Restart, Monza, 2020

Brawn: Italian GP shows why F1 needs reverse grid races

2020 Italian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1 motorsport director Ross Brawn says the Italian Grand Prix shows why the series should consider introducing reverse grid races.

Brawn unsuccessfully tried to introduce reverse grid sprint races for three rounds of the 2020 F1 season. He revealed the Italian Grand Prix was one of the events which the format was under consideration for.

“Monza was a candidate for a reverse grid sprint race when we were considering testing the format this year,” said Brawn. “Unfortunately, we could not move forward with it, but the concept is still something we and the FIA want to work through in the coming months and discuss with the teams for next year.”

Brawn’s attempt to introduce reverse grid races this year was thwarted as the unanimous support of the teams was required to introduce it. Two teams, Mercedes and Racing Point, opposed the plan.

However changes to Formula 1’s governance process following the signing of the new Concorde Agreement means unanimous agreement is not required to introduce reverse grid races for the 2021 F1 season.

At this point in the year, in order to approve new rules for next season, a ‘super majority’ of 28 out of 30 votes is needed. The 30 votes are shared between the FIA and Liberty Media, which have 10 votes each, plus one for each of the 10 teams.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Brawn said Sunday’s race “showed the excitement a mixed-up pack can deliver.” Lewis Hamilton fell to the back of the field after he was given a 10-second stop-go penalty for entering a closed pit lane.

“With next year’s cars remaining the same as this year our fans could be treated to the similar drama we saw this weekend at Monza,” Brawn added.

Many Formula 1 drivers have criticised the plan to introduce reverse grid sprint races. Sebastian Vettel called the proposal “complete bullshit”, Lewis Hamilton said those behind it “don’t really know what they’re talking about” and Max Verstappen warned such changes would make F1 “artificial and fake”.

Brawn believes that if reverse grid races were introduced, teams would ensure their cars are better tuned to run in traffic and overtake each other.

“With a reverse grid sprint race, teams will set their cars up differently. Right now, Mercedes set their cars up to achieve the fastest lap and then to control the race from the front. If they know they have to overtake, they will have to change that approach.

“We will continue to evaluate new formats with the aim of improving the show but always maintaining the DNA of Formula 1.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2020 F1 season articles, 2020 Italian Grand Prix, F1 news

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 136 comments on “Brawn: Italian GP shows why F1 needs reverse grid races”

    1. I disagree with Ross Brawn – it really didn’t show why reverse grids are good.
      What it really showed is that how difficult it is to overtake even with a faster car and that safety car / red flags have a too big impact on the end results of a race.

        1. How disappointing that you won’t print what I wrote about reverse grid races.
          Your selectivity is tiring. Gotta keep your standards up for the brilliance of intelligent comments that plenty of your readers share. Cutting my comments on this subject about Brawns short sightedness on reverse grids was kind of dirty Keith

          1. you do realise you are talking to an automated script there, which works simply by scanning for certain trigger words that signal spam or bad language, right h67?

      1. +1

        No gimmicks, just close up the field and make the cars able to follow through corners.

        No more DRS-a-like sticking plasters.

        1. Coventry Climax
          8th September 2020, 0:48

          And … don’t let lapped cars past in a safetycar situations to unlap themselves – for free. Overtaking -even cars you’re lapping a second time- should be an art, not a free ride. So also get rid of these stupid blue flags as well please.

          I had expected Ross to come up with more realistic and high tech ideas, like each manufacturer being obliged to provide proof that their car is generating only this much (whatever the unit may be) of dirty air, making slipstreaming, following one another and genuine overtakes are possible again. That would leave it to the smartness of the designers – constructor’s championship, remember? That would also make overtakes really worthwile again for slomo’s and replays, instead of these lame sitting-duck-type passes on the straights. Talking about show..

      2. +4

        What it really boils down to is whether F1 considers itself as a Sport where the best drivers and engineers compete to show who can do a better job, or a form of Entertainment where we have gimmicks to try to produce some sort of artificial show

        I know what camp I am firmly in & why I watch this ‘sport’ 😉

        1. yep. agreed. the pursuit of excellence in driving and machinery is the main attraction of F1.Dumbing down excellence to appeal to ‘stock car racing fans’ is not really the answer.
          some level of shared technology may have been the answer, but that is now thrown away following the protests about brake ducts.

        2. Exactly. And this coming from Brawn is simply devastating

      3. The only this race showed is how much F1 has lost its DNA in terms of extreme safety overkill. Prior to 2018 or 2019, there’s no way a car parked as safely off the line would ever provoke a safety car. Now, they’re throwing safety cars for everything. They also would have never red flagged a face to fix a tire barrier that was basically still sound, but at least I could understand that call. However, the first one…pathetic.

        When did F1 become a sport that simply doesn’t tolerate even the bare minimum of danger? I face more danger racing my 190hp BMW 2002 race car than “the world’s best drivers.”

        1. Lenny (@leonardodicappucino)
          7th September 2020, 20:14

          This is the worst possible response take to Jelle’s point. The tire barrier wasn’t in the proper place anymore, and they are very specifically designed to deal with cars in a specific way. If they had left that and another car had gone off there the tire barrier (while still there) would have offered no protection, and could have meant leg breaks or even worse. The other moment was not at all about the safety of the drivers. It was about the safety of the marshalls. But if you want to say to a bunch of volunteers that make F1 possible that when they need to move a car out of the way they should get no protection and you’d be fine if one of them gets run over by an unsighted driver diving into the pitlane because otherwise it “ruins” the race, then good luck getting an F1 race run.

        2. I agree with you Nick. I’d throw in that they called for VC to artificially shuffle the deck and “spice things up” in a race that was already shaping up to be interesting.
          “Shall we push this car three metres backwards and behind this barrier?”
          “Nah, let’s push it 500 metres forwards under a SC and block pit entry!”

          1. @f1bobby

            They couldn’t get it behind the barrier at that spot, since it was a marshal’s opening, not a recovery opening.

      4. Knew something like this would happen. Short term gain, and now talking about WWE rubbish. A VSC was absolutely fine.

      5. Exactly. This Monza race showed clearly that such a gimmick would be a complete mess, unless they first let the teams work on cars that can easily overtake and be overtaken on track. And even then, WHY!

        This race showed nicely that a great and interesting twist can always happen in F1 WITHOUT degrading tyres, without overly powerfull DRS and without anything as stupid and backward as a “reverse grid” or “qualifying race” etc.

        This weekend we got a qualifying where both Mercedes cars seemed to really go for it in qualifying, setting the fastest couple of laps this track, and F1 in its history had ever seen. And by chance we got a race that upset the balance midway through completely to give us something quite unexpected. Highlights of the race were Gasly nicely driving to extend the gap to a faster Sainz behind for long enough to bring a finish home and Norris holding Bottas behind him for 20+ laps. And Kimi defending where he could, despite the odds being heavily against him after the restart.

      6. Coventry Climax
        8th September 2020, 0:07

        Agree with you. What Brawn’s plan shows, is that a lobotomy is obligatory when you want to work for the FIA.

      7. What is show is that all that artificial limitations are making races boring. Again, just let drivers race – no tyre limitations, no average fuel consumption limitation, no mandatory pit stop, no gear ratio limitations etc. Bring back tests, at least 10 days per year any moment any 1T track any team needs, and allow unlimited car and engine development.

        1. And DRS. Let them use it without limits on every straight. I.e. no 1 sec rule. They would will be setting up cars for higher downforce, so those behind will still be in advantage.

          1. Coventry Climax
            9th September 2020, 0:03

            Right – almost: Let them use DRS without limits also means: Whenever they want, wherever they want, and not just on the straights. You got the marbles to use it in a corner and pull it off? Or you get it all wrong and spin off? Either way: Great, it’s driver skills we want to see, on overtaking as well as in the turns.

      8. I 100% disagree with Brawn. All reverse-grid races do is give people who do not have the car/team/talent (or any mix thereof) to be able to compete on merit an artificial chance to win or score higher up in the points.

        Without Mercedes mistake on Sunday, there is absolutely NO chance in hell that Gasly would even get CLOSE to Hamilton. And that is as it should be. It has ALWAYS been that way. People who moan about how “there’s not enough overtaking these days” or about how unfair it is that teams like Mercedes can out-spend, out-design, out-everything smaller teams like Haas, etc seem to forget that back in the very beginning, some drivers were winning by multiple MINUTES. Go back and watch a selection of races from 60’s through to 2000’s… there was almost always one team/car/driver who was dominating, with the rest of the pack competing for scraps.

        Sometimes, you get a 2012, where it’s all up in the air. But that’s the exception, not the rule. They should stop trying to modify rules to make it artificially “fairer” for the weaker teams. It’s racing, not a children’s birthday party.

    2. NO NO NO NOOOOOO NO NO NOOO NO NOO NONONONOOO GODNO

      1. Brawn should surely be smarter than this

        1. He is. He maybe had just came to the conclusion that is impossible to change regulations in order to bring competition on track, so he concluded that it is necessary to physically put a slower car in front of faster cars for something similar to racing to happen.

      2. Why not? We should try just to check if it is better or not. Maybe it is horrible, maybe not. But, if we do not try, there won’t be a way to tell whether it is better or not. The DNA of F1 has long been corrupted by complicated regulations limiting the real technology improvement.

        It would be a way to mix positions in the championship. For sure it would dramatically increase the overtakings. With the current format, the qualification sessions are placing the cars in the order that most probably would end. That makes races boring —like Spa— with generally better cars in the front since turn 1. It is like if the overtakings were happening virtually during ‘qualy’ and not during race. Then we need to add DRS, or tires degradation, to artificially create some mess. Do you really prefer that?

        With the reverse grid, the best pilots would still win the championship, but they all will be winning that through overtakings, not just by being in the front since turn 1. Obviously Hamilton, Vettel, Verstappen or Bottas won’t like it. It is easier to just push the pedal than having to fight for the first place against everyone else. There would be less blue flags and more action. Really, compare Spa and Monza. There would be another important metric in that system, the number of overtakings, a number that is diluted in the current system and should be the best indicator of a good racing pilot.

        Yes, Gasly won beacuse he was lucky enough to change tires before the safety car, taking the first place out of Sainz who was always there, but should the race had started with reverse grid, probably the situation would have been even more exciting.

    3. If anything is showed that using the safety car for every little thing, the way Indy Car and NASCAR do, can mix the grid if the safety car comes out when the pit window is open. Personally, I’m not a fan of doing that, but as I’ve said before, it’s a quick cheap change that can provide the mixed grids people seem to desire.

      1. Fair comment, but remember this, it was in Italy home of the beloved Ferrari, home of those who hate Mercedes the most, that first Safety Car, because the Marshalls were pushing a stricken car towards the pit instead of backwards to the armco gap, a total joke.

      1. Coventry Climax
        8th September 2020, 0:20

        We now have trains of slow cars to be the last to cross the finishline and still do one last fast lap on an optimal condition racetrack. We will then have trains of slow cars to qualify last – period.
        It’s not just a silly idea to punish instead of reward, it’s downright ridiculous – period.

    4. I’m split on this. Sure, races will be more entertaining. But it’s like giving teams at the bottom of the English Premier a two-goal advantage at kick off against Liverpool. Or something. You’re fundamentally eroding the sport’s heritage.

      Also reverse grid sprint races will have one assured outcome: far more accidents. Which means costs for the teams to rebuild. It doesn’t sound very well thought out…

    5. I was on the fence about this, but after the weekend, I find it pretty hard to disagree with his thinking.

      The best way to ensure cars can pass is to force the best teams to design cars that can pass.

      One thing I have to disagree with is the concept of a ‘Sprint Race’ – This absolutely will devalue the main event Grand Prix. What I would like to see, however, is Reverse Grid Qualifying Race. Start in reverse championship order, no points on the line, solely grid position. This will ensure the Grand Prix remains the main event, and keeps things relatively simple to understand.

      1. @ecwdanselby I thought that’s what the proposal was though. Saturday would have a ‘Sprint Race’ with the grid set in reverse championship position, with the results of that race determining the grid for the Grand Prix on Sunday, but not awarding any points itself. I think ‘Sprint Race’ is just the term used to show it will not be a full distance Grand Prix race.

        1. I think you’re right, hopefully! I’m really not interested in seeing F1 adopt anything F2 style. I really think it’ll hugely water down the concept of a race win.

      2. The best way to ensure cars can pass is to force the best teams to design cars that can pass.

        It’s the same spirit with Brawn saying “If they know they have to overtake, they will have to change that approach.
        The problem is if this were to be introduce before spending cap, only rich team benefited from it @ecwdanselby

        1. But surely that kind of works? If those rich teams are starting at the back, they’ll need to spend their money on a car that can overtake and try to find its way to the front? It’s a really nice, entertaining way of balancing the playing field.

          1. What is this? Everyone gets a medal because it’s school sports day? In other series, in spec series, OK, but not in F1.

            1. Do you really think Williams would win a race using reverse grid? I don’t think so.

        2. good point there @ruliemaulana – and with the cars next year being almost identical to this year because of the limits on development it would be completely bonkers to expect any team to be able to suddenly redevelop their car to be better able to overtake (not to mention it would need forcing them to be easier to be overtaken)

      3. I agree with Ross Brawn,

    6. I agree that reverse grids make things interesting but not in the state F1 is in at the moment. We could all see that drivers were struggling to make overtakes stick post restart at Monza. Lets first sort out the basic issues concerning overtaking and the ability to follow other cars closely. Then reverse grid may not even be needed.

    7. Just give it a try. Why not…they gave Bernie’s ridiculous qualifying format a try and it didn’t work. No one knows what will happen. My opinion is that if it’s on the cards the designers will design better cars for overtaking rather than just speed. At the moment if you design a car just for qualifying you have a good chance of winning and that’s not racing.

    8. OK Ross, why not go full-on Super Mario Kart?

      You could introduce turtle shells and oil spills that make you spin-off. Maybe add some random ‘speed ups’ to help the drivers.

      Hell, the winner could even marry Princess Daisy!

      Meanwhile back in the real world… can we just have rules that fairly level the playing field please!

      1. Jumps! Don’t forget the jumps! With speed boast if you throw your hands up.

        Ice and dirt racing too!

        And whoever has the most penalty points gets their helmet decorated like Bowser’s shell.

        1. RP I love the idea of jumps. And Sharks.
          Jumping the shark could save F1!

    9. I can literally see smiles of millions of fans freezing after reading this.

    10. Be careful what you wish for here.
      Imagine the better teams going hell for leather for fastest quali time, to end up at grid spot 20, don’t make me laugh.
      Go for two or three tyre manufacturers, instead.

    11. Just use a (weight/gridplace) penalty for numbers 1, 2 and 3 from previous race and it will stirr up enough.

      Wouldnt reversed grid mean everybody would just duke the qaully session, trying to come in last place so they start on pole?

      1. I think the grid for the qualifying race would be determined by championship position.

    12. It actually clearly demonstrated why F1 should not be doing reverse grids, because it showed exactly what would go wrong. Fast cars getting damaged. Overtaking impossible.

      If you want random results then why not just hide the pit entry lights like an easter egg. Or randomly assign engine modes. Or maybe Ecclestone has some brilliant ideas for “improving the show” (short cuts? sprinklers?)

    13. W R O N G

      This a misjudged idea that will only diminish the better teams and will give false hope for being bad for the other worse teams.
      Bad means no way In hell a Williams would want such a gift of this idiotic concept.
      Think about this…….

      You are good enough to win the pole and with honor and then you are forced to start the race at the back of the grid…

      Or

      You are so bad you get to start at the front of the field leading off on cars that are up to Five Seconds a Lap faster than you

      Damn Russ Brawn, I always thought so very highly of you and your leadership and today I wonder if you a bit nuts in la cabeza.

      The Italian Grand Prix became something absolutely NO ONE could have ever predicted. Yeah the weirdness of how it went down was exciting but that kind of oddity is not what Formula One Is about or should over react to…this really off base idea of Brawns this morning needs to be squelched.
      It’s Formula One and this form of Racing needs tweaking from time to time but not this kind of insanity. You can’t even figure out how to STOP DRS and that is slowly trying to undo all of Grand Prix Racing.

      Whether it’s the Brawn Racing Grid (BRG) or the Dumb Racing System (DRS) tell the FIA to rise above the false hope of yesterday’s Italian Grand Prix and the damage the reverse grid caused. It was anything but a Luck Race. You either had it or you didn’t.

      STOP BRAWN TODAY

      His idea will become the end of Formula One

    14. I’m trying to decide how likely it is that they pass a rule that introduces a few reverse grid races (maybe 3 as proposed previously). If FIA and Liberty are on board, which seems likely from the way Brawn has continued pushing it, then with the same votes as last time it would pass 28-2, with only Mercedes and Racing Point voting against. Mercedes are obviously against it because being the dominant team they have the most to lose, and I assume Racing Point fell in line to Merc’s demands due to their relationship. Williams didn’t though, which is interesting. But from next year McLaren will be dependent on Mercedes engines putting them in the same scenario as Racing Point, which could give Mercedes the extra vote they need to block the proposal.

      So it seems likely that Mercedes has enough leverage to continue blocking this. Regardless of whether you’re in favour of the rule or not, it seems ridiculous that one manufacturer team has so much power that they can block a new rule which might be beneficial for the sport overall – but maybe that’s a debate for another day.

      1. @keithedin My understanding is that the super majority described that MB could block through influence is for in-season changes only. Between season changes would need a much lower bar to overcome I suspect so for 2021 Liberty may get their wish.

        Only reason MB have so much influence is likely due the quality of their PU. Teams currently receiving it would be brave to directly antagonise MB (especially near contract renewal) since other products are inferior.

    15. Great idea, and after 3 laps the top guys will spend almost all the rest of the race being separated by a back marker or two.

    16. No need for a qualifying or a qualifying race, just have a marble draw as in dirt track racing. 20 numbered marbles in container and each driver draws out a marble. The number on the marble is their starting position.

      Cant get more random than that and means no skullduggery in qualifying or qualifying race to get the pole position on a reverse grid.

    17. Random sprinklers, fan boost and reversed grid lotteries are an absolute must. Also, no innovation in engines or aero or suspension. And no changing of helmet designs. A budget cap of £2 mil a year to attract new teams. 3 races every week, except on Christmas. And charge fans for a digital service that may not be quite ready yet

    18. I think Ross is having a laugh at everyone’s expense here – just saying.

    19. F1’s last attempt to recreate a chaotic, fluky race resulted in the high deg tires we all hate. Reverse grid qualifying races, like those tires, is simply a band-aid that does not address the real issues of huge performance gaps at the front and cars that can’t follow each other.

      1. Agree its far from a solution – you are right.
        But its a pretty entertaining band-aid!
        Maybe just use it a couple of times a year.
        I loved it.

    20. No it didn’t. If teams knew beforehand what the deal was, they’d act accordingly. Setting their cars for easier overtaking or whatever. Hamilton was still going through the field very fast…

      I think, in the end it’d be like reintroducing refuelling for a race. It’d be a novelty and it’d be great (probably) but that doesn’t mean it’ll always be good.

      It’s a matter of teams getting a surprise and not reacting well… Not to mention that when there are points at stake, they take their chances, but if it’s just to set a grid up, they won’t push as hard.

    21. Here we go again. Unusual circumstances throw up a good race, and now we’re going to try to base the whole future of the sport on it.

      The key phrase is ‘unusual circumstances’. The reason it was special to see Gasly win is because that sort of race comes along once every few years. The novelty will wear off pretty quickly, and it will cost the sport its integrity.

      1. Coventry Climax
        8th September 2020, 0:29

        Very correct!

    22. I disagree. F1 doesn’t need reverse-grids. The 2022 aero changes, if they work out as planned should fix things without needing to resort to such gimmicks. Reverse-grids simply don’t belong to the highest level of circuit-racing. One shouldn’t get penalized for success. Otherwise, what’s the point in trying to be the fastest and best or most-performing?

      1. But the fastest cars will still get to the front – they’re just going to have to race harder for it. It’s not an ideal solution, but I think if everyone opens their minds a little, it will create some great racing, even if it’s just for 2021, where we’re lumbered with cars that hate following.

    23. No, it really didn’t. It showed that one driver, who is one of the best of all time, in a class of the field car, could rip through an artificially tightened-up midfield. And it showed that the VSC seemingly has no role at all nowadays and they might as well get rid of it, but that’s another debate…

      Look at the lap charts, Ross. Aside from Giovinazzi (penalty’d) Raikkonen (going backwards) and Hamilton (going forwards), everyone else stayed exactly where they were at the end of the first lap of the restart. That supports the notion that qualifying races would be a terrible idea, not that they’d be good.

      1. Absolutely, and even Hamilton took quite a while to get through a bunch of back markers let alone actually pass any of the cars that had any speed.

        As soon as he’d gotten to where he did near the end of the race, he’d have had to do what Bottas was doing and get out of car slipstreams to cool his car. He was OK for the first bit because there was a lot of clear air between the cars at the back. The main pack didn’t allow that luxury so no one was making progress.

        It was sickening to hear the Sky commentators fawning over the idea – I’m sure Liberty has them on payroll, and I’m not in the least surprised to see Ross pushing this again. Just so disappointed in Ross.

        1. I felt exactly the same with the comments on Sky – a sinking “here we go again”. Although maybe it is Sky pushing Liberty on this rather than the other way (since they have so much of the TV rights nowadays). Just as when they clamoured for degradable tyres, DRS, the ban on helmet changes etc.

          As both of you write, it showed quite nicely why a reverse grid thing just won’t work unless they completely change the cars first with even Hamilton not being able to progress much after he hit up on the real midfield cars and Bottas having to get out of the air of the cars ahead more or less from lap 3 onwards @neilosjames @dbradock

    24. How about a bonus point for every position gained from your grid position…
      This way, teams may intentionally choose to not qualify at the top, but choose to fight through the field.
      Last to first challenge would deserve extra points if you ask me!

      1. I always try to run this test:

        “Is it easy to explain to someone new?”

        I’d have to say that sounds like a disaster to keep on track of, personally. I think that’s why i’m quite open to the Qualifying Race idea. It’s really quite straight forward! Wherever they finish is where they start for the GP.

    25. Why bother with pole statistics then start 20th and finish 15th. Who wants to make life ridiculing for themselves.
      Stupid idea please stop it.

    26. Won’t happen.
      Purists love their fastest car to slowest car “racing”. With tyre compounds, DRS, rain, safety car, and red flag as the only accepted gimmicks.
      It doesn’t matter to them that all drivers get a fair shot for the win in a non-spec series. Would rather see F1 go dead than become anything else.

      1. And they’re not wrong. It’s USP is implied in its name; this isn’t spec racing or “pick your grid slot from a bag of marbles“, it’s Formula One. It’s lives and dies on that basis.

        1. Hopefully they are wrong and F1 can survive by gently letting go of these “me me me” ‘purists’, so that the majority can love the billion dollar sport that they pay for.

          1. 1. You’re not in the majority on this site if you want those races.
            2. Some big paying customer you must be when you don’t even contribute the paltry amount this site asks for per year.

            1. Sorry, didn’t know it was that important to be in the majority on this site to discuss or decide about the future of F1.
              Also sorry, didn’t know that donation on this particular site was compulsory to illustrate your paying status. Surely it must have been my twin/ghost who paid half month’s salary to watch F1 racing in my home country.
              For what it’s worth, F1 must be happy that the purists are happy.

          2. First, if you want me to take your comment seriously, create an account and post rather than hide behind an anonymous username.

            Second, gimmicks would be the end of the sport if the casual fan can’t figure out what is going on (which would happen with reverse grids in a non-spec sport). Look at Nascar – ever since they created the playoffs the viewing figures have nosedived and they keep falling thanks to them creating even more gimmicks, first with culling the playoff field every 3 rounds, more recently with the stage racing format they now have, all while ignoring that 4+ hour races are simply too long. It also annoys some purists to the point that they stop watching.

      2. It’s a championship, not a charity. You show up to compete, or you go home. There is no expectation that the back-markers should be able to win. This isn’t a spec series, and treating it like one would be stupid. What SHOULD be worked on, is how to make the smaller teams competitive– and handicapping the larger teams isn’t the way.

        Gasly had been showing great pace all weekend, and when Hamilton and Bottas stumbled, he was in the right place, with the right speed, to benefit.

        Ironically, a reverse-grid probably would have denied him a chance at victory.

    27. Just highlights to me that those running the sport & a lot of those covering the sport don’t know what makes for actually entertaining racing.

      Let’s look at yesterdays race for example. Yes the SC/Red Flag mixed up the order but was the actual racing really that good? Most of the field was stuck in a DRS train & the only overtaking going on was Kimi Raikkonen dropping backwards in the slowest car on the grid & Hamilton brezzing past everyone pretty easily in the fastest. Yes that created a high number for the overtaking stats people get far too obsessed with imo, But did it actually provide a truly exciting spectacle? I don’t think it did.

      The excitement came from the turn of events that led us to an unexpected outcome rather than the actual on-track action. You try & artificially recreate that with a contrived gimmick & you lose the very thing that made yesterday fun…. The unexpected.

      It’s the same as Bernie’s sprinkler idea. Yes turning sprinklers on with 5 laps to go would mix things up, But it would feel contrived & the mixed up order simply wouldn’t feel deserved or earned.

      1. I feel to get real change in F1, you don’t want someone who has lived the sport for decades, need an outsider with fresh ideas and no previous connections to all the main players.

      2. @stefmeister you have rather hit the nail on the head there, and I think it is something that quite a few here are missing – that the process of artificially trying to force that sort of event to happen removes the very element that made it engaging.

        Some have commented about the excitement they feel about the Formula 2 reverse races – but how memorable are those reverse races when they are so frequent that it all just fades into the background? Fans care about events such as Panis winning the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix or Fisichella winning the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix – we’re still talking about those races decades later – because they were extraordinary events. Does anybody show any real passion for any particular reverse race in Formula 2 even just a year or two later? How many people even remember any particular stand out event from those reverse races for years to come?

        In some ways, those Formula 2 reverse races almost feel like a piece of cheap chocolate. At best you consume it at the time and get a moment of enjoyment, but it’s nothing more than a slightly pleasant momentary distraction that you forget about almost instantly and leaves no lasting impression, whilst at worst it leaves a cloying taste in your mouth and a regret at consuming something so artificial.

        1. @stefmeister @anon Agreed.

          And imho, this should all go away with the 2022 cars and overall regs. The only reason reverse grids are even a thought is because of the imbalance between the have and the have not teams, and because of cars so heavily harmed in dirty air as they have been for decades. The predictability of it all. I’m pretty confident that there will not even be a thought of reverse grids in a better F1 series such as the teams have agreed going forward.

          I notice that Brawn is mentioning keeping this concept a possibility for next year. The cars will be similar to this year. But how about for 2022? For me it would be hugely disappointing if the concept is being kept in the fore with the wholly new cars. Not only should reverse grids not be ‘necessary’ but at a bare minimum they need to give the new regs a good bit of time to reveal what they will bring in terms of racing. If there is then still an aura of reverse grids, then that will have meant the new regs haven’t gone far enough in promoting closer racing between the teams as well as between the cars.

    28. I’m really not sure why people are up in arms about this being a bad idea. We can see in F2 that it’s a really decent way of mixing up the grid, changing the outcomes and quite often the same faces end up at the top anyway – probably even more so with F1 given the disparity of machinery. The Italian GP proved it further, that there’s a lot of fun to be had watching faster cars scythe their way back through the field while giving teams that usually would never be up the front the opportunity to race there legitimately.

      The alternative is what? Retaining ‘purity’ where the same teams and the same faces dominate the front of the grid year in, year out with little variation and us all exploding with joy with the (1) race it actually happens on? Sport isn’t meant to be predictable or processional! It’s meant to be exciting, random, dramatic and shocking! It’s meant to energize you not put you to sleep!

      Given the stability of the rules next year its a perfect time to TRY. If it doesn’t work, we don’t need to keep it. But if we don’t TRY we’ll never actually know! It’s got to be worth a shot! For once, F1, PLEASE TRY SOMETHING NEW! This utter bare-faced, bone-headed resistance to change and adaptation is why the sport looks so boring and up itself from the outside. If it wants to actually survive in the future IT NEEDS to innovate and do something different!

      1. @rocketpanda I think the F2 comparison is wide of the mark. They still do meritocratic qualifying like F1 and it is only the lesser scoring spirit race that the reverse grid applies.

        I would prefer that F1 went down a multi-race weekend similar to F2 if you wanted mixed up grids. This does present other problems however and this is not necessarily the forum for that debate.

        1. I don’t like the reverse grid idea, I think it goes against what F1 is. But I’m with Adam on the fact that F1 should not be afraid of trying a few stuff. Why not giving it a go for 1 or 2 GP this year (too late I suppose) or next year and then having an objective assessment ?

      2. Totally agree @rocketpanda ! 2021 would be perfect to try something like this. In F2 it works quite well.
        I also agree with @okif1 that we should ask ourselves why we let the fastest car to start first. Surely then this car will finish first most of the time.
        But the F1 world is very conservative, so it proabably won’t happen…

        1. @rocketpanda I’ve been a fan all along of at least an experiment, so I’m with you there and agree next year would be fine. I do wonder though if it is necessary any more. And I thought you were only talking about next year.

          What surprised me about your comment as I read on, is that you are making it sound like nothing will ever change, when obviously everything is about to change in 2022. Which is why I now question if even the experiment of reverse grids is anything that should be pursued. If they were staying with the same old same old cars I’d welcome it more, but I think a point was well made in other posts that once there isn’t the surprise factor like we just had, there will enter back some predictability with an artificial tinge to it. And ultimately wouldn’t we rather see top cars racing each other, actually racing I mean, not following then drs’ing, than seeing them spending the race scything through cars that are relatively easy marks?

          So on top of that factor is the hope, and it is a huge hope but for me moreso a necessity, that these new cars will race such that drs and reverse grids need not ever be mentioned again. I can’t see how the very act of ridding themselves of the majority of the dirty air effect won’t make all the difference in the world to the quality of the product on the track, which will allow for growth in all aspects of the sport overall.

          We want the variety and the action of a race such as we just had? Well we’re about to get it on a more regular basis but without the need to get it from joke tires, drs, or reverse grids, or red flags throwing a spanner into a Monza race that has never seen cars so desperate for a tow, so bad they have gotten for dependence on aero downforce.

          So your last paragraph of many capital letters? I don’t get it. For the reasons I’ve opined above.

    29. One more way to screw up Formula 1. Formula 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing where constructors, engineers and privateers revolutionize engineering and put the best, fastest and most aerodynamic product on the track. Depending on the track all reverse grids will do is provide more exciting racing but then go to an Indy format of one chassis and a couple or a few engines to guarantee equality and there you have exciting racing…. Not.

      What made F1 great is that a team coudl come up with a great design or a great engine and within a few weeks the competition had caught up, or surpassed them. When unlimited testing and development were allowed. Now we have a system that perpetuates the cars that guessed right and can continue development of theior designs and those that have been unfortunate are stuck without real possibility to get out of their way until regulations change. It has killed the sport. Yes some regulations that apply to real life are good. Moving to Hybrid and allowing for engine durability, are great because F! shoudl be a testbed for real automobile future development. Others like lack of testing and how the rules are neforced are crap for the sport.

      Why penalize cars for having to change engines and make cars start from teh back and inevitably create disbalance in the competition? Why not reward through points or money cars that use less engines? Maybe allow testing days in reverse roder of finish. Or sacrifice points in order to get more days to develop a car? No one wants to see a Merc lined up in the back artificially and pass weaker cars, thet is not excitement. Excitement is to see worthy adversaries up front fighting with the Mercs.

      Flying a crap product around the world is not teh way to grow the sport and save money but maybe getting a more exciting product is. I have been following F1 since the mid seventies, and have seen the sport devolve into a boring and crappy sport. It was the only motorsport that excited me and I coudl watch religiously, now I find myself not watching at all.

      Total crap.

    30. F1 and it’s fans shouldn’t be opposed to trying different things. Unlike all the other sports mentioned, we have virtually no chance of the unexpected happening, as the last 7 seasons show it doesn’t matter how amazing a driver you are, you’ve got zero chance of winning unless you were in a Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari. In modern F1 the quality of the machinery is probably 90% of the overall performance, Lewis Hamilton didn’t win a Championship between 2009-2013 because he wasn’t in a Brawn or a Red Bull basically.

      Also it’s a Driver’s World Championship, the best driver wins. Shouldn’t that be the driver who can win from the front, qualify the fastest and make their way through the pack. The most complete driver.

      After watching races as boring as Spain and Belgium, why not mix things up with trying Sprint races? It’s not being discussed as a permanent move yet, just as a trial. If it doesn’t work then it can resigned to the rubbish bin of history. I know some people worry about history and heritage but that’s already gone out of the window with the changes to the points system for example. Yes boring Bottas has more points than Ayrton Senna!

      1. No there is also a constructors championship as well as a drivers championship, hence this is not a spec series. You want to watch a spec series go knock yourself out on another series because that’s not F1.

    31. Brawn is turning into the new Bernie, he’ll be suggesting sprinklers next.

    32. Ross, Ross….What have you become?

    33. Don’t let Brawn be new Bernie. This idea goes down with the wacky ones from Bernie.
      I think Bernie had this idea when he was in charge but in the end I don’t see how this would keep “the DNA” of F1″ if the slowest car is on pole..

      I’m not sure if “push to pass” would work? Maybe they should let drivers decide when to use it. Like when DRS was first introduced drivers used it whenever they wanted. It had a safety risk in it but so does reverse grid (Webber and Kovalainen in Valencia).

    34. I was afraid exactly this will happen!

    35. I struggle to capacitate myself that a person who has lived F1 for a few decades now, is able to produce such thinking about the sport he is a big part of. The best I can think of is that the Carey administration is pushing him to release such appalling statements. I understand they decided that the sport needs something different to catch with US audience, but I hope some common sense and class will always prevail. DRS and double points finale in Abu Dahbi was already too much in that direction, frankly. I guess they feel more entitled to propose such nonsense thanks to these gimmicks introduced by others before them.

    36. If it was something like Formula e doing this it wouldn’t matter because it has only existed for six years, but Formula 1 has had the same format of Qualifying, with the fastest times deciding the grid, and then the main race for seventy years, which is too long for it to be changed. Also, as others have mentioned, races like this are particularly exciting because they are rare. My third reason for not doing this is that winning would become arguably, ‘too easy.’ The BTCC thought this in 2018 when there were seventeen different winners in thirty races because of rules like success ballast and reverse grids, but the BTCC’s main purpose, in my opinion, is to create exciting racing, and those rules have been around for many years. We have other series like the BTCC for ‘exciting racing,’ but there is something about F1 that makes it really special, despite the lack of thrilling races, and I think reverse grids would probably diminish that slightly. Please leave the qualifying-race format as it is.

    37. Brawn believes that if reverse grid races were introduced, teams would ensure their cars are better tuned to run in traffic and overtake each other.

      He’s a very intelligent guy, and he’s right. Mercedes do clearly engineer their cars to win on Saturday. Then Sundays are generally just time trials for Hamilton out front while the annoyingly meek Bottas just plods along, heaven forbid he try a late-brake divebomb overtake into turn 1 like Nico, he’ll never do such a thing.

      Nobody wants “fake” F1, but what we have now are 9 F1 teams “competing” against an F0 team. It always blows my mind when Hamilton takes pole by nearly a second, leads every lap, then toward the end some fanboys actually have the audacity to vote for him for “driver of the day.” What? Just like Hamilton, they refuse to accept reality.

    38. Time to get out a left over bit of 4*2, so that I can beat some sense into whoever thinks this is a good idea.

      And probably more importantly, in a period when they are desperately trying to reduce costs. Who’s going to pay for this and all the subsequent extra damage and the extra PU’s that will be needed.

    39. – I would scrap minimum-maximum times when Safety Car is deployed. And would only keep it in the minisectors where the accident happened. Why? To maximize random factor. Nowadays leaders can change their tyres for free because there is one and a half lap before everyone catches the Safety Car. I think that is too much.
      – I would scrap VSC and use Safety Car instead. Again, more variety and random factor.
      – I would reemploy gravel traps where safe to do so. That would mean more Safety Cars.
      – I maybe would deploy Safety Car a bit more, for less major hazards. For example some debris or something. But in a sane way, not to make it too gimmicky.
      – I would scrap 5 and 10 second penalties and revert to Drive-Thru’ and Stop and Go pens. Either a conduct is worthy of a Drive-Thru’ or does not need a penalty. That would mean more on-track punishments and a minor reshuffle during races.
      – I would re-evaluate these changes at the end of 2021. Because this and next years are decided already. Yet these are not extremely artificial and not necessarily punish those who do a good job, it is rather a random factor.

      1. You need to have the time delta because drivers cannot govern themselves to drive at a safe speed. This has been proven time and time again.

    40. There are other racing series to watch if you do not enjoy the format of F1 which has been qualify and race in fastest car order for 70 years. A trial race would just be the thin edge of the wedge to try and say it didn’t work out this time but lets give it another go until people got what they want which is artificial racing. If you want to trial it then make it a non championship points race and test away. Adding silly gimmicks into a race weekend that could end up costing driver or teams championship places is stupid just to test it.

      1. I completely agree with you, slowmo.

    41. The reason Gasly in an Alpha Tauri winning is exciting is because this kind of event almost never happens. And to be honest the racing fan in me doesn’t really appreciate it all that much, it’s such a lottery of events that I don’t feel like I’ve seen a thrilling race.

      Creating that kind of event every week will first and foremost stop these kind of flukes being anything out of the ordinary, and worst of all turn race weekends into a random farce.

    42. Two words for Mr Brawn. The first consists of four letters, and the second is ‘off’. Trying to turn a sport into a sham. The reason this grand prix was so wonderful is it was unexpected. If it was created artificially, it would be nowhere near as special. It’s like seeing a lion in a zoo versus seeing one in the wild. Can’t compare the experience.

      1. Lenny (@leonardodicappucino)
        7th September 2020, 20:19

        @tflb that zoo analogy is perfect

    43. Lenny (@leonardodicappucino)
      7th September 2020, 20:18

      You’d think Brawn would know better than this. These bonkers insane amazing races only happen very rarely, which is what makes them special. Could you imagine if by the end of next year Kvyat, Ocon, Stroll, and Albon would have won reverse grid races? It would devalue Pierre’s win sooo much. I want a good race with lots of overtaking and excitement every week. But I don’t want this kind of stuff every week, even though this is definitely in the top 5 races I’ve ever seen (and I’ve been watching since 2008).

    44. Really? After the restart, what happened? Räikkönen lost positions because he was out of position, and Hamilton gained a few by passing some backmarkers. How did that show the “need” for reverse-grid races?

    45. The fundamental questions being asked are-

      What is “racing” to F1?
      Driver&Car Vs Driver&Car
      Driver Vs Driver
      Car Vs Car

      And how can any of the above chosen “racing” be made financially viable?

      Currently F1 has no concrete answer for either and is too busy trying to please everybody.

    46. Lewis proved that Mercedes would probably still win and it’s less of a sport when you add these gimmicks. Also, the rarer these things happen the more special they are.

    47. No no no. This is what I was afraid of when the words “reverse grid race” were mentioned. This race has some good lessons in it how to fix f1 but none of them were about how good reverse grid races are.

      First we need to stop mercedes domination so we have actual racing for the wins. The best thing about this race is that nobody could have guessed that gasly will win and the only reason he was able to win was because the mercs were far enough back and max was out. It’s been like this since 2014. The fix is not reverse grid races. The fix is competition.

      Even in this great race overtaking was still really difficult. To get better races the tires need to last longer and the cars need to be able to follow easier. We need to get rid of drs. We don’t need reverse grid races to “fix” those issues.

      At no point do I see this race being proof that reverse grid races fix f1. All reverse grid races do is hide the issues just like drs does. We are constantly moving towards more gimmicks and aids to try to hide the overtaking and competition issues. We treat the symptoms but the actual issues are left untreated. F1 has become addicted to gimmicks. Even the new now-2022 cars will have drs.

      The reverse grids need to be opposed hard because otherwise they will be there forever. Just like the drs seem to be. Otherwise we will be getting competition cautions and scheduled safety cars to “spice up the action”. Let’s add sprinklers, two lane overtaking straights and lets add 7 sessions to the qualifying. If we want to add gimmicks there are even better ones than reverse grid races and loop-de-loops. Success ballast anyone? At least it is a gimmick that is all about fixing the main issue and doesn’t even pretend to be anything else.

      1. Let’s slow down the mercs and max and we get close racing. Gimmick? Sure. But it works by making the competition better. Not by making the races unpredictable and meaningless overtaking bonanzas. Merc unlapping itself 19 times is just as non-exciting as watching them win from the front.

    48. The racing purist in me strongly disagree with gimmicks like this. But what if the purists are wrong?
      But F1 desperately needs a change. It is too predictable, too many races are boring and it fails to attract new audience.
      I think F1 missed a chance this year. It’s crazy anyway and in Austria 2 and Silverstone 2 they had the chance to try something different. Now I think they should wait until the new regulations but it’s a shame they had to be postponed for one year.
      Next year could be dull as well…

    49. I think what many might be overlooking is F1 now lacks unpredictability because of the rule changes with regards to part longevity. F1 used to be about pushing the cars to the absolute max, but due to costs spiralling out of control, F1 had to step in and ensure manufacturers designed smarter. As a result, we’ve borderline lost mechanical failures, which, for better or worse, was part of ‘F1’s DNA’ (as people seem to love using this argument).

      The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, F1 is a show as much as a sport. It is, and you’ll hate me for this, borderline Sports Entertainment.

      I don’t want to hear the comparisons to other sports – it’s not the same.

      The same result happening over and over and over and over again over the course of 20 races isn’t entertaining for anyone. How could it be? It sounds as though they’ve, fingers crossed, done a nice job with the 2022 regs. But that’s 2022. Whether you like it or not, Monza 2020 was another Canada 2010 – something strange happened, and the folks in charge want to learn from it. Is it pure? No. But if we kept everything pure, many of us would, eventually, be turned off by it, I believe. If it were pure, F1 would have killed itself through excessive spending.

      What i’m saying is, it’s a balance. Yes, we can talk about F1’s “DNA” til we’re blue in the face, but every new idea in F1 was probably looked at as a ‘gimmick’ at some point. Sure, some more than others, I fully accept that (I gave DRS a chance – I hate it). But if we never give anything a chance, then enjoy your Merc/Hamilton dominance and watch the numbers fall. It won’t bother you, but i’m sure it’ll be bothering the owners. You have to put in to context how much money Liberty have lost due to Covid. Now more than ever, they’ll be keen to try out some fresh ideas to produce more exciting racing before the 2022 rules overhaul. Next year feels like the perfect opportunity to give it a whirl.

      The qualy format we have now is good, but seeing Mercedes have to fight to start anywhere near the front sounds more appealing to me. Fundamentally, it’s not exactly ‘fair’ on the other teams that they (along with Red Bull and Ferrari) have the biggest budgets on the grid, and can therefore employ the absolute best of the best. Let’s make them work hard and race hard for those grid slots.

      I get it – not everyone will like it. But can’t we just try next season where we know everything will be status quo? If anything it’s a great time for a litmus test.

      1. Nope. Mercedes invested 4 years heavily into F1 before they hit the jackpot on their own and have been involved as an engine builder for 25 years. They’ve paid their dues and propped up this sport at times (remember they saved Brawn by providing them engines when Honda cut lose thus keeping a team on the grid). Through the early years of the hybrid era they allowed other engine manufacturers to make significant changes and also shared knowledge to help them improve.

        The current situation is not about the money being spent by Mercedes it’s because they’re excelling in every single area and other teams with similar budgets are severely lacking. Complain all you like that its boring they win most of the time but they’ve earned that right fair and square.

        If Liberty are serious about changing the status quo then dump these hybrid units and let’s go back to fuel injected larger motors, thinner and shorter cars, smaller front tyres, remove all bargeboards/winglets and reset everything for all teams. Oh and bring back active suspension and ground effect aero.

    50. The Sprint Race, will become the Slow race! As drivers will be trying to get to the back for the reverse grid on Sunday.

      There would have to be a really big incentive for a team to want to win the Sprint race.

      The FIA would have real problems trying to stop Teams from trying to manufacture a favourable outcome, it would be a complete mess.

    51. How about make it like Mario kart. Each time will be randomly assigned ‘skills’ like super soft tyres, fanboost, sprinkler control, safety car card, drs anywhere, one shortcut, etc

    52. Look at the BTCC’s approach: excess ballast based on race finishing position (not championship), three races per weekend that are over in the blink of an eye and usually curtailed due to safety cars, compulsory tire compounds and reverse grids drawn out of a bag to hide the fact that 90% of the field is uncompetitive, poorly funded and short of talent. The principle teams would look like they’re racing in another category if the gimmicks didn’t exist to artificially spice up the action. Doesn’t sound too unfamiliar, does it? Be better, F1.

    53. Completely predictable wasn’t it that Ross immediately bangs on again about reverse grid qualifying as did Brundle and Croft on Sunday.

      There’s this misguided belief that the front runners will just charge through the field giving the ADHD viewers a bit thrill because “there’ll be so much action” when the reality would be so very different. Ignore for a moment that Hamilton caught and passed a few much much slower cars and have a good look at what happened with the rest of the field where pretty much no-one could easily catch or pass which is what would have been the case with Hamilton when he reached the proper mid field pack.

      I’m sure Ross would have been delighted with this suggestion for qualifying when his team and his man were the ones winning everything year after year – can you imagine how Ferrari would have reacted.

      Please Ross, you seem to have done a great job in developing technical regs for 2022 onwards which should enable more competitive racing – it was supposed to be 2021 but Covid messed with that, just wait and allow the budget caps and new regulations to have an impact. There is no reason at all to try to artificially “spice up the show” so stop bringing it up.

      1. @dbradock Agreed. I said similar things further up the page before seeing your comment. I fully agree let’s see what 2022 brings and I predict the findings with the new cars will be that reverse grids will not even be a thought. In fairness to Brawn he is talking about next year when the cars will be similar to now.

    54. I think 2 qualifying format, low fuel and high fuel is the fairest format.
      – Everyone deserves 2nd chance
      – Fastest guy in 1st qualifying, can be countered by low fuel in 2nd qualifying.
      – Mistake will cost something, but not too much.

    55. I’m sure Ross would of been happy with reverse grid during his time running a F1 team, Not. Go ahead and ruin it completely just to satisfy your American employer you bunch of clowns.

    56. Regrettably many do not seem to have progressed in tune with technology when it comes to the definition of racing. Chariot racing was very entertaining (and dangerous) in Roman times.
      F1 was extremely dangerous 40 years ago.
      Nowadays F1 is not so much about drivers fighting with each other, banging swords together,etc. it is more to do with the levels of technical,machinery and driver expertise where the fight is primarily against the ‘former limitations’.
      We can watch sports, pole vaulting for example, and appreciate the skills as the bar gets higher and higher. Yet some seem to be impaired when it comes to watching the bar get higher in F! and seem to think that dumbing it down, lowering the bar, will be more ‘appealing to the masses’
      Perhaps if ‘the unappealed masses’ could be better informed about the subleties involved in high speed F1, then this issue of reverse grid would never rear it’s ugly head,huh? I find the live timing screen to be a totally fascinating thing as a race progresses and the skills involved by the drivers are truly staggeringly high.
      What’s not to love about excellence?

    57. Mixed up grids are only exciting through chance (i.e. rain during quali, red flag during races), as soon as you prescribe a mixed up grid (i.e. reverse grid) you lose all the excitement. Artificial gimmicks should not be what Formula 1 is about. Using two tyre compounds and DRS are bad enough, although I can understand why they’ve been brought in with the current car design spec making overtaking impossible without these.

    58. GtisBetter (@passingisoverrated)
      8th September 2020, 10:01

      What we need is a button that gets pressed every ten laps and then a random engine blows up. Also random oil puddles on the track. And mystery tires. And of course a random grid. How is this not exciting! How will people not be entertained!

    59. Have to say I enjoyed the second half of the race a fair bit more than the first. So there’s something fun in the concept that’s for sure.

      But too much of a good thing is never a good thing and in the long run it’ll just dilute the fundamentals of the sport further. Football doesn’t tweak its rules every year…

    60. I wonder how many fans will walk away if they do this. Paying fans forking out lots of money for sports channels to watch F1 while they try to bring in folk who are uninterested and probably wont bother paying to watch. I didnt like the CFD and wind tunnel time penalty rules as it penalises success but I could live with that. Reverse Grid Qualifying Sprint Races is a step too far and step towards becoming the BTCC. I think for the integrity of the sport I have to personally take a stand and if this makes it into the rules I’ll be on the phone to Sky buying out my contract and telling them why.

    61. I don’t mind reverse grids in stock series but F1 isn’t a stock series. This race was one of those odd results that crop up from time to time – like Maldonado’s win or Vettel in the Toro Rosso. The winners in all cases simply made fewer mistakes and the cars behaved properly – which is how most races are won anyway. Hamilton’s penalty provided Gasly’s win this time, not a shuffled grid.

    62. So…..Monaco..lol just have the Saturday and dont bother with Sunday and Spa OMG can you imagine the carnage at the 1st corner.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.