F1 owner wants grid to be reversed.

Schumacher at Interlagos 2006

 

I think I'd rather see them invert the top half of the field, that would be much better than it is now, and much better than inverting the entire field.

Question - if you inverted the entire field, and you have a 'top' driver blow up a motor in practice, then what ? Move them to the back of the grid - like they do now ? What's the incentive to make a motor last in practice ?

Well, another 'plus' to inverting the entire field would be that the tail-enders will get some much-needed TV exposure - for a few laps, anyway.

 

Abolish the engine preservation rule. It is stupid to begin with. It didn't slow down the costs, but only the racing.

 

Some would argue that it actually increased costs, making the teams spend more time researching how to make their engines more durable.

 

I read an interview with Dr. Theissen and he confirmed your statement. However they did save money on manufacturing the engines, but the savings are more than offset by the increase in R&D. Which doesn't surprise me, after all they're expecting the engines to do the same as before but now last longer. Only an imbecile like Mad Max wouldn't get that.

 

Meh...I can't say I agree with you on that one, Brian.

That's why I watch GP2. By the way, when is the first GP weekend with F1 and GP2 together this year? Bahrain? Spain?

 

I think they should just drop the race. Seriously.

By far the most interesting part of F1 is the qualifying, especially when it was the original format (or atleast the 80's format). Extremely exciting and man they were so fncken fast.

The other good thing is that there is less bollocks and political influence (ie: Bernie) on qualifying. All drivers just give it their all, and even if they are ina cr@p car you can see who is ringing it and who has the business. The race is BS, finish basically as Bernie wants.
Pete
ps: little passing issues without the race .

 

I wish they would bring back turbos.....

Think about it.

They banned turbos because of the cost, but I seriously doubt a motor today revving at 19,000 RPMS would give the same power OR last as long OR be cheaper to build in the long run than a Turbo that revved at, what, 12,000 RPM TOPS ? And besides that, they are a HELLUVA LOT quieter.

 

Yeah, wasn't this obvious, at least to everyone except Mosley? Could anyone reasonably believe that multi-race durability wouldn't cost big $ to engineer?

 

Have you ever heard of Toyota?

 

explain please.

 

Why would you want a quieter race car? I love that high-revving noise, but turbos would be a good idea to me.

 

Yup.

 

I think they should just allow special qualifying cars and motors again.

That way if Force India REALLY wants pole, they just build a barely-legal hypercar and roll out their normal car for the race.

 

So true. Heck, they weren't even chosen by anyone in our FANTASY league at a considerable $$ discount. If the F1 guys who are into it enough to play those games won't touch you, you ain't hitting your target market.

 

How about this:
Friday - Open practice and Qualifying.
Saturday - Two 45 min races. The first one based on qualifying order. The second one reversed, regardless of the finishing order of race 1.
Sunday - A normal grand prix race with the starting order based on the finishing order of the two short races.
It is a win win situation for everybody.
The fans get to see the cars really duke it out 3 days, as opposed as today where Fridays are wasted days.
All the teams will get extra exposure. The fast teams will get a lot of TV time as usual, but the little guys will get a lot more exposure.
The drivers can recover from bad mistakes made on the Saturday races. So at the end the best drivers will end up winning as it should be.

 

I do like watching reverse grid races. I also like watching when a front runner has to start at the back of the grid and makes his way to the front. Fun viewing, but I doubt it will ever happen in F1. A previous poster is correct when he said the Qualifying is more exciting than many races. It's instant gratification, good TV.

Imagine turn one on a really long straight at the start of the race. Every car on the grid could get there at the same time.

"Twenty two cars wide heading into turn one."

 

I have read some pretty crazy ideas on this thread, but I do agree with PSK, why even have "the" race. Just make the Sunday event a bunch of 15 min qualifying type races, add up the points, call it a day.

 

British touring cars reverse the top TEN... they can stand contact plus they use the system of "success ballast", introduced to keep racing close, this has proved very successful in maintaining an exciting spectacle throughout the season.

However IMO If you want Sato leading till he spins off because he doesnt manage to drive through the carnage all well and good.

Qualifying : LH I dont no whats wrong with the car Ron it just lost power, on my hot lap...

The cream rises to the top..

 

Terrible idea to reverse the grid. I agree that a weight penalty for the top finishers of the last race would be more appropiate.

 

Why?

Please explain as I can't find a single reason for why it wouldn't bring us fantastic racing every time.

 

Not much of an argument you have there. Whenever we had a reversed grid by some special circumstances, the cream rose to the top. Backmarker teams can get in the way, but eventually they get passed. Actually rather quickly when I think back on some of the races.

The big destruction derbies of F1 weren't caused by reversed grids, but rather by accidents related to bad weather or because somebody on the front did something stupid causing a pile up.

The little historic evidence we have so far points towards more passing, more entertaining races and not necessarily more accidents. Not that that would be such a bad thing btw.