Mattia Binotto, Ferrari, Circuit de Catalunya, 2020

Ferrari believe 2020 is the right time to try reverse-grid qualifying races – Binotto

2020 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto explained why the team supported F1’s latest unsuccessful attempt to introduce reverse-grid qualifying races.

The proposal would have seen qualifying for some grands prix replaced by a 30-minute ‘sprint’ race beginning with the drivers in reverse championship order. It failed to win unanimous backing from the teams last year and was blocked by Mercedes and Racing Point again this week.

Speaking to RaceFans in an exclusive interview, Binotto said Ferrari took a “positive” view of the proposal and the disruption to the 2020 F1 season offered a good opportunity to experiment with the format change.

“We believe that 2020 will be a difficult season anyhow,” Binotto explained. “It’s a season that should have started in Australia, didn’t start in Australia, we start only in July. [There are] less races, some races on the same circuit: Austria-Austria, UK-UK.

“I think that we need still to try to attract our fans. We need still to make sure that for the future of the F1 we are creating the best show. And I think that [having] the sprint race only on the second race weekend on the same circuit would have been a solution.

“We can even consider that 2020 would have been the right test platform eventually for an alternative solution for the future.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

While some teams resisted the proposal, Binotto pointed out Ferrari accepted compromises in other areas of the regulations which could put them at a competitive disadvantage, for the good of the championship.

“It’s a matter of a sense of responsibility towards our community that sometimes we need to accept compromising our true performance for trying to do something, going in the right direction for the show itself and for the entire F1 and motorsport.

“As Ferrari I think we accepted a lot of compromises. For example, freezing development, freezing components while we know that at the moment we are certainly not the most competitive car.

“If I would have looked only at Ferrari, I would have said no reduction on the budget cap and freedom in development, no freezings, because we need to develop as much as we can.

“But at the end, we understand the implications. We understand what the current situation I think we come to to a compromise which is great for the sport eventually, not for ourselves.

“The sprint race, most of all the teams except one or two were in favour. F1 [were] in favour, FIA in favour. I think it’s a shame that we’re not coming to it because it’s again certainly a compromise, it’s a responsible choice.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

45 comments on “Ferrari believe 2020 is the right time to try reverse-grid qualifying races – Binotto”

  1. So their car is absolute garbage.

    1. But only the second time they race at each circuit….?

      1. Have to do something to make it other than a replay.

    2. As expected. Since we are going to have to put up with these cars for an extra season lets rejoice that we don’t even need to start 2020 to know who is winning 2021.

    3. You’re absolutely right. There’s no way that they would agree to reverse grid if they were constantly ahead like Mercedes is… or even confident like Red Bull. Ferrari just got their engine cheat banned, so their only chance for winning a WDC is if the season is cut down to a handful of races and made a lottery with reverse grids.

      1. @todfod
        As a Ferrari fan I do enjoy someone with Alonso as his display pic talking about us in a negative light
        Heh Alonso used to do the same back in the day, brings back the good old days

  2. Sensible reasoning. Especially at back to back racing on the same circuit.

  3. Its interesting that this season they have been able to push some big changes through on a majority, while other things seem to still need to be unanimous.

    Opinions of whether I want this or not, I’m surprised that it didn’t end up going through based on previous changes.

    1. @eurobrun the reason why this particular change couldn’t be voted through with just a majority ruling is because the rule is non-essential to the running of the championship and there are only specific rules in the sporting regulations which can be changed with a majority vote.

      The Sporting Regulations state that the following articles of the Sporting Regulations can be changed with just a 60% majority vote: Articles 19, 20, 21.7, 21.8, 21.9, 23.2, 24, 25.1, 26, 32, 34.4, 34.5, 36.1 and 36.2.

      For reference, Article 19 covers press briefings and interaction with the media, 20 covers pre-race briefings by the race director, 21.7 is about staff accessing the circuit, 21.8 and 21.9 are about the factory shutdowns, 23.2 is about drivers starting from the pits if the survival cell is changed, 24 is about tyre supplies, 25.1 is when teams have to present cars for scruitineering, 26 covers driver changes, 32 covers the number and length of free practice sessions, 34.4 and 34.5 is about the FIA fixing and removing seals on the cars during parc ferme conditions, whilst 36.1 and 36.2 cover the reconnaissance laps to the grid and when the pit lane opens and closes before the race.

      None of those rules could be used to implement a reverse grid race, so the only mechanism by which it could be brought about is through a major change in the sporting regulations – and as it is a major change at relatively short notice, it requires a unanimous vote.

  4. I just gave a second thought about this.

    Picture 2019: HAM/BOT/LEC/VER starting at the back on Saturday morning. They have 30 minutes to move up the field. They can probably get halfway or a little higher, and on race day we would have SAI/NOR/ALB/RAI starting at the top of the field, with another 90 minutes of racing.
    Would spice things up a lot, would favour the pilots with more agressive driving, would make pit stop strategies more complicated.
    But I doubt the results at the end of the year would be much different. Verstappen ahead of Bottas, maybe. The machine would still be in charge.

    1. Picture 2019: HAM/BOT/LEC/VER starting at the back on Saturday morning. They have 30 minutes to move up the field. They can probably get halfway or a little higher, and on race day we would have SAI/NOR/ALB/RAI starting at the top of the field, with another 90 minutes of racing.

      No they wont. Picture 2019: top 3 teams had 1 or 2 seconds advantage over the rest of the field – and that under racing conditions – mid teams would probably save PU and not risk defending position too much. So, 30 minutes means 18-25 laps in most tracks. This means that top teams would make up about 15-20 even over the midfield. Not to mention how they would overtake all the botttom 6 cars in one lap or two.
      Yes, something odd would happen – a crash, a spin – but very little of meaningful competition.

    2. It took most top 6 drivers around 10 laps to clear the entire class B (and Williams). Even less, such as Verstappen in Russia in 2018.

    3. Jockey Ewing
      6th June 2020, 21:44

      I don’t know whether someone mentioned it yet, but those quick and remarkable catching ups from the back of the grid done by some stars and their superb machinery differ in some aspects from what these reverse grid races would offer.
      The most important difference is imo:
      At reverse grid races the strongest competitors will start from the back of the grid. Not one or two of them. They will fight for position from the first moment, and that will greatly delay their catching up. Unless they will apply some strategy and ally with their opponents (The top entrants won’t fight too much, before they catch some midfield cars. I won’t say tacit deals like that are fair or legal, but how do you police them?).

      Some midfield cars will make their way to the top and they will be hard to beat in 30 minutes.
      Will this sprint race feature a mandatory change? It looks like at nowadays’ F1 extray pit stops are not that worthy as around the Schumacher era, and tyres are quite durable, so I guess, unless it’s mandatory they won’t pit. Maybe include a mandatory pit stop and use the two softest compounds of the five?

      Therefore it won’t be that easy to pull overtakes at the end on quite worn tyres. I think soft Pirellis maybe won’t last half an hour if there is a lot of action, while hards are maybe an overshoot. But of course it depends greatly on track temperature.

      I’m not a fan of these reverse grid races, because at touring cars racing more dogfight and contact can be acceptable, so a reverse grid race can be much hotter but still at about fair, while F1 is a bit more about being clean and having strategy too. They are very good at strategy, so they might prevent too much action, so these races maybe won’t function as an amazement. F1 without a longer race distance and a pit stop has much less strategic options than usually.

      And reverse grid means different things at other series, so there are series where only the top 10 is reversed.
      Although if it has to be reversed I’d like to see the whole grid reversed, because that’s maybe less artifical.

      And finally: it’s a very rare feat to win from the last starting position even at a full race distance (although if one adds up winning from the worst few starting positions, it happened sometimes), so with all strong competitors from the back racing against each other and a 30 mins time limit, they won’t squeeze through that easily.

      1. Jockey Ewing
        7th June 2020, 1:25

        I would like if this qualifying race would award a few points too, because it’s too costy and risky just to push for starting positions. At the standard race the usual results would still come from slightly mixed starting conditions, so unless the qualifying race awards points it would not be much more than a qualifying, where the weaker teams have some advantage.

  5. Sounds as if Ferrari are desperate for some miracle.

    Binotto needs to be binned.

  6. IF F1 wants to test the reverse grid then indeed 2020 would have been the ‘least worse’.
    I can see that using it in the second weekend made some sense to create a difference between the 2 weekends (weather cannot be relied upon).
    I strongly opinion that a reverse grid would only be acceptable in non-points qualifying event, rather than the race proper.

    I might have come to an overall supportive opinion (to test this) had F1 changed 2 further things:
    1) the reverse grid would be based on the qualification result of the first weekend (nobody will qualify worse 1 weekend to have a slight quali advantage the next);
    2) the qualifying race would start behind the safety car to minimise the risk of turn 1 carnage.

    1. If this is to be applied in a non championship race, I am sure Mercedes will not take it seriously, since there are no points being rewarded. Hamilton already says that he drives less during practice sessions to save the power unit components, and that is just during the practice, where teams gather a lot of data for the race. They might even use that non championship reverse grid race as a test session. Note also, that this grid has Ocon and Latifi as the only additional new drivers, and last year’s grid was quite an “unclean grid” on lap ones, as nearly every race there was at least an incident on lap one involving drivers.

      Veloce esports did a race in Monaco with some F1 drivers, and they decided to do 2 races. The second race’s grid, was a top 10 reverse grid from the first race, meaning the top 10 finishers in the first race were to start the second race in reverse order. Haven’t they at least considered something like this..?

      1. I didn’t talk about a non championship race, @krichelle.

  7. Joe Pineapples
    6th June 2020, 14:19

    So what he’s saying is its a mickey mouse season anyway, so a perfect fit then.

    1. Suggest you read the quotes again.

  8. How would this reverse grid sprint race work in Monaco and other street tracks, or would this be only implemented in selected races?

    1. Yeah for starters it was just going to be an experiment to see what people thought when it was actually tried, rather than just deciding based on what it ‘feels like’ on paper. Last year they wanted the teams agreement to try it as an experiment but the teams rejected it. This year they tried it again when the experiment made more sense, but to no avail. This year it would have added some excitement (albeit too gimmicky for most people) so that when we have two races two weekends in a row at the same venue it might have prevented two race weekends from looking quite similar. At a track like Monaco I doubt they would have ever done this type of thing as it simply wouldn’t be fair given the lack of passing opportunities. I’m guessing it’s all moot now anyway, for if the teams couldn’t agree on this experiment when it would have made the most sense to try it, then I can’t see them ever agreeing to this. Also it shouldn’t be needed when we have cars coming that will be able to race more closely, and teams able to be closer to each other due to some financial balancing.

    2. Last year’s idea was generic, but for 2020 it was meant to happen only for the 2nd race at the same location. It would have been a gimmick but one that would have spiced things up.

      Fans were overwhelmingly not in favour of it as if there was something sacrosanct about the fastest car always starting at the front. The cars at the front are there mostly because of being able to out-spend everyone else.

      The top teams may still end up winning the race after the reverse grid qualification but at least there would have been some action. Really have no idea why most prefer the rich guys to lead away distantly at the front each and every time. Guess it is a reflection of the society in general.

      1. F1 attracts a certain type of fan…
        It’s no surprise to me at all that so many F1 fans won’t consider a test/trial of something in even these most special of circumstances.
        Even if F1’s survival as a sport and as a business depended on this, they still wouldn’t support it – on principle.

        The craziest part of it all is that F1 is almost nothing like it was before – every facet of the sport has changed.
        In fact, change is the only constant in F1 – but still they argue it must stay the same.

        Sometimes I wonder…. If F1 proposed to open up the technical regulations completely, would those same F1 fans oppose that too?

        1. Problem is, we are the same fans that remember being reassured that DRS was only temporary. Maybe that might help you realise.

          1. And?

            F1 cars haven’t fundamentally changed philosophy since then – they are still primarily dependent on aerodynamic grip for total performance, and they still will be even after the new regulations are introduced.

            But that mentality and opinion I spoke of earlier is the exact same one behind maintaining F1’s aero dependency for ever-increasing levels of performance. At the expense of on-track racing.

            Even if F1 wanted to reduce it’s dependency on aero performance (thus reducing the need for DRS) those same fans would oppose that change too.
            How can progress ever be made when every change is opposed?

            So many people acknowledge that F1 lacks in certain areas, but they oppose the changes to directly address those shortfalls.
            Does a reverse grid race directly address car performance or field spread? No it does not – but it does address the lack of action on track and the increasing predictability in race weekends.
            Is it the perfect solution? Again, no it is not – but the perfect solutions are even less likely to be allowed to proceed to a test or trial run.

          2. @john-h DRS was temporary until F1 managed to go a long way towards rectifying its issue with dirty air. Last I checked, that was far from being rectified.

          3. Now that DRS has been around for almost 10 seasons surely that now means DRS is part of the sport’s DNA. That’s how things usually seems to work for fans and teams alike.

          4. How patronising. The same fans would definitely NOT oppose a reduction in aero (and increase in ground effect) because they understand it would rid us of DRS.

            Reverse grids are bs, and those that oppose them are not afraid of change, but understand it’s like giving Liverpool only 10 men on the pitch, or Federer a wooden racket.

            To insinuate these people using common sense are afraid of change makes my blood boil.

          5. @mashiat yes and if we could CHANGE things to reduce aero reliance, something I’ve been saying for 10 years on this site, we wouldn’t have this stupid problem. You can thank Adrian Newey for that. Anyway, I need to have a lie down.

        2. synonymous, on the contrary, most fans remember how many of the gimmicks that have been tried over the years with promises about how they will make the racing better were failures – such as single lap qualifying, qualifying with race fuel onboard, elimination qualifying and double points races, just to name a few of the measures tried over the years.

          Why, when so many attempts to “mix things up” have usually failed, will fans believe somebody claiming “honestly, no, this time it will be different”?

          1. Agreed – few can see the benefits if they can’t see it for themselves in action – hence the call to give it a TRIAL at ONLY TWO EVENTS.

            If those trials were obviously unsuccessful and proved to be largely unpopular, how keen would F1 be to keep the idea going?
            Not very, I’d bet.

            Single lap qualifying wasn’t a bad idea either, it works fine in plenty of other series.
            Running qualifying with the race start fuel load wasn’t all bad either, as it did highlight the strategic side of F1 and put some unpredictability into each race.
            Double points were kind of stupid, but only for the fact that the races were still exactly the same length. If a double points race was more of a challenge – say 500km instead of the usual 305km – then it would have made perfect sense.

            Anyway, the point is that F1 (and those particular fans I speak of) refuse to even try to solve the fundamental issues with the sport, instead actually preferring to rely on ‘gimmicks’.
            Would they prefer DRS, spec aero packages or even tighter aero design restrictions and massively reduced aero performance levels?

          2. Tell me how we are judging ‘success’ at only two events? I’m genuinely interested.

            As I say above, giving Federer a wooden racket would be entertaining for a few matches and a ‘success’, but it’s clearly bs so why do it in the first place.

            And yes CHANGE things by reducing aero.

  9. that sometimes we need to accept compromising our true performance for trying to do something,

    Ferrari special.

  10. The Reverse-Grid concept could be part of a larger overhaul. The weekend, as structured pre-Pandemic, is neither appealing to fans at the track, or to a TV audience. It is structured around the needs of the teams, and exists as a legacy to decades old realities. So here is a proposal (that I have submitted previously):

    FRIDAY….Morning – Free Practice. Afternoon – Qualifying. (for Saturday…see below)

    SATURDAY…Morning – Free Practice. Afternoon – Sprint Race (grid positions set from Friday Qualifying)

    (The Sprint race distance is set to provide for a time length that is TV FRIENDLY, and one that does not excessively tax the cars/drivers. But, here is the key point: The cars and drivers receive points, WHICH COUNT FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP, and they range from 20th to 1st. This, of course, means that the Friday qualifying and the Saturday Sprint have REAL MEANING.)

    SUNDAY…Morning – Free Practice. Afternoon – Race.

    (BUT, the grid positions for the race are determined by the current standing in the championship…INVERTED. Some details: (1) The Pole Position was determined Friday, for the Sprint Race, so that continues to fulfill that historical position. (2) There will be complaints that this structure will make it impossible for the superior cars to make up for their starting position….as many tracks are nearly impossible to pass on. This would lead to some TRACK MODIFICATIONS to address that problem. (At present the problem is seen only as a ….difficulty….not as an….imperative.) (3) Because of the need for the cars to be able to pass under this format, the FIA and the commercial rights holder, would even more adamantly insist that the design regulations promoted an ability of cars to follow closely behind a leading car without losing road holding capacity.

    I can hear the laughter from here, but before you completely dismiss this proposal consider the following.

    If we were presently following this format, and had been for a number of years, with it’s high interest events on all three days of the weekend; and if we had much closer and much less predictable racing…..would anyone pine for “the good old days of F1”, the days of meaningless practice periods (for fans), and processional races.

    I’ll let you answer that question.

    1. “Would anyone pine for “the good old days of F1”, the days of meaningless practice periods (for fans), and processional races.”

      You’d be surprised. A significant portion of the F1 fan base still prefers the days of no on-track overtaking and one guy winning every single race with his whole team (including his teammate), a tyre manufacturer and the whole FIA supporting him. Nothing against Schumacher, I’m not saying he wasn’t the best driver of his time, just that F1 was even more predictable and less exciting then than it is now, and still people yearn for those days. But to each their own. I personally did not enjoy the racing during the refuelling era of F1 very much except for a select few races.

    2. Not as silly as it sounds at all.

      Might I add that since we are theoretically overhauling pretty much every aspect of F1 that we also bring back engines that are cheap to make, satisfying to experience and inherently unreliable (but remember they are so much cheaper so it costs less to build 20 of them than 3 of the current ones).

      Reliability – or the unpredictability and lack of reliability to be more accurate – was a major feature that actually helped make the ‘good old days’ the ‘good old days’.
      Even a car that was dominant in pace was never guaranteed to finish the race.

      1. synonymous, what do you mean by “bring back engines that are cheap to make”? The V8s and V10s of yesteryear were more expensive, inflation adjusted, than the current engines are today – why do you think the independent engine manufacturers died out during that era, not to mention so many teams disappearing too.

        As for the suggestions in the original post by Harold Reid, I would note that there are indeed other series which saw their popularity diminish because of their attempts to introduce additional measures to increase randomness to draw in more casual fans, only to fail with the latter whilst simultaneously alienating their traditional fans (NASCAR comes to mind). Randomness is a fine line, because if there is a perception that randomness is too influential and is outweighing skill, then people will lose interest over time.

    3. (3) Because of the need for the cars to be able to pass under this format, the FIA and the commercial rights holder, would even more adamantly insist that the design regulations promoted an ability of cars to follow closely behind a leading car without losing road holding capacity.

      That in itself would solve most of the problem.

      You will never be able to prevent the situation where one team simply manufactures the best car and hires some of the best drivers, thereby winning almost everything. Moreover, if a team manages to do just that, then kudos to them and they deserve the success that they worked for. To me, just like to a lot of F1 fans, this is essentially a sporting and an engineering competition, so introducing randomness to spice up the show dilutes that essence.

      Make the sport cheaper for teams to level the playing field a bit? Sure!
      Make it possible for cars to follow and race each other? Heck yeah!
      Insert artificial gimmicks to take away the performance advantage of the best engineered car? Not in an engineering competition, please.

      1. WimB…..Insert artificial gimmicks to take away the performance advantage of the best engineered car? Not in an engineering competition, please.

        Perhaps we would disagree on what are, or are not, “artificial gimmicks”. In my suggested weekend format, I do not believe the Friday qualifying is artificial (as it would be conducted as it now exists); the Saturday Sprint Race, for points, would not be artificial, with the fastest cars starting from the front as they had qualified, with the racing, obviously, being of importance.

        I do see why you would consider the Sunday grid to be a gimmick, but I would submit that it is so only in relation to the present, and historical, format.

        I agree with you, that we do want the best engineered cars and the most talented drivers to come out on top, but I think the question is……..how do they come out on top? Is it from a front row grid position, leading every lap on a track that is nearly impossible to pass on; and with pit stops providing the major element of drama (as is now the case). Or, do we want them to have to work for it, perhaps for the entire race? Also, does the best car/driver combination need to win every race, or is it sufficient that they come out on top at the end of the season? Reasonable questions.

        Additionally, the rule changes as proposed (and the DRS as well), certainly qualify as being more “artificial” than my suggested proposal. After all, a formula which restricts car development is really only an indirect handicap system, one that is not so blatant.

        In any case, I’m sure we will continue with the same basic format that we have now, as radical change is VERY difficult to implement in any highly structured social system, especially one with numerous invested players. Thank you for your reply.

        1. Sorry, I didn’t mean to shoot your ideas down in such an admittedly quite blunt way. Originally, I only wanted to highlight that measures to promote cars following each other and measures to level the playing field would suffice for me. If those two issues were addressed, chances are we wouldn’t need anything else and we would have a spectacle, as well as some worthwhile competition.

          But while typing, I got carried away and typed a bunch of words that now, in hindsight, I am not particularly proud of. So thank you for your measured and respectful response to my mini-rant.

  11. Wow ferrari must know their 2020 car is absolutely garbage and nowhere near Mercedes. If they are wanting this.

    1. Binotto said that.

  12. Another way to get the reverse grid race without the ‘reverse’ aspect.

    Single lap elimination quali sessions (with points for positions)
    Start race on quali tyre compound (with double points for positions)

    No mandatory stops and a maximum allocation of tyres per race event.

Comments are closed.