so because it’s boring and inaccessible.

        If this could inject some outside excitement, some randomness, some chance or fun – not in the way that we as F1 viewers consider but in a wider ranging, wider appealing way, surely that’s a good thing? Change & experimentation can be fun! Or are we all happy with the status quo, where if you aren’t driving one of 4-6 specific cars you might as well stay home?

  24. Graham (@guitargraham)
    1st June 2020, 12:08

    lets retitle article. “two teams (and vast majority of real fans) not supporting reverse grid race plan for double headers”

  25. Forgive me i drive with the hand brake up some times… So i dont fully get the reverse grid thingy. Can some1 explain in real easy layman terms what it is. Although it doesnt sound very good.

    1. Jose Lopes da Silva
      1st June 2020, 12:17

      The reverse grid idea is for F1 to stop to pretend it has a qualifying TV show like it had until 2002.

    2. Instead of a qualifying session on Saturday they will have a short sprint race run in reverse championship order (Championship leader starts last, 20th in championship starts 1st) & the finishing positions from this race will be the starting positions for the normal race on Sunday.

  26. Jose Lopes da Silva
    1st June 2020, 12:16

    I totally agree with reverse-grid qualifying races and I hope it goes forward.

    Qualifying as a show in itself was terminated in 2003. I seldom watch qualifying today. When I watch, I don’t see each of the drivers pushing their cars to the limit. I can’t see each of them because they’re all out there at the same time. So I see a bunch of cars in a time trial but running closely, occasionally ruining each others trials. And if the cameras pick of one of the qualy laps, of one driver, they’ll miss the others.

    Pre-2002 we would watch live the amazing Singapore lap by Leclerc and then get a replay of his lap instead of watching a Minardi. Now we watch cars running. I have to see the laps later on Youtube, if I want. So I skip the madness altogether.

    Of course I missed the amazing and very good Italian GP qualifying, but that’s the price to pay to avoid the others.

    Reverse-grid qualifying races as a TV show would be no different: cars running closely. But at least it would be a proper race.

    1. I’m not sure how you managed to watch a Singapore GP before 2002. The first race there was 2008.

      Pre 2002 it was not unusual for teams to hide away until the last few minutes. Made qualifying rather tedious, bar the last 5 minutes. TV cameras were idle for most of the time. Nowadays there are 3 sessions so there is no hiding for 55 minutes. There are dozens of cameras around the circuit, in cars, in helmets and in helicopters. They all record everything and if you don’t see certain cars, remember that all the track action caught on camera comes from FOM on its world feed.
      As it stands, qualifying is one thing that has got a lot more interesting. Degrading it by having reverse grids won’t help. It only needs one race where someone thinks ’15th place at best and no points or pole for the next race… Hmmmm’ – *accidentally runs into gravel trap*
      However, as this ‘season’ is really only going to thrill future quiz question writers, they may as well get all their daft ideas out now and get them out their system so 2021 can be celebrated properly.

      1. Jose Lopes da Silva
        1st June 2020, 15:12

        “I’m not sure how you managed to watch a Singapore GP before 2002. The first race there was 2008.”

        I was mentioning Leclerc’s pole lap in the last Singapore GP. If you didn’t watch the replay, go check. It’s amazing.

        But I understand you didn’t watch it and so you don’t remember it. We don’t watch great pole laps anymore. All we see with the current format is confusion. Fortunately, “there are dozens of cameras around the circuit, in cars, in helmets and in helicopters. They all record everything”, of course.

        Your memory may be also failing you regarding the 1996-2002 system.

        1. ColdFly (@)
          1st June 2020, 15:57

          In your preferred qualifying format (IIRC limited laps, all drivers to participate) you would have an even slimmer chance to see your preferred, or the best, qualifier for that race; there are more drivers around from which to pick one.

          If you really want to see all qualifiers to make sure you don’t miss that amazing lap (whatever the circuit and driver) you should advocate any of the 2003-2005 (single lap showdowns) formats, Jose Lopes da Silva. But based on the criticism from those years I doubt you’ll find many supporters.

          1. Jose Lopes da Silva
            1st June 2020, 19:15

            The above-mentioned “5 last minutes” is a myth. Drivers picked a moment with less cars on track. With the 1996-2002 system we could see most of the best laps of top drivers. With the current system its 100% guaranteed we won’t see more than one. I can’t enjoy the show of a qualy lap. And I end up watching later.

            I hated the 2003-2005 (single lap showdowns) format in every possible way. At that moment they killed the idea that a driver should pursue the very limits of it’s car and have another try in case he failed. That system constrained the possibilities of fighting for the perfect lap. Later they added the fuel mess. The current system respects the sport aspect better than the 2003, but we can only enjoy it afterwards. This is why I’m perfectly open to a new change – I would see fair and just live action instead of the replays.

  27. With the current format of qualifying being probably the most tense and exciting part of the weekend, this could only discredit the nature and reputation of Formula 1. The risk of damage is unreasonably high and the concerns or outright disapproval from top teams and drivers is therefore understandable. Ross and the Co should definitely look elsewhere for improvement.

    1. Got any suggestions to make the second race more interesting, then, if not a reverse grids race?

      1. Why do they need to be? Just leave them be a normal race, I see no reason at all to do anything different.

        There is a championship to be won so throwing in artificial gimmicks or arbitrary formats just because will just devalue that championship. The qualifying/race format should be the same at every race, If you want to do anything different for 2-3 races then make them non championship events.

        1. And the championship will still be won by the team that handles all the factors the best. They are the same circumstances for all entrants – is that not fair?
          The fastest car still has the on-track performance advantage so in reality it probably wouldn’t have much eefect on race results – and for only two races it would be unlikely to affect the outcome of the ‘championship’.

          I totally agree with experimenting with non-championship events, but they aren’t doing that. F1’s and the teams’ sponsors expect a championship, so that’s what they’ll get.

          You don’t have to like Liberty or the way they run F1 – it’s your choice to watch it though.

          1. it’s your choice to watch it though.

            And i’ve been doing so for close to 45 years now, F1 has been the only sport i’ve ever been interested in & it’s been something I have been passionate about since I was 4 years old.

            My problem with Liberty is that I feel like i’m been driven away from it by people who don’t understand it trying to turn it into something it has never & should never be. A budget series thats F1 in name only but resembles something close to something like GP1/Indycar+.

            I still love the sport but I loathe the direction it’s been taken with artificial gimmicks forced in by those who just want to turn it into a show & do away with the sporting purity thats kept it alive for 70 years & has helped raise it above all the lower categories that have gone full gimmick or spec. There is a reason F1 is as big as it is & it isn’t the ‘show’ side of it, You shift the balance too much your just going to turn the hardcore away just as nascar did when they thought turning itself into a show & forgetting it was a sport was a good idea.

            They are losing the allure & appeal of F1 by taking it in a direction it should be taken & turning it into something it has never & should never be. Thats my fear/concern.

            I don’t trust Liberty because I don’t trust that they understand or respect what F1 is & nothing they have done has given me any confidence in them. Hence why i’m starting to feel i’m been driven away from the sport I love.

          2. @roger-ayles You aren’t alone in disliking what F1 has become – but it isn’t all Liberty’s fault.
            I’ve been watching for 30 years and I don’t like what it is now either. I liked it a lot more 20, 25 years ago and most changes since have degraded it, IMO. Now I watch it only because I can, not because I feel that I need to, or even want to all that much.

            F1 has many different elements – some appeal to you and others do not. That’s cool.
            But not everyone sees F1 the same way you do. Some do like the ‘show’ elements, and it’s Liberty’s job to tap into new audiences who are generally after something a little different than the previous generations. F1 has been in a constant state of change ever since it started, and they are just doing more of the same.

            You say ‘sporting purity’ but F1 has never been that – it’s primarily now an advertising medium, then a spending and engineering competition second – sport comes third at best.

            I think Bernie did more damage to F1 over the last two decades than Liberty has done since they took over.
            Neither of them have pushed hard for more open technical regulations, neither of them have prioritised the sporting aspects over the business and money-making aspects, and neither of them have put the wishes of the fans first and the teams/manufacturers second.

            I no longer look to F1 to satisfy my urge to see different manufacturers and unique cars competing together – the cars are essentially all the same and can’t race together anymore, the engines are all effectively identical and the political structure means that only the big 3 teams can win, even if their customers build a decent car. Their engine deals have taken away their independence and freedom to compete.

            F1 stopped being F1 decades ago. Let it go and let others enjoy what it is becoming.

        2. Jose Lopes da Silva
          1st June 2020, 19:18

          @roger-ayles If you’re concerned with the purity of the sport, why do you accept the current qualifying system?

          I dislike it because the art of the qualifying was killed in 2003 and now we have a system that, although it respect the original idea of qualifying, doesn’t allow us to see it. Why don’t we go back to the 1996-2002 system?

          1. Jose Lopes da Silva, because a far larger number of fans prefer the current qualifying format to the one that was used from 1996-2002, which generally seems to be thought of as one of the more boring forms of qualifying that has been tried?

  28. George May (@grandmasterorge)
    1st June 2020, 14:48

    I’m in favour of this.

    Given that it’s only for a short, qualifying race and not for the main, championship points deciding race I think it would be good to watch. Also, this year is going to be the most heavily caveated season anyway so may as well use it as an opportunity to try things which may or may not be successful.

  29. The downside to this artificial gimmick idea that isn’t been talked about is how it would rob us of been able to see drivers on low fuel pushing for ultimate lap time.

    If all your doing is having 2 races they will just spend practice doing long runs on high fuel as low fuel/flat out runs would be pointless.

    Seeing how part of the thrill of qualifying is seeing those mega flat out laps I don’t see doing away with that as anything other than a massive negative.

    1. Jose Lopes da Silva
      1st June 2020, 19:20

      But we don’t see that anymore, Roger. There are the 6 top cars all out at the same time and you see one of them because they’re separated for a few seconds and then they finish at the same time. From a qualifying session we can see… 2 actual qualifying laps of top drivers.

    2. The idea of ‘qualifying’ is fake itself, made even more so by q2 tyre contrivance and mandatory tyre stop. Time for 20th century to give way to the 21st.

      1. Jose Lopes da Silva
        2nd June 2020, 10:33

        “q2 tyre contrivance”: Indeed, ever since the fuel madness that I try to voluntarily close my eyes to all that. “Oh, it’s better qualify 11th than 10th because…”

        People are very vocal and clear in not wanting the 1996-2002 system. So yes, let’s give way to the 21st century and stop pretending this is qualifying.

  30. I have no problem at all with reverse grid races providing they don’t count towards the championship. The integrity of the championship must be maintained!

    1. Naturally Mercedes is against it. I am all for it, this year is the best year for testing race formats.

  31. Reverse grids are pointless with the top 3 team lapping the rest of the field by one second.
    By the 10-12th lap the regular order is all back again.

  32. Do the testing in the lower series not in F!. Why has that not been brought up? That’s where it should be sorted out not in top category of Motorsports.

  33. Can have the race in place of Friday practice and without drs.

    1. With points handed out only to drivers.

  34. F1 management is right in thinking that the second race will be boring though. I don’t think there will be too many races where top 2/3 will be close. And I’m not sure if I’ll be interested watching the same thing play out twice.

    Reverse grid sucks though.

  35. I don’t see why so many are complaining about the idea. The argument about gimmicks is a moot point considering F1 are holding GP’s on consecutive weekends at the same track. Except in the case of wet weather, the second race weekend is going to have absolutely no uncertainty as all teams will have all the data they need to perfect the setups of the cars and they will line up 2 x 2 all the way down the grid.

    The only time in recent memory that a race began with what is closest to a reverse grid is Suzuka 2005, and I don’t hear anyone complaining about that race.

    In the immortal words of Yo Gabba Gabba: “Try it. You might like it.”

  36. As a older viewer of F1 i always wonder why the fastest cars were in front during the race. Back then you saw the start all cars blasted away and the fastest car already overtook the slowest in the second round. Winner and nr.2 were in the same round the rest 2-10 laps down. With qualifly the fastest in in front and they are designed to run the best in free air so he stays in front (normal) look at Vettel WC run.

    Now the second of the double race is being experienced on which i like other wise you get twice the same…
    I like the idea if you want on 1st spot you have to race on Saterday for the 1st spot.

    So if the first race was Vettel, Lewis , Leclerc and Max, ect. then the second race saterday Vettel starts last then in front of him Lewis, Lecleric and max ect.

    As long the make the saterday race with some points so people aren’t evading to have the best place for sunday.

  37. Reverse grids are fun in e-racing (when I last “raced” more than 10 years ago we still called it “simracing”), but not in the real world.

Comments are closed.