Start, Mugello, 2020

F1 polls fans on replacing qualifying with 30-minute reverse grid races

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1 is asking fans whether it should replace qualifying sessions with reverse-grid sprint races at four rounds of the 2021 season.

Liberty Media twice tried to introduce the format for a limited number of races this year. The proposal failed to gain the unanimous support of teams on both occasions.

Following the Italian Grand Prix Formula 1 motorsport director Ross Brawn indicated he intended to raise the proposal again. Brawn said the Monza race “showed the excitement a mixed-up pack can deliver.”

The poll on F1’s Fan Voice website, titled “Reverse Grid Qualifying Races Survey”, ties the concept to the Monza race. It begins by asking fans: “Did you enjoy the Italian GP more/less than you would usually enjoy a race?”.

Respondents are then asked how much they enjoyed the “unpredictability” of the Italian round, the chance to “[watch] Lewis Hamilton fight his way through the pack” and “seeing drivers who would not normally have the chance to compete at the front battle for the win”.

Those who respond to the poll are also asked whether they agree whether “the world champion should be the best all round racing driver, taking into account their speed, overtaking ability, strategy and their ability to fight for victories” before being prompted for their views on reverse-grid qualifying races.

The reverse-grid qualifying race proposal is described as “a 30 minute reverse grid (based on current world championship standings) qualifying race that would replace the existing qualifying format for those particular races”. The result of that race would set the starting order for the grand prix.

A separate poll on the site asks “do you agree/disagree that reverse-grid qualifying races are something F1 should consider?” At the time of writing, from over 2,700 responds, the single most popular option is “strongly disagree”, with 32%. However while 45% of those surveyed chose either ‘strongly disagree’ or “somewhat disagree”, 46% picked from the two ‘agree’ options.

The reverse-grid proposal has been widely criticised by F1 drivers. Last weekend Sebastian Vettel said reverse-grid races “would be wrong in the name of sport”. Other drivers who have criticised the plan since it was first announced include Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc, Max Verstappen and Daniel Ricciardo.

George Russell, who would start a reverse-grid race from second place under the current championship standings, said in response to a question from RaceFans last weekend it would make the Williams drivers look “stupid”.

In June Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff said another poll of Formula 1 fans had shown only 15% were interested in reverse-grid races.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

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.

204 comments on “F1 polls fans on replacing qualifying with 30-minute reverse grid races”

  1. I support reverse grid races at Sochi, Paul Ricard and Abu Dhabi.

    No thanks for everywhere else.

    1. Catalunya too.

    2. You support it at two tracks where there won’t be much overtaking. OK.

    3. You know you’re in trouble when you have to ask the fans. Get that cheat Brawn out. This is no different than when Bernie and Max were running this. Corrupt Todt and Cheater Brawn.

      1. SIngapore!

    4. +1 : On the principle, I’m basically against the reverse grid. And I really find the current quali format excellent. But instead of going black&white (we do it or we don’t), there is enough GP every year to test the idea for a few of them. In fact, why not keeping a mixed system where most GP are run with the normal format, but we have a few “special events” in the year where this come to play. We could imagine to have a calendar with 2-3 reverse grid GP, a few double header in the WE and 1 endurance race where we have 2 drivers per car, the normal driver and a non F1 driver (ala V8 Supercars). Ok, the last one is a stretch, but you get the idea ;-)

    5. Dont understand why Liberty is taking a poll. Have you seen the questions!? It breathes that they have already made up there mind. Text book example of leading questions. An utter utter misleading move of Liberty. The worry has started. F1 on its way to become a circus. Such a shame of the legacy, but hey finance only cares about volume of audience. Fewer people love racing, more love gossip and entertainment. Era of the Trumps

  2. Be a shame if the Fun Police vote this out

    1. Be a shame if the people who don’t care/think about F1 being a proper sport vote this in. This is far worse than the double-points for the last race nonsense as far as damaging the integrity of the sport goes.

      I’ve enjoyed this season far more for how good some of the racing is in the midfield. I don’t care that one person is winning all the time, I don’t really see that it matters. I actually thought the Italian GP was interesting enough without the incidents that happened – McLaren were 2-3 and there was some strategy variation going on. The other things that happened added excitement because they rarely happen and it was different. I don’t want to see that every race.

      No, I wouldn’t like to see 18 cars passing 2 Williams cars in a pointless exercise in overtaking either. I’d rather see a genuine competition based on how good each team is. The cost cap will bring the teams closer soon anyway, please don’t ruin the sport chasing even more artificial excitement. Fans are obviously excited by seeing people battle from the back, but if it was like that every week people would soon get bored of it.

      Look at the mess they’ve made of NASCAR over the last 10-15 years adding silly things to it to make it ‘more exciting’. It’s not, it’s worse.

      1. F1 isn’t and has never been a sport

        1. Think you’ll find it in sport section of every newspaper, magazine, Internet site etc etc. If it wasn’t it would be in the entertainment sections, yet it never is. F1 and most motor racing is 100% sport. This nonsense with reverse grids will diminish it’s status as a sport but currently it IS a sport.

          1. It’s more engineering exercise and advertising medium than sport.

          2. I think you will find that the high court of India will disagree that F1 is a sport. This is the reason there is no F1 in India at the moment.

          3. @aliced it was not the High Court that declared that F1 is a sport – it was a unilateral declaration by the state of Utter Pradesh, and they’ve basically admitted the sole reason was because there is a significantly higher tax on events classed as “entertainment” rather than “sports” (I believe they were even attempting to levy taxes on all of the revenues that the teams and the sport generated across the entire season, not just on the Indian GP itself).

          4. Ernest Hemingway — ‘There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.’

        2. It’s entertainment branded as a sport, but sure is not a real sport

      2. F1 is a sport, but you can argue that it is not as fair as other sports based on the fact cars start on an ordered grid. In athletics, you don’t have Usain Bolt starting 10 meters in front of everyone else and the slowest guy starting at the back. If that was so, no wonder Bolt would win 100% of the time. I’m not saying this analogy is perfect, and of course you couldn’t have all cars start at the same point on the track, but when people get angered and talk about the integrity of the sport, you should also bear this sort of things in mind. The debate is complex and arguments in either side cannot be dismissed. F1 is bent towards giving the stronger guys an even bigger advantage, and that in itself is not very sporting.

        1. ” In athletics, you don’t have Usain Bolt starting 10 meters in front of everyone else and the slowest guy starting at the back. ”

          No, but there is qualifying races so you don’t get Usain Bolts running against a guy a rocket pack on his back so the race can be fair despite his lack of talent.

          1. running against a guy a rocket pack on his back

            Qualifying races don’t stop that; the sporting regulations do.
            There is a good chance that Bolt starts next to the slowest guy in the qualifying races, and they start side by side. Nobody would accept that the slower guy has to start meters back even if he’s allowed to pick a new pair of shoes ;)

        2. Old racing events had 3 cars per row and Motorbikes about 8.

      3. :D What sport has only two sportsman competing in vastly superior gear?

        1. I’d rarther F1 become a spec series than shameless WWE style reverse grids.

          1. I would love F1 to be a spec series, but sadly I’m pretty much alone in that

        2. At times, most motorsports that are not spec series. And every now and again you get a Rossi, Hamilton, Marquez or Schumacher that dominate for a generation which disturbs the status quo.
          With Marquez out injured anything can happen in MotoGP this season, and it usually has. If you took Ham out of the equation going into Monza we would all be celebrating a great season.
          You have identified the problem, vastly superior gear. That’s what we need to address, not lottery solutions that go no way to sorting the underlying issue.
          And lets be honest, if the RB was on a par with the Mercs we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

        3. 2? Oh, are you referring to that blonde dude that follows Hamilton around?
          Most of the time I forget that he’s there.

          1. You wont forget him if he’s third in the championship on a reverse grid. He is going to be the guy holding Max up for the length of the race in vastly superior equipment :)

          2. Doesn’t he do that already?

          3. Lol @jamal-hassan that very funny

          4. best post Ive seen today!

          5. Dude, that’s your dad….

        4. @jureo Football regularly has one or two teams in a league playing with vastly superior gear (players). Clubs like Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid and PSG win their leagues almost every year through a financial monopoly, especially with distorted rights over TV money, boosted by a self-perpetuating winning culture (top players, coaches, number of fans, advertising deals etc.). The EPL has a little more variety but a team like Man City or Chelsea can buy their way to the top with the snap of a Russian oligarch or an oil regime.

          1. And when teams with vastly superior sportsmen win, no problem. But when it’s because of the gear, then it is no longer a sport.

            We cannot say if Hamilton is better than say Verstappen, because every lap Lewis has some unknown advantage over him from the gear.

            Foorballers all use the same ball during the match. We can tell right away what players are really awesome.

            Sure some teams have better facilities etc, but atleast it has some resemblance of a sport.

            F1 hardly. There’s what 50% chance Hamilton will win, and about 80% chance Mercedes will win next weekend.

            If Lewis has a bad dad performance he will start from P2 in the race.

            No this is an organised war, between teams, fighting to get the most unfair advantage possible within or sometimes outside regulations. With some sporting elements.

            Mostly it lives on being a great show.

          2. (Footballers) all use the same ball during the match. We can tell right away what players are really awesome.

            Not really, I cannot rate a striker versus a goalkeeper.
            Both Football and F1 are team sports. The problem with F1 is that they give a trophey and championship title to a single ‘player’. Football only gives them reward stickers (Ballon d’Or).

          3. petebaldwin (@)
            17th September 2020, 14:24

            @david-br – Whilst that’s true, it’s not really a fair comparison. You could put the best two drivers in the world in the Alfa Romeo and they wouldn’t be competing for wins against vastly inferior drivers in a Mercedes.

            If Manchester City stood absolutely no chance of beating a non-league team because the non-league team had a contract with a boot supplier that meant they could run twice as fast and kick the ball twice as hard, people would question whether it was a fair sport.

            It all comes down to the usual question of what F1 is. Even if we say that F1 isn’t about the drivers – it’s a competition to see who has the fastest car, shouldn’t every team therefore design and produce their own power unit? One team can beat another because despite having better drivers, better engineers, a better car and better strategy, they are supplied with a weaker engine by a third party.

          4. @jureo But you indicate a need to rank Hamilton and Verstappen relative to each other which is a bit strange. They’re probably both ‘awesome’ but at the same time, no situation is ever going to give you a definitive answer because the whole point of F1, surely, is the changing tracks, cars, drivability, weather conditions, relative quality of the cars, psychological pressures, etc. and how driver responds over time. That’s where we see the top drivers emerge. But that constant variability makes direct comparison difficult and verging on pointless. My point with the football comparison was more just to point out that domination of a sport by a team occurs elsewhere too.

            @petebaldwin Well that is the key question. Formula 1 is about the drivers but also about cutting edge car design and technology, and the chance to both develop and show it off, which is one motive for investment by the big manufacturers. It’s that balance which is surely F1’s perennial issue, but also what makes it distinctive. Otherwise just give up, make it a spec series and introduce 10 new entertainment gimmicks per race. But it wouldn’t be Formula 1 any more except in name.

      4. I don’t think reverse grids harm the “integrity” of the sport at all. There are plenty of manufactured rules in F1 already, like having to use 2 tyre compounds etc.

        I support reverse grids for one reason. It will force car manufacturers to make cars which focus on overtaking. So many years we have seen cars which are great at the front, yet suck at overtaking once they are in the melee. Perhaps it can be done at some tracks first as an experiment before it is completely dismissed.

    2. Be even more fun if a bunch of plastic fans with the attention span of gnats vote this in…

    3. People like you are gonna ruin this sport

    4. Today, racers “qualify” day before and rank each car according to performance. If not, you have cars going faster at the back than in the front. Like at Mugello restart, this is recipe for collision. I hope you do not think crash and getting legs ripped off in collision is fun?

    5. Looks like the Fun Police responded to your comment.

      The midfield battles ARE fun to watch, and they’d be maintained in a reverse grid. No problem there.

      By their nature, Sports have contrived limits and rules to facilitate competition. Reverse grid would do that.

      I love the current qualifying format, but I would love to see something a little different once in a while.

      I think it’d be amazing to see how the top drivers deal with being “out of position”. It’d really test the difference of a car+driver’s ability to overtake other cars.

    6. Coventry Climax
      18th September 2020, 15:45

      If it’s fun you’re after, there’s about 24 hours of it on hundreds of television stations. Alternatively, you could go to Disney World or such.

      ‘F1 has never been a sport and never will be’: first of all it isn’t true, but apart from that it is the same as using ‘the world has never been fair and never will be’ as the excuse to just give in, not care, and -worst of all- telling others to do the same.

  3. Nothing stays permanent and stepping outside what is comfortable, usually ends up good, great or not that bad.

    So why not, it seems like a proper idea. Try it out, refine it and if it doesn’t do what it was meant to do, then replace it for something new or old. I don’t think F1 teams operate that much different.

    1. Coventry Climax
      18th September 2020, 16:10

      Uncomfortable: the PM’s of the US, Russia, China, North Korea, Ukraine, Hungary, England and many others.
      Can’t see how that ends up either good, great or not bad.

      It’s not a proper idea, it’s the worst since the invention of the square wheel. It’s proof of complete lack of other ideas.
      It’s not that hard really, to come up with other ideas.
      – Drop the blue flags: this too is making faster cars having to really overtake the slower ones.
      – Drop DRS: same.
      – A sprint race to see them go flat out? Eh, wasn’t that the original idea of F1, to see cars go flat out for 2 hours or so?
      So put an end to the silly saving of fuel, tyres, engines, testing time, and what not.
      – Want to go green? Ethanol. No 24 races per season, or have a limit on the amount of kg’s each team can take. Make each team keep a balance on the energy usage of their entire operation. And set a goal.
      And many more.

      First of all, FIA should point their arrows at aero-rules. Find some way to define, calculate, control and restrict the amount of dirty air that cars generate. Set a limit and penalize those who exceed it – consistently please.
      Too technical for you? You’re following the wrong sports (or -dirty word- entertainment) I’d say.

      1. @Coventry Climax
        “Too technical for you? You’re following the wrong sport…”.
        You’ve nailed it there. Liberty wants to swap out us fans who like both the driving and the technological race for the simpler fans who just want to see more crashes and unwarranted winners on race day.
        With reverse grid teams will plainly just start falling over each other to make sure they don’t win the race immediately before races where overtaking will be unlikely. Given the farcical Monza qualifying was handled this year I can see cars slowing right down on the last lap of the race immediately prior to Monaco to ensure they’re at the start of its sprint race (since overtaking is virtually impossible there).
        It just introduces yet another non-racing element to the weekend. Yawn.

        Might as well start penalising the leading team by making them down half a pint of cider/beer for every position they are ahead of last in the constructor’s championship. Whoever got fastest lap last time around also has to down a shot of absinth.
        That would certainly bring the format closer to the Wacky Races which Liberty want it to be.

        Having said that, what’s really wrong with F1 just now in the UK is that the only way to watch live is via Sky Sports and their commentary team is 99% guff to the point that I now watch with the sound down. :-p

  4. I like the oddball race every now and then. That doesn’t mean I want reverse grid races. It hollows out a win. It’s stupid in the lower classes (but defendable). It will be more stupid in F1. Simply because other stuff is more broken. Like turbulent air. Stop fixing the wrong stuff

    1. Exactly. The charm of an oddball race is that they are are unique. To institutionalize a pathetic attempt at randomness is stupid.

      F1 has a long and sorry tradition of governing from stupid. Ross is just extending the tradition into new levels of stupid. But not the level it could be. Reverse grid qualifying with sprinklers!

  5. Although I’m opposed in general to the idea of these reverse races, I’m starting to warm up to the idea of at least trying them. If it would be just for 4 events, why not give it a go? It’s true that this replaces one of the few things in the sport that actually works, but remember that this is not the race, no championship points are awarded through this 30 minute sprint race, so whoever wins it, it will not have a direct consequence for the championship (unlike F2). The classic concept of pole position, however, does go out of the window…

    1. Because reverse grid races prohibit teams and drivers from competing equally. The rules would be intentionally, deliberately and unambiguously crafted to penalise success and reward failure. The bigger the failure you are, the more help you get.
      Everyone has an equal chance under the rules to qualify at the front. In rain or flag interrupted sessions, everyone had an equal chance to benefit or be hindered by circumstances. Reverse grid races leverage the rules to enforce inequality.

      1. True, but the way qualifying is set up also prevents teams and drivers from competing equally. Teams have vastly different resources, so underdogs already start on the back foot, then in the race they start meters behind the faster guys, so it’s no wonder the divide keeps increasing and there’s not fighting and overtaking.

        If the qualifying is a reverse grid (again, qualifying and not race), you’ll basically get a 30min + 1h30 race, which is plenty of time for the leaders to come up through the field. If anything I feel this will penalize more the upper midfield teams, which will have a harder time overtaking the lower midfield teams right above them (ex: McLaren vs. Alpha Tauri). But then again, over a season it will balance out, the best will tend to come on top.

        Please note that I generally oppose these ideas of reverse grids, but we do have to take into account that the current system is not exactly fair from a sporting view either. Best guy wins, gets more money, spends more money on development/drivers/personnel and gets even better, places higher on the grid and bolts into the distance before the others catch up (or blitzes the 1-2 cars that somehow manage to get ahead – see Bottas vs Danny Ric last Sunday). You can say that we are penalising success, and you are right, but it’s one of the few ways, in a sport like F1, that we can achieve something a bit closer to true equality.

        1. I would be for a MotoGP style qually AND do the GT racing style weight adding based on race finishing! Would be more fair doing that than doing this reverse grid crap.

          I know many are against it, but I would like refueling back in the sport. Slow down the pitstop by doing Indycar style pitstops. That will help make refueling safer as it would slow it all down (less people at risk of getting run over). Then these drivers can go out and pound these cars around the track rather than this tire management “racing” bs.

        2. Fixing one problem (teams not being able to compete fairly) by ensuring teams can’t compete fairly, is about the dumbest idea I’ve heard all week.

          Fix the damned racing, leave qualifying alone.

  6. Why not try it once and do it when the championships are done and dusted?

    What’s the harm?

    It’s not devaluing anything anymore than having GPs at the same circuit back to back.

    1. @David Bondo Even if the championships are mathematically clinched, there are still lower positions in the WCC, which are important for the teams prize money-wise.

    2. Why not have 5 balls on the football pitch at once, ZOMG that would be awesome”!”!, there would be action everywhere!! CRAZYy!!!

      OMG WHat about in tennis we gEt those machine that fire the BAllzz and then the playerz can press abutton in the middle of the game and fire them at their opponantssZ YESSS

      People, don’t let your hate for Lewis Hamilton ruin the sport and change it beyond recognition.

      1. Of course it’s all about Hamilton, take off the tin foil hat man!

        1. Yes. let’s all pretend that this has nothing to do with trying to stop seeing Hamilton win every week.

          1. Mercedes not Ham. Any of those other 19 drivers would have racked up the same amount of boring championships in that rocket ship.

          2. Unless he’s Hamiltons teammate.

      2. Such was the hatred for Schumacher they overhauled the rules at the end of 2002 and 2004 to stop him winning championships.

        Schumacher only had a dominant car for three seasons.

        Hamilton seven seasons and soon to be eight.

        No conspiracy.

        1. Yeah and they also changed the rules in 1999 and 2003 to help him win…

          They also let him keep the 1994 title as he crashed on purpose with Hill…

          Also you don’t count 2000 and 2003 as years Schumacher had better/dominant car, but you’d count 2017, 2018, 2019 for Hamilton?

          Hamilton at least faced 3WDC and beat all of them in the same car. If Schumacher was around today he’d ask his team to have Latifi or Stroll as his teammate so he’ll not be bothered to fight anyone in the same car, because if you’d put a WDC-worthy driver against him like Rosberg, he’ll lose 3-0 over 3 seasons…

          1. McLaren was quicker in 2000 and cars very equal in 2003. Schumacher only had dominant cars 2002, 2004 and to a degree in 2001.

            Hamilton 2014-20 has had a dominant car to differing degrees, but a dominant car nonetheless.

            Schumacher had been robbed of 40 points in 1994 it was only justice that he won the title.

            The FIA went to extraordinary lengths to deny Ferrari and Schumacher championships.

            Nothing of significance has been done to curtail Mercedes.

        2. Yeah the regulations haven’t been changed at all while Hamilton has been winning @david bondo 😜

    3. Combine these ideas! Have qualifying and race on the first weekend, then reverse grid on the second weekend. We won’t get robbed of qualifying at the venue, and we get a direct comparison.

    4. The harm could be to midfield/tail-end teams who are still fighting for championship positions (and therefore prize money) right to the end of the season, and arguably have more to win or lose than the top teams.

      1. They have more chance of getting a big haul of points with reverse grid qualifying.

        Throws up more variables.

    5. Pick a team. Wipe out their car.

      Reverse grids will greatly increase the chances of carbon fibre showers.

      The smaller teams don’t need that.

  7. A really important question asked in the survey is “do you think the F1 world champion should be an all round driver who is both fast and skilled in race craft and over-taking?”

    This is why I think reverse grid qualifying races are needed because it encourages the teams to employ drivers who have good race-craft and who are good at over-taking, not drivers who are just good at getting cars on pole and controlling a race from the front.

    Also it would encourage the teams to design cars that can run in dirty air and have more mechanical grip to improve chances of overtaking.

  8. There’s a clear distinction between reverse-grid qualifying and reverse-grid race. So every drivers comment against the latter is void. I’ll vote strongly agree on reverse-grid qualifying. One day practice and two days races a week is great. It’s only for four rounds anyway.

    1. It’s only for 4 races until Crofty starts frothing at the mouth when there’s 50 pointless overtakes and it gets implemented at every race.

      1. That’s why I don’t want a trial. Current qualy is great imo

    2. Actually that is what i wanted for a long time qualify in reverse racing and then normal racing. Sounds great to me

      1. Sounds great to me as well, reverse racing.
        And a bonus point for fastest parallel parking.


          It’s actually relevant I guess, since it is at Zandvoort…
          It’s also ancient :-)

          1. And all survived?

          2. Yes that was for a television programma Ter land ter Zee en in de lucht. That was so succesful every year they had that race untill the DAF cars were gone. Those DAF cars could drive as fast in reverse as they could drive ahead.

    3. Exactly – races like Monza and Tuscany were exciting because of a series of random events, not because of some fake, manufactured circumstances.

    4. Four rounds out of 22 is getting towards 20% of the season. That’s way too big a proportion of the season IMHO.

  9. It will do nothing to solve the problems that F1 has. It won’t alter the championship. But what it will do over a season is narrow the points gap between the competitors. This will work as long as we all collude in the pretence that the championship is a tighter race than it is.
    And with Ferrari near the front and the RB and Mercs at the back for the qually race; hopefully we can have a few feature races were we can pretend the Ferrari’s won on merit.
    Obviously once the Ferrari’s have sorted out their issues and are back up the front on merit, we can abandon this idea on the grounds that it didn’t work but its what the fans wanted.

    1. Another tinfoiler! This place if full of them!!

      1. Ah Willy. Another ill informed F1 fan who has a short attention span and needs something bright and shiny to distract him every few minutes.

        1. That’s me, clearly!
          Your complete and utter ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy has amused me, although I will probably lose interest in your shiny hat soon and be distracted by something else!

      2. You want a conspiracy? Fine, here’s a fun fact:

        The FIA bases each season’s entry fee on the number of points a team scored in the previous championship.

        This is an obvious effort to make F1 more expensive by driving up the point scores of the midfield and backmarker teams. The teams will have to spend more on repairs, and then they’ll have to spend more money to compete the following season.

  10. Seems Braun’s going to keep asking until he gets his reverse grid races.

    Fine. Try it. It sounds ridiculous to me but F1’s been bitching about overtaking and done almost nothing about it for as long as I can remember. Hose down the tracks and have a giant ring of fire for them to drive through while we’re at it.

    1. The sprinkler idea was much better than this.

      1. LMAO!!!

    2. Clearly he is, and he’s not afraid to follow Sir Humphrey’s tactic of asking leading questions to get the result he wants.

  11. Will the drivers be able to change setups of their cars, an overtaking setup and a GP setup?

  12. The defence of the current qualifying format is a bit odd. In each session there’s about 70% of the time where nothing happens, 20% where the camera follows a couple of drivers, and 10% where a static camera watches cars cross the finish line.

    Much of the time I’ve got literally no idea how drivers have done on their own laps. Where’s the fun in that!?
    I’d prefer to go back to single laps where you can actually see a driver’s performance.

    1. Totally agree on single-lap qualifying !

      What we do love about the exercise is actually watching cars battling apexes but we currently end up starring at the finish line for minutes – baffling.

    2. That is on the TV-director who always picks drivers in on in/outlaps, never shows a complete lap or shows helmetfaces while someone on track is running, especially in Q3 if someone does 1 run in between the top teams.

  13. So first all unpredictability is taken out through reliability regulations, and now unpredictability has to be added back artificially.

  14. I truly fail to see how three or four trial runs is the end of the world.
    It isn’t (only) about changing race results – it’s about how those results are achieved. Mercedes win most of their races unopposed – and even with this system they’ll probably still win, but they’ll need to earn it on race day. They’ll still have the fastest car and one of the best drivers F1 has ever seen – and we’d all get the opportunity to appreciate just how good they really can be, creating an entertaining and engaging spectacle for us all to enjoy.

    Keep in mind that it’s for next year only, when the cars will have barely changed from this year.
    The following year there will be new cars, and I’m fully convinced that Liberty will be keen to reduce variables and concentrate on evaluating the new technical regs in isolation first – without any reverse grid qualifying races.
    Think of reverse grid qualifying races as a temporary stop-gap measure – to arrest declining race satisfaction.

    And as a regular over at F1FanVoice, I can assure everyone here that there is plenty of diversity in users there – probably more so than here. It is still a relatively small sample size responding to the surveys and polls, but it is a reasonably evenly proportioned one. (Though there are less than half the number of active regular users than previous years – probably a good sign that F1 engagement is dropping.)

    1. I can assure everyone here that there is plenty of diversity in users there

      Interesting. How did you found out about it?

      1. From being there for two years.
        They have occasionally also released various statistics/demographics through survey results.

    2. A small sample size is an issue – using a small subset of fans can skew the result…

      …as does asking leading questions that are more likely to get the end result you want – as is happening here, so that they can say “people were split, so we might as well try it” even though I doubt that’s a fair assessment of the fanbase.

      By asking whether people enjoyed the “unpredictability of the Italian round” first, they’re implying that reverse grids will lead to more races like Italy. And Ross Brawn clearly hasn’t noticed what Jolyon Palmer has (can’t believe I’ve typed that and that it is an accurate statement), that there was basically no overtaking after both restarts due to a lack of mismatch between cars (other than Hamilton picking off backmarkers in what is unquestionably the best car this year, and Kimi falling back in a car out of position).

  15. I do think this would be exciting to watch, but there are a number of problems with it. My main issue is that it rewards poor performance in past races, which is not good for F1 as a sport. In contrast, another idea to spice up the show, namely Bernie’s sprinkler idea, would at least be the same for all drivers.

    In addition, I do like the qualifying sessions, where the cars go as fast as they can for once during the weekend.

  16. I really think doing a hotlap when the pressure is on is a great way to show racing skills and it’s very different from racecraft and I really enjoy it. I would prefer it stays, but I can live with an experiment to see how it goes with qualification race.

  17. Well i’m a paid up subscriber to f1 and I just been on there and cant find anything on revere grids

    1. Sorry, found it. Definitely weights the answers to try and get a positive for a reverse grid. I like the idea to trial it but if you don’t, stop whingeing and go and do the survey.

  18. Reverse grid, 150 laps, with refueling at monaco.

    Oh, and three tire suppliers and 4 cars per team.
    And not the current cars. special monaco cars, small and light.

    ok? great.

  19. Sameer Cader (@)
    17th September 2020, 11:06

    Reverse grid races… No DRS and half points!

    1. no races only qualfier races in reverse grid then normal race.

  20. The odd chaotic race is entertaining enough to watch, largely thanks to how rare it is and while it’s something of a lottery in the result rather than a true underdog triumph, at least it occurs organically.

    The issue is Gasly did not win on merit, they made a pit stop call that in almost all circumstances would have been terrible, but by sheer dumb luck gave them an opportunity to win. It wasn’t a race that rewarded the best engineered car, the best strategy calls, or the best driving. It was a fluke result which is ok once in a while, but trying to manufacture that on a regular basis shouldn’t be of any interest to people who enjoy actual sporting contest.

    1. They aren’t trying to manufacture fluke results on regular basis. Stop misrepresenting their message.
      Just increasing the challenge for ‘best team and best driver’ not to screwup.

      1. Jay, so why have individuals like yourself or tony mansell been so strongly pushing the line about how it will “randomise the results” then? Aren’t you then contradicting yourself on that front by initially claiming one thing, then claiming another when challenged on it?

      2. Wait, what? That’s precisely what they are trying to do. I would call four races out of 22 pretty regular.

        It’s a joke idea. The idea of randomly watering the track was better than this. This is the worst idea for F1 that anyone has come up with since double points for the last race of the season. That’s how bad it is.

      3. First of all, four scheduled races a year just to start with and who knows how many once they’ve got the precedent set, is fair to define as regular

        And it would certainly be manufacturing the fluke results of otherwise front runners being in the currently rare position of battling through the grid, or the even rarer result of an outsider winning races or scoring podiums

        So it categorically would be scheduling, and thus on a regular basis, otherwise unlikely and thus fluke results

    2. Organically is the key word here, thank you.

  21. “How much do you like the idea of trying the reverse-grid races?”

    a) absolutely love it, let’s try it next week
    b) I’m ecstatic, I’ve been dreaming about it ever since I was a child
    c) that sounds interesting, I won’t know until we see it
    d) ok, at least let’s give it a go.

    Thank you for voting.

    1. I am against the idea, just for the sports integrity, but if they end up trialing it (hopefully at the crap circuits) then NO DRS ALLOWED

      1. And the big teams have to pay the small teams for any damage their star drivers may inflict trying to barge their way through the field.

      2. Well that sounds like an even worse idea – what constitutes a “crap circuit”? Presumably, one where the racing is static, like Barcelona. And no DRS? Great – reverse grid at Barcelona and no DRS. What do you mean there was absolutely no overtaking?

    2. How old are you; 7? Does your mother know you’re on here? 😂

    3. @pironitheprovocateur How they lead the poll question is no better than this article frame the issue. Brawn wants reverse-grid race for qualifying but this article covered it like F1 wants an introduction for main race with reverse-grid.

      1. @ruliemaulana Umm, it’s right in the headline and in the first sentence of the article that this is about reverse grid races replacing the usual quali sessions.

        1. @robbie The last three paragraph is an attempt to move the goal post. Just like the poll.

          1. @ruliemaulana The fourth last paragraph mentions quali reverse grids. Just because the last three paragraphs don’t use the word qualifying does not mean they are suddenly talking about Sunday reverse grids. At no point in the last two seasons that this has been talked about has it been about Sunday reverse grids. Those would be an entirely different conversation to what is being talked about by everyone now which is using a reverse grid race in order to quali, rather than the normal method.

    4. @pironitheprovocateur Yeah I know. Was more an ad than a survey.
      “the world champion should be the best all round racing driver, taking into account their speed, overtaking ability, strategy and their ability to fight for victories”

    5. It should have been:
      The world champion should be from the team with the most connections to other teams, to he gets easier through the field on reverse grid quallys so his ability as a driver is devauled.

    6. @pironitheprovocateur

      I’d offer these:

      How do you feel about reverse grid qualifying?
      A) I’m not supportive of that idea
      B) Is there a Mario Kart championship I can watch instead?
      C) Stimpy you eediot!
      D) oh good, I’ll watch while I inject myself with bleach

  22. Lmao, the wording in those questions. They REALLY want this to happen. Ill allow it for what it’s worth. Though I get the impression if this proposed “trial” ever goes forward. The reverse grids will be here to stay regardless.

    1. It’s a trap… I did make my voice clear…

  23. I’d like to at least see how it is. I love racing so……

    1. Not that the sort of ‘racing’ this contrived gimmick would produce could really be considered racing.

      Watching faster cars breezing past much slower one’s like they are been lapped would be about as fun as watching cars getting lapped.

      It’s a silly contrived artificial gimmick.

      1. I will probably end up agreeing with you but I’d like to see it. It could well mix up the championship and it will stop being a gimmick when it settles in and becomes the norm. And I like the idea of cars being set up for racing, not quali laps

  24. Ok, I told them what should they consider :) It was amazing to type that much in that 2lines-high textbox. Great engineering.

    “I believe reverse-grid qualifying races at a sub-set of events (4 out of 22) next year is something that Formula 1 should consider.”
    This is quite funny, because they are asking the question, but they are already considering it.

    This kind of polling or questioning is often preferred in politics or adverts, sadly I look for the spirit instead of the letters.

    1. And I told them the complete opposite.

      1. I’m not sure, what is the “opposite”.
        I’m against the reverse grid races, and a lot of observable tendencies of modern F1, because their random is artifical random, instead of Ferdinand Porsche’s philosophy:
        “The perfect racing car crosses the finish line first and subsequently falls into its component parts.”

        Less durability @ same performance -> can be implemented cheaper. So I think F1 should not be road relevant at all costs, because development can and will go on without them, and personally I would not buy a car because the manufacturer runs well at some series. They could go back a bit in time, or at least have a cheaper formula, because if the cars are much cheaper then ithere would be much less resistance to radically change the set of rules (and changing them would be better than having them for a long while to ensure fairness, for example having this very expensive engine + drivetrain formula for 10+ years seems not ok for me) . If the cost cap would not come in sight the annual operational costs of top runner teams could easily go to a much higher levels form the current 300-450M$, and for a bit higher than that many built a super nice Premier League stadium, and thoes are for decades, while these are to field 2 cars for a year.

        If I would be rich I woul buy an old Ferrari (but nothing over the top, likely a Mondial, or a Testarossa), no matter what they did nowadays, or a BMW because I like them more than Mercs, despite of I respect Merc’s F1 performance, despite of I have been a Schumacher fan for a long while, and the supported many of the later Ferrari drivers, but now I don’t have a team preference and only interested in seeing amazing races :)

        I can’t stand F1’s POV and the way the worlds going on because it has been proven many times that these rules are so rigid and brittle to change, at most occasions contractual obligation trump common sense and practicality event at trouble.

        1. And additionally if some kind of sport is exciting, then that’s a show by itself, and not needs artificalities.

  25. Russell (I think it was) made a sharp remark: what would – or will – happen is that a bunch of drivers in the top cars, who already receive most of the attention, will become the prime focus, heroically battling through the field (or not), while the schmucks in the slower cases get to look fairly useless. A mobile obstacle course. It feels a bit like the Roman Coliseum games with the armoured gladiators hacking their way through a bunch of peasants with wooden swords, getting a thumbs up from Emperor Maxiross Brawn at the end.

    I’d say try it. Get it out of F1’s system like plenty of other bad ideas over the decades. But this one does fundamentally alter the DNA of the sport. The desperation seems to be that this was planned as the last year of Hamilton/Mercedes dominance and FIA/Liberty don’t want a 2021 repeat. It doesn’t seem a very noble reason to be honest.

    1. lmao… +1

  26. I have been watching and attending F1 races since my teens (1978 – Zolder – first win for Lotus79), and have never heard so much rubbish. Let’s draw a parallel here…..what would Usain Bolt have thought and done, if he had been told that the slowest 5 in the qualifying race heats, would get a 1 second head start in the final race for medals? All for the purpose of entertainment? He may likely have won less medals, and led fewer races from the front, and spent most of his time on track trying to catch slower runners, but is that what you would have wanted to see rather than him powering away from the rest of the pack? Let’s stop this nonsense and focus on the SPORT of F1 and not some media company’s desire to make it ENTERTAINMENT for those with with a terminally short attention span.

    1. Paolo, Amen!

  27. Had a look at then filled it out. Like all modern polls it was full of leading questions trying to corral you down a specific path. I voted disagree and said F1 should wait to see how the budget cap and new rules work before introducing a gimmick that was likely to be manipulated anyway.

    1. Great, John, I was looking for the term “leading question”, but I not found it :) I agree, these are leading questions, a popular manipulation technique in political and corporate world. Even at a bit of disagreement it’s hard to provide a negative answer to questioner if this kind of manipulation is done properly. F1 should have a cost cap to make teams to have engineering compromises instead of allowing every entrant to have (or copy) everything (what their competition has) if they have the money to do so. Choosing the best compromise is an engineering challenge by itself. A cheaper formula and stronger leaders are the key to have better racing (despite of I would say I still respect Brawn and Todt, and today it’s not worse than what’s Ecclestone’s heritage looked like in terms of packts and getaway cards. Despite of those two were high profile leaders at Ferraris’s succesful period, seeing how Ferrari sunk after their leaving, so I’d say they played fair and they are not worse than their surrounding context).

  28. Most important change, that would come from this is:

    Teams would develop cars that can overtake well.

    Right now they design cars that are super fast in quali, then they somehow manage the race by staying upfront and blocking everyone else.

    If quali was about overtaking slower cars as fast as possible, teams would design cars that would produce better racing.

    And then regular races would be better to watch aswell.

    That is the most important thing, give incentive to #1 team to be good at overtaking, not just running in clean air.

    We saw this with RedBull in their championship years and now Mercedes. They are terrible when following other cars, because they are so specialized for driving in clean air.

    Hence we get these boring races, Lewis or sometimes Bottas win quali, one of them wins first corner and then that’s held until the end. Whoever is second has a terrible time overtaking.

    Even in Monza, their car was easily on pole, but unable to make it past midfield in the race.

    1. That’s an excellent point.

    2. @jureo it is exceptionally unlikely that they would suddenly “develop cars that can overtake well” – mainly because the regulations that govern large chunks of the car, particularly those of the floor, are such that they actively work against that objective.

      That is not going to vanish overnight, nor will the considerable wake from the fact that you have large diameter and wide open wheels that, by their nature, will create a very large turbulent wake (they are by far the largest source of turbulence on an open wheeled car). How are they supposed to magically “develop cars that can overtake well” out of nowhere when the physics of the situation actively work against that goal?

      1. There is no point to designing cars to overtake specifically when 99 percent of a race is not overtaking. And when you have drs. Right now the midfield would have an interest in this theoretical overtaking design but they design their cars just like the leaders do.

    3. That works both ways. If teams with a lesser engine have an incentive to make overtaking harder, they will. So it solves nothing.

    4. @jureo Taking into account anon’s point that changes are limited by current regulations still, I do think that’s the best argument for a reverse grid. However it’s still ‘using’ the slower half of the grid as mobile obstacles for the big teams and their drivers to show their prowess and/or design better cars. And it also has a serious flaw: wouldn’t it be in the interest of the slower teams to design cars more difficult to overtake so they had more chance of keeping their reverse grid starting positions?

    5. @jureo – It is an interesting hypothesis, but 2 things.

      1. As others point out, if it makes sense to develop your car so you can overtake. Then it also makes sense to make your car difficult for others to overtake.

      2. If overtaking was as simple as making your car ‘good at overtaking,’ teams would have already done this. No one, let alone top teams, is leaving performance on the table.

      A possible solution, in my mind, is to mandate dirty air. Set up regs that specify how much dirty air your car can produce and whittle that down year after year until you’ve reached the point that it is possible to follow someone. Short of that, or getting rid of wings, little will change.

      1. @hobo The amount of ‘dirty air’ a car produces isn’t really the problem & in fact there is some CFD work out there which suggests that cars in the 70s/80s produced just as much & at times more than modern cars.

        The problem is more that modern cars are much more aero reliant than cars from the past which makes things like the front wings much more sensitive to the turbulent air from a car ahead.

        If you look at the 2022 cars the y didn’t work to eliminate dirty air but instead try to redirect it’s path & clean it up a bit while at the same time simplifying the aerodynamics in a way to make the cars less sensitive to the turbulent air the cars will still be producing.

        1. @gt-racer – The ability to follow, currently, is aero-based. So there are a lot of ways to get there (cars that can follow) from here, but dirty air is the issue. Either because the rear car is too sensitive to it or the leading car produces too much.

          Maybe 2022 will get there, but that’s what they said about 2017 and prior efforts (high front wing and skinny rear wing in early 2010s). Either they get serious about it or not. And I’m open to other areas but the only two ways I personally see that it will do any significant good is to drastically reduce dirty air (or potentially move it) or to basically get rid of wings so that the following car is not dependent on clean air.

          I think all 2022 will do is reduce aero, and then engineers will claw it back. Hope to be wrong, not hopeful that I am. The benefit of tying the reg directly to dirty air produced, is that you can claw back all the aero/downforce you want so long as it doesn’t disturb the car behind. If it does, not allowed. It forces the engineer to not harm others while they understandably try to benefit their own drivers.

  29. Why not just wait till 2021? Maybe there wont be any need of such gimmicks if the 2021 cars deliver better racing and the field is closed up.
    These gimmicks can be tried if the 2021 cars failed to close up the field and improve overtaking.

    1. Edit: 2022 cars i mean

    2. Because the whole point is to make next year more interesting/competitive/rewarding with the existing cars BEFORE the new tech regs are introduced in 2022.

      And I hope so too. If the 2022 cars are as much of an improvement as some think they will be, then we can kiss goodbye to the idea of reverse grid qualifying races because they won’t be needed then.

  30. If Mercedes had a better second driver there would be no need for gimmicks.

  31. Hey Jamal do you want the colors on the tires to change ?

  32. Won’t it be nice when the money men have bled it dry and Sky’s stranglehold on the sport dissipates and we can start watching it again for free without gimmicks, whistles, bells, and 3 hours of dross dressed up as a pre and post show.
    And as I’m a cheerful, positive sort isn’t it refreshing to see a grid full of people who are on it solely because they need to be there.

  33. First this is a silly idea that will mess up one of the best parts of the weekend. Right now we get to see the best cars run three times in qualifying. I don’t see how you improve on that.

    Second it seems like really poor business to undercut your biggest stars. Hamilton and Verstappen will struggle to get poles. How is that going to sit with their fans? Hamilton while he wraps up his record setting career.

    Finally, they need to fix the real problems instead. Fix the car so they can overtake. fix the tire situation so the tires have wider operating windows and the drivers can push longer without melting them. Fix financial distribution.

    I don’t think I’ve ever threatened to quit watching F1 before. This could push me away from F1 and my cable subscription.

    1. The only way to fix the cars so that they can overtake is for the teams to have a motivation to do them like that.

      Right now, even if you make the rules in a way that favors overtaking, top teams will still develop the car in a way that will favor vanishing in clean air at the front and producing as much dirty air to the back as possible. That car will overheat in trafic and its aerodinamic eficiency will make it more sensible to dirty air.

      As much as the rules tighten in that direction, the development will force itself in a different one.

      Unfortunatly, the only way to make top cars that can overtake is to make top teams want to develop cars that can overtake and that work better in dirty air than on clean air.

      1. How close you can run to another car will mostly be determined by maximizing “mechanical grip”. However, there is a limitation to this…. “tires”… “Pirelli tires”! Tires can only handle so much load before breaking grip. The cars today have maximized these tires ability/durability and proof is in what we saw at Silverstone this year. In order to improved racing (allowing cars to run close together) will come down to tires and getting rid of all these winglets and aero turning veins. I believe I would require Pirelli to open up the tires operating temperature range and increase the tires load capacity. Teams will figure out the rest! To make the car’s less sensitive to dirty air is having mechanical grip be the driving performance variable opposed to aerodynamics. It all comes down to the regulations.

        1. Another note….. I also think that extending the braking zones would help passing a lot as well. Braking zones are so short. Look at MotoGP, a lot of back and forth and I think a lot of that is because of how long the braking zones are. There is a comparison video on youtube (would have to find it again) where a guy compared the F1 performance at Mugello against MotoGP. It is astonishing in how long the braking zones are for the MotoGP bikes compared to F1 (more specifically for turn 1). Yes, I understand the contact patch difference of the two! But I think it is worth exploring this avenue to improve passing!

  34. Though I think the current qualifying format is the best we have ever had, I support reverse grid qualifying races because it would force the teams to design cars that can overtake and that are less sensible to overheating problems and dirty air.

    The reverse grid qualifying races would have a -minor, I think- impact in the starting order for the GP races -half an hour is enough for a top team driver to move up the order in a car that can overtake- but they would have a huge impact on the raceability of the cars, which is something all of us want.

    1. I don’t think it would change how teams design cars, They will still push for ultimate performance because that is how you win races/championships.

      Besides the 2022 cars should be better in that regard anyway without needing any silly gimmicks, That’s supposedly the whole purpose of that regulation change.

      And don’t forget that next year they will use this year’s cars with very little development allowed thanks to a token system. Teams aren’t going to want to waste tokens on some contrived gimmick used at a few races when putting development into peak performance is what wins you races.

      1. I get what you’re saying, but ultimate performance is not an absolute. It’s relative to the context.

        The ultimate performance characteristics for a car that has to overtake are different from one that has to vanish in clean air. (Or that has to race on an oval, in hot weather, on twisty circuits, on sprint races or on endurance races, etc.. Design/engineering for ultimate performance depends on the context of that performance.)

        That optimization to the subtle circunstances of racing is what wins you races… a blind following of certain absolute performance recipe looses you races (as historically seen).

  35. Not that I’m condoning the idea but would it not make more sense to try this sort of gimmick at a non-championship event, held at a track like Mugello, that wouldn’t typically feature on the calendar? That way it gets a fair shake without impacting on the sporting integrity of the championships.

    1. When is the next non-championship event scheduled? When was the last one?
      They just don’t happen.

      That was a whole debate earlier this year, whether they should bother running the championship at all, or just hold a bunch of non-championship events whenever and wherever they could.

      Oh, and what sporting integrity is there in the WDC? It depends almost entirely on the car, so it’s never a reflection of who is the best driver.

      1. When was the last time we had a reverse grid? Or other gimmick of that magnitude?

        As for sporting integrity, F1 is a team sport – the best car and driver combination win, that’s the sport we follow and always has been. And more often than not the best drivers will end up in the best cars.

        1. Reverse grid? Not yet, but it will quite possibly happen soon.
          Other ‘gimmick’ – well, take your pick. DRS? Certain types of tyres? Wings? Standing starts? ‘Ground effect’ aero? Common engine specs? Pit stops? Refueling? No refueling? Hybrid systems? Budget cap? Aero development BoP? Flappy paddle gearboxes?
          I wont go any further, but you get the idea. Every aspect is a ‘gimmick’ if you don’t like it – everything is removable and replaceable with something else.

          For the WCC, sure, the best team can win providing they use their (usually superior, and always enormous) resources wisely.
          But the WDC isn’t settled under the same conditions. The best a driver can do is outperform their teammate, and the rest is down to the car and the team. If the car is a dud, it doesn’t matter how well they drive – they aren’t winning the WDC.
          And nobody will ever know if the best drivers end up in the best cars. The teams guess when they hire – they don’t know for sure – and then we can add the layer of politics that affects driver choice. Was Nico Rosberg one of the best F1 drivers ever? How about Bottas? How about Barrichello or Irvine? Webber? They’ve all driven the best cars at some point in their career.
          Do we expect that Verstappen or Ricciardo or Leclerc will end up beside Hamilton? They are all quality drivers – certainly among the best in F1 right now.
          Not while Hammy’s there, I’ll bet ;)

          1. Not sure how you define gimmick? The only gimmick’s you listed would be DRS and maybe tire types. The rest are just various rules, series requirements, and performance requirements where you can argue they have an intrinsic value to performance/championship/series. Not sure how those are “gimmicks”? Because it is removable and/or replaceable doesn’t mean its a gimmick. Its a gimmick when it adds little to no value to the series but to help sell a product because it adds a false sense of value. DRS is a gimmick as it manufactures passing by giving a “single” car a performance boost over the one ahead just because they are within 1 second behind (aka false sense of performance).

            I define gimmick (in the world of racing) as introducing a device (DRS) and/or idea (reverse grid/sprinklers) in which the primary reason is to grab attention with little to no intrinsic value to the racing/championship. Basically anything that does not allow the weekend to unfold organically/naturally based on everyone’s performance. If you want something more in line with F2 where they have normal qually, full points feature race, half points on sprint race (top 8 reverse grid based on feature race results). That is better because at least you are fairly receiving points based on performance (averages out sort of speak).

  36. It would not change much in the midfield where they are already close. The Williams and the haas would get passed by the midfield in few couple laps and the contenders would drs their way to the front in enough time. I don’t see the point. For the contenders it’s more like a race with no blue fllags.

  37. Did my best to answer to make it as clear as possible how strongly I vehemently disagree with this silly contrived gimmick idea.

  38. It might be more entertaining to have the racers at the front drink more shots of alcohol than the drivers in the back. F1 could provide entertainment and teach lessons on drink and drive.

    1. @jimfromus

      I like it!

      Right up there with just making the Mercs and Verstappen run and extra lap.

      Maybe some boost arrows too, like on Mario Cart.

      1. Hey F1 race stars was a mighty game…

    2. Shrieking maiden aunts grow up. Its a trial run change to qually, that’s all.

      We have DRS, skid plates that spark for the show, engineers thousands of miles away dictating pace, fast degrading tyres, DAS, lift and coast, engines that must last for a certain amount of races etc etc. Are you really suggesting THIS will ruin it? Just laughable

      1. tony mansell, you seem to be the one who is getting rather hysterical with the rising number of insults that you are throwing at others who show even the slightest disagreement with this proposal.

        As an aside, Whiting confirmed that the whole “skid plates that spark for the show” was a lie that the FIA came up with to get the change voted through – it was really a technical change that the FIA disguised as “spicing up the show” to get it voted through.

        The real reason for changing the skid block material was to make it harder for teams to cheat the minimum ride height regulations – by introducing skid blocks made from a softer material that would wear out more rapidly, it prevented some of the cheats that the teams had used to run the cars lower on track because they’d end up exceeding the maximum wear rate on the skid blocks.

  39. I think that F1 has a fantastic qualifying format as it already is in its current guise. The only thing that I would change would be to remove the rule of drivers starting on their best Q2 lap tyres, as this gives a massive benefit to the top teams. I feel that reverse-grid qualifying races just serve to artificially introduce unpredictability. The unpredictable races are special because it’s unexpected. I expect the new regulations in 2022 to bring about closer racing in a more sporting way, and I’m happy to wait until then.

  40. Please vote it through. Suddenly I’ll have a good reason to have 20-22 weekends of free time again! My family (and motorbike…) would rejoice! No longer at silly past 15.00 a race which runs well into dinner time. That stupid starting time aches me more than I would like as well.

    I’ll flee to IndyCar, thank you.

    1. Don’t let us stop you. Ta da

  41. First of all the online voting questions are already misleading. Did you enjoy the italian gp, of course everyone is gonna say yes that has nothing to do with reverse grid

  42. I’d take success ballast or preferably standardised aero way before bringing in gimmicks.

  43. Could work interesting based on two- tier point system. Say qualifying ranking on the current order and points, then on the reversed ranking with another points system. Such then, if the qualifier pole position goes on to win the race then earns 50 points. Just a thought to see how the underdogs would fight out or actually last out.

  44. I remember when the standard F1 fanbase thought a point for fastest lap would ruin the sport…

    I say, give it a whirl. It’s got to be more interesting than watching Hamilton cruise to victory at literally every race weekend.

    1. @joshgeake I was never against the point for fastest lap because I felt it would ruin the sport, I was (And still am) against it as I don’t feel it’s something worthy of an extra point that could potentially decide a championship. Pitting for fresh tyres with a few laps left & getting fastest lap by default isn’t a points worthy achievement imo.

      I am against the idea of a reverse grid qualifying race because I don’t like contrived gimmicks, Don’t like reverse grid races (I’ve seen enough of them elsewhere to know I don’t like them), Don’t want to lose seeing drivers pushing flat out on low fuel going for ultimate lap time (Which they wouldn’t do at any point during a weekend with a qualifying race), Don’t think watching the fastest cars pretty easily get by the slowest would be that exciting to watch, Don’t like the idea of a championship been decided off a gimmick & don’t think a driver ending up on pole because he was arbitrarily positioned ahead of the fastest drivers would be an earned pole position.

      It’s just a contrived gimmick too far for me.

  45. My instinct after reading the title was that they’ll get whatever answer they are looking for depending on how they word the questions, and who they ask. And having read the article, it seems like that was exactly what they were going for. A bunch of leading questions regarding the Monza Grand Prix – a race they know was a once in a decade thriller, but has very little in common with reverse grid races.

    I also wondered if they would try to target more casual fans who are likely to be more favourable to reverse grids than long term fans who are closer to the purist mentality. But I would guess the kind of fans who go on the F1 website to vote are less likely to be casual, so that might be the saving grace and why the majority of views so far have been negative towards the proposal (only a slight majority though).

    However, the conclusions you draw from statistics depend on the interpreter, so if there is some ambiguity in the results then you could use them to support your argument whichever side of the debate you are on. This feels like an attempt to justify trialling reverse grids in 2021, but time will tell if they have enough support within the sport to push it through.

  46. Reverse grid races = giving everyone a trophy. Don’t reward failure.

  47. Reverse grid is passing slow cars without the “aid” of blue flags…. so just remove blue flags.

  48. 30 minute sprint race to replace 60 minutes of qualifying.

    My first thought was – what’s wrong with qualifying? Its one of the few things that has actually improved. Just keep it and replace FP3 with a 30 min sprint if you must.

  49. All I see is carnage.
    Nervous newbies in the front few rows, in not very good cars with at least one of them becoming a road block. with others behind with ego’s bigger than their talent just behind, convinced they can overtake at least four cars in front before exit of turn one and behind them upper mid field drivers convinced they can block the front runners for at least four laps.

    Not a pretty sight and who’s going to pick up the repair bills?

  50. The Issue here is qualifying. Remove the idea that a timed lap should mean you start first and disappear into the distance and the problem goes away. Hold a lottery for the first grid if the season. Sprint race on Sat Based on reverse championship fto determine grid of Sunday. feature race on Sunday. Over 20+ races the best driver and car will win, only they’ll have to race and overtake to do it.

    If you want to watch the fastest cars go watch dragsters

  51. For everyone comparing F1 to other sports – stop. It’s not the same. F1 is sports meets entertainment. Yes, i’ll duck for cover.

    F1 is man AND machine. Every other sport (generally speaking, bar horse racing, maybe, off the top of my head) is the athlete (and perhaps their team mates).

    Name me another sport which has meddled with its format as much as motorsport has?

    F1 and motorsport is sports meets entertainment, therefore the constant football comparisons are absolutely worthless.

    1. Good luck telling it to the guys who drive road cars and still reminisce about the 20th century driving skills.
      They are in complete denial about technological advancements.

      1. Jay, it is rather because they see individuals who are so enthusiastic about such gimmicks as being a sign that changes are going to be imposed that will alienate the long term fans, whilst individuals like yourself will soon move on as you chase whatever is your latest thrill.

        Most times that these sorts of gimmicks are proposed, it’s usually done very little to maintain the popularity of a sport and, if anything, tended to be a sign that it is going into an accelerated decline – usually because individuals like yourself, in actively insulting the existing fans, encourage them to walk whilst failing to secure any loyalty from new fans.

        Series such as NASCAR have seen their popularity go into a permanent long term decline with the introduction of gimmicks like “the chase”, and BTCC’s popularity waned as well even with the attempt to prop things up with reverse races and success ballast. Generally, when a series is proposing such measures, it’s usually not a positive sign – because it’s usually been associated with those in charge running the sport into the ground as they flounder around trying to appeal to those who aren’t really interested to begin with, whilst alienating those who are.

  52. I would like to ask Liberty (And anyone else who supports the idea) a question.

    What would deem any of these trials a success worth revisiting & what would be seen as proof that it didn’t work & isn’t worth looking at again?

    I’ve no trust in anyone in F1 anymore to not look at anything other than how many passes occurred because that seems to be the only thing anybody in F1 looks at now when deciding if a race was good or not. When you look at there argument that Monza proves they should do reverse grid quali races they only talk about how allegedly exciting all the overtaking was as proof that putting fast cars at the back creates excitement.

    Yet when you go back & actually look at Monza that wasn’t the reason that race was praised because let’s be honest, None of Hamilton’s passes were that fun to watch & neither was Kimi predictably tumbling down the order.
    The thing that made Monza fun was the fact that various circumstances came together to catch people out, Mix up the order & a mistake then put the fastest car at the back.

    A reverse grid qualifying race would just feel contrived & would be lacking everything that made Monza so fun. Just as the pursuit of high degredation tyres often feels contrived & has failed to come close to doing what made Montreal 2010 such a fun race.

  53. So why should a team like Mercedes even bother sending out a car to this Reversed Grid Qualifying session, especially why should Lewis cooperate? We saw what happens at the last race when fast cars start behind slow cars. Lewis and Valtteri just risk damaging their cars. It’s better and easier to work as a team and use the full 50 to 70 laps of the race to get up to the podium places.
    There’s no merit to any Qualifying session if Mercedes don’t front up because they are the car to beat, and there’s no merit to any Real Race Starting Grid, and especially Pole Position, if it isn’t based upon performance.
    The current system gives you a Real Race Starting Grid based upon merit! Pole Position is achieved only by the best driver in the best car on that day!
    The onus should be upon the other teams to catch Mercedes! The onus should be on the other drivers to drive better than Lewis! The best way for teams to prove their drivers are better than Lewis driving a Mercedes is have a merit based Qualifying system. I’m sure there are other formats besides the current system that are merit based, but the Reversed Grid Qualifying Race system doesn’t sound like one.

  54. Liberty are the owners and get to adjust the ratio between normal and fluke, no matter how much either camp of fans complains.
    Clearly the ratio is too extreme right now.

  55. The timing of the poll couldn’t be worse with the Russian GP next, a circuit notorious for hideously abysmal racing. An inevitable procession is going to happen and the bosses will introduce the new reverse grid races as a knee-jerk reaction because everything in life must apparently be ‘unpredictable.’

    Qualifying is the only time during a race weekend where you see the cars at their absolute fastest. Taking that away will basically be like giving Formula 1 a vasectomy.

  56. Just filled out the poll. The leading questions are a disgrace.

    1. I just did too. The leading questions are an absolute disgrace as is the fact that there is no back button to allow you to go back and change your answers once you see what they are doing.

      I added that same comment in the free text bit.

      It’s also becoming apparent that Liberty (or someone on their behalf) seem to be monitoring this site because every time something like Reverse Grid Qualifying races gets mentioned here there’s a huge increase in unregistered comments that come out in support of things Liberty suggest.

      Getting a sense of inevitability about this unfortunately.

      1. Indeed @dbradock. The only way this will end is if the drivers go on strike or something. Sadly I don’t see that happening these days.
        The sad Americanisation of the sport has begun.

  57. Formula 1 with reversed grid races will look as fake as American Wrestling did. Boring.

  58. We have two interesting years ahead with budget changes and then rule and design changes, maybe wait and see how that effects the racing before trying reverse grids?

  59. get the F1 back to old school styles..
    I mean, bring the strategies back to F1, like pit stop strategy, refueling, tyre use, and other. nowadays F1 is only about mercedes,it’s soooo bored
    those would get the excitement back to F1

  60. Formula 1 has completely lost the plot! The powers that be have destroyed all freedom of design – let the designers build ‘W’ 32 cylinders, ‘X’ 54 cylinders, ‘H’ 16 cylinders, 23 cylinders radial engines or, even flat four engines if they wish. Same goes for transmissions, four or six wheel drive – let it all happen! But within a certain cubic capacity.

    I have loyally followed Formula 1 since 1950 and have known some exciting times, seen a good number of interesting developments quashed for no valid reason.

    I am sorry, I used to admire your achievements Mr Brawn, but introducing reverse grids is sheer stupidity. I just want proper racing again!

  61. No, no, no. I know that F1 could use more excitement, but not this. This will just lead to more sandbagging and more artificiality.

    Give the rules changes a chance, then see about changing the tracks.

    Not this.

Comments are closed.