Reverse grids

Forget qualifying, just line them up in reverse order from the finish of the previous race, the last finisher starts on "pole", while the DNFs start behind all the finishers. This would prevent gaming the rules late in the season where drivers might experience a bizarre "electrical problem" late in the race and pull in while out of the points to improve their grid spot for the next race.

Add in cast iron rotors to elongate braking distances, braking preservation would be a primary skill again.

Who knows what would happen, but what almost certainly wouldn't happen is Mercedes wins every race, and the backmarker teams would get at least a lap or two on camera while they led the race at the start.

 

+1

 

I would rather assign points for qualifying so that the drivers still have incentive to do well, and then reverse the grid.

 

Another bandaid on a broken leg. Lets fix the leg

 

Good lawd, I declare, I'm getting the vapahs...

Has all of racing gone insane?

Let's check how those headlines will read in in every reputable paper around the world the next day.
Having writers who barely know how to tie their shoes explain how the fastest car in qualifying has
to start at the back of the grid while the perennial losers get to start from pole position and not make
it all sound like a complete cluster ****?

Seriously?

This would render every (and I mean EVERY) earned Pole Position in the history of F-1 meaningless if
I'm reading this right, and I think I am.

Tell Senna, for example, after this lap "Congratulations, you were fastest. Now you have to start at
the back of the grid" and see what happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJZTc1U1tM

BHW

 

+ a million

For years I have been saying this: reversed grids makes for great races

Just bring it on!

 

seems a reverse grid works with saloon cars
they can muscle their way about
open wheels need more finesse

 

"Yes, yes, let's tinker around some more, shall we boys? Any gimmick to diminish the value of design, engineering, preparation and skill. Suppose we issue each car one set of tires for the season. Whoever has best conserved his tires by the end of the season wins the championship. This will provide the excitement the punters crave! Brilliant! Now, down to the pub, shall we?"

 

What an absolute load of bollocks!

I know I'm a stick-in-the-mud traditionalist, but I'll also try & support most of their ideas.

However, a reverse grid would tune me out completely. I'd be done with it.

Complete & utter anathema to pretty much everything that F1 (at least) is all about.

It may make it "exciting" in the tin tops, which are pretty much bumper cars anyway, but in F1? No thanks.

Can't help thinking there's some good reasons why it remains the most watched sport there is - Why **** with it?

Don't like it? Don't watch it.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Even NASCAR and IndyCar aren't this desperate.....

 

Oh, don't be too sure about that!

BHW

 

Reverse grids are more real than the DRS crap. Take off the damn button, throw them into reverse grids, or two races, saturday and sunday, with whoever winning on Saturday starting last on Sunday.

 

I for one would like to see braking zones expanded. remember when F1 started three abreast?

 

Another stupid idea...why don't they just fill a box with the positions and then let the drivers pick a paper...race decided like that,no need to qualify,no need to race,no need tomake expensive cars,no noise,perfect for everyone....just keepmaking stupidthings tof.1andsomeday the fans that stillwatchit willfinally goaway,maybe then thEy'll come up with a brilliant idea of letting everyone race as if this was a "reALRACE".

 

How about changing to 1.2 litre engines, naturally aspirated and no restricitions whatsoever expect nothing can be assited/computerised and no moveable spoilers/active aero etc?

 

Why don't they all just sit in their simulators at their respective factories and race online?

On the plus side:

1) It would be far cheaper than building cars.
2) You would need only a limited number of personnel to run them.
3) There would be no wind tunnel costs any more or a need for a massive design department to update the cars constantly.
4) There'd be no transportation costs involved.
5) It would have a massively lower impact on the environment.
6) It would save using up some of the Worlds precious oil reserves.
7) It would create 100% guaranteed safe racing for drivers; crew; marshals and fans.
8) The fans wouldn't have to spend $1000's to travel to see races.
9) People who buy homes near to race tracks would no longer be bothered by that "unexpected noise" that race tracks surprisingly seem to generate.
10) The circuit owners could charge for the image rights of their circuits to used in the season
11) Brand new tracks could simply be programmed rather than having to be physically built, with all the costs involved in that.
12) The FIA/Bernie could make it subscription only.
13) You could run a competition to allow a fan to join each race and go up against the professional drivers.
14) You could randomly generate the grid positions for the race.


On the negative side:

1) It would generate a lot of unemployment in the sport.
2) It would generate a lot less money for the sport.
3) The driver's would get fed up having their arses handed to them by an 11 year old at every race.
4) There would be constant suspicions that certain drivers/teams have found a way to switch "DAMAGE" off!
5)) It would be s:censored:t!

Still - It's an idea that the FIA haven't tried yet!

 

Just cut to the chase and start whoever has been winning "too often" from the back of the grid. That's really the point, to handicap the fastest cars. The crashes will make good theater.

 

Here's another couple of ideas:

1)You have two races in a weekend, one on the Saturday and one on the Sunday.

There are two free practice sessions, one on Friday morning, and one on Friday afternoon.

Qualifying for Saturday's race is on Saturday morning, with the race in the afternoon.

Saturday's race takes place as the old Sunday race used to, and lasts 150 miles or 90 minutes, run in the tracks traditional direction (clockwise or anti-clockwise).

Sunday's race is also over 150 miles or 90 minutes, but run in the reverse direction of the tracks traditional direction (i.e, in the opposite direction to Saturdays race), and the grid is made from reversing the result from Saturdays race result - So finish first Saturday and you start last on Sunday. Finish last on Saturday and you're on pole for Sunday.

Standard points are awarded for both races.


2) Make it so all of the drivers have to drive the entire weekend in reverse gear on track, for free practice, qualifying and the race! - Driving forwards on track will no longer be permitted!

That should mix things up!

(Can you imagine racing in reverse around Monaco?, or Spa, or Monza? Now there's a challenge that would tell us who the best driver in the World is! - Never mind how fast he can go, can he drive backwards? ).

Again, it's two more ideas that the FIA haven't tried yet!

 

This part made Me laugh:

Symonds, though, admits technical bosses would probably find ways to ruin rivals' aerodynamics in the process.

"Unfortunately, being racing people, we'd also probably work on trying to destroy the aerodynamics of the car behind us!" he added.

As if they don't already!

 

I remember 3/2/3/2/3/2 grids. They were much better than the current configuration....safer too, I'd wager, as shooting a gap was much easier, since the gap already existed!

 

Now we're just getting silly guys!

I beg to differ. The (huge) fan survey they did a few years back told them that the vast majority of fans wanted more overtaking. DRS is the solution they devised, and if you look at the #'s, it's been a huge success; Overtaking is way up.

My initial fear about them going "back & forth" in every zone didn't happen, so I'm happy with it.

There's nothing "real" about a reverse grid.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I too recall those days.

However, while you may out jump your line mates, that's about as far as you can go; The guys on row 2 aren't going to see many gaps in a row that's 3 across ahead of them!

I'd argue they were quite a bit more dangerous too; Cars close together like that are going to touch more than they do now; That's why they went to (eventually) this format. And if you do get a flier off the line, there's room to get round the guy ahead.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Yes, but in the 3/2 configuration two gaps already exist. The 2 cars behind the 3 cars are lined up in the gap, that is, not directly behind the cars ahead. I'd like to see them try the existing 2/2 formation, but with the following cars lined up in a staggered configuration, just to see how it would work.

 

But what tracks are 5 cars wide? In fact, they'd need to be nearer to 6 wide if any real overtaking was to be done!

It's not really 2/2 now though is it? More 1-1-1. I think it actually works pretty well; We don't see many accidents but we do see those who get it right picking up places, and the inverse of course.

Cheers,
Ian