Formula 1 Gran Premio Heineken D’Italia 2020Formula 1 

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 595 comments
  • 16,743 views
This proposal is only on the table because big money controls F1, and they cant run it like a genuine sport as a result. The new agreement still hands the most revenue to the big teams and it effectively kills competition...
 
Samus
F1 and kneejerk reactions, always a great pair. /s

Just like we had the purposely degrading tyres for years almost solely because of the 2010 Canadian GP, now reverse grid races are back on the table because of one race. Races like Monza are special and exciting because they don't happen very often, and because they happen organically when you least expect it. If you're going to do reverse grids, that excitement and surprise aspect are gone.

It also devalues the winner a bit. Yes, Gasly had some luck to get into his position but he also drove a mistake free race from start to finish and earned it when others faltered. If he wins a race because he is 10 places ahead of the frontrunners from the start it doesn't mean as much. Reverse grid winners in other series are always looked on lesser than regular races in the same series.

F1 doesn't need more gimmicks to fix its problems.
Click to expand...
I don't exactly think Monza is the best track to do it at, because the DRS trains make it extremely hard to pass as we have seen, but at a track like Austria, silverstone, Spa, Brazil etc it would work well and still easily possible for the fastest car to win the race.

I don't really see it as a gimmick, I mean in football if a Team gets a goal the other team gets to start with the ball(Similar thing happens in Rugby), we dont see that as a gimmick because it's been engrained into the game, F2 and F3 do reverse grids(although it's only the top 10) and the cars are significantly closer then F1 making it argubly more damaging.

Just because something is different doesn't make it gimmicky.
 
mustafur
I don't exactly think Monza is the best track to do it at, because the DRS trains make it extremely hard to pass as we have seen, but at a track like Austria, silverstone, Spa, Brazil etc it would work well and still easily possible for the fastest car to win the race.
Click to expand...

In which case what is the point? Just to see the fast cars overtake the slow ones over and over? We see that pretty often, the slow cars get out of the way because they know it's not their fight, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same. All you're going to do in the current hierarchy is split up the midfield cars that actually do race currently as they get mixed up by the frontrunners passing through.

I don't really see it as a gimmick, I mean in football if a Team gets a goal the other team gets to start with the ball(Similar thing happens in Rugby), we dont see that as a gimmick because it's been engrained into the game, F2 and F3 do reverse grids(although it's only the top 10) and the cars are significantly closer then F1 making it argubly more damaging.

Just because something is different doesn't make it gimmicky.
Click to expand...

It's a gimmick because it's being talked about solely to improve "the show", it's not about improving the sporting aspect. Restarting after goals are scored in other sports is hardly compatible in the slightest, come on. F1 isn't a back and forth possession sport.

What F1 needs is what it always needs to be exciting, closely matched cars racing each other on equal footing, with the occasional topsy turvy, crazy race mixed in every now and again.

As F1 fans we just understand that it isn't going to happen all the time, but F1 shouldn't ever be about penalising those who excel.
 
Samus
In which case what is the point? Just to see the fast cars overtake the slow ones over and over? We see that pretty often, the slow cars get out of the way because they know it's not their fight, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same. All you're going to do in the current hierarchy is split up the midfield cars that actually do race currently as they get mixed up by the frontrunners passing through.

I know It's not the same but I have done plenty of sim.championships with a reverse championship order(that kicked in after the first race) and even If I have been one of the faster cars, from a driver standpoint I find it much better then a conventional qualifying as it tests more aspects of your driving skill then just speed to put your self in a clear spot.



It's a gimmick because it's being talked about solely to improve "the show", it's not about improving the sporting aspect. Restarting after goals are scored in other sports is hardly compatible in the slightest, come on. F1 isn't a back and forth possession sport.

What F1 needs is what it always needs to be exciting, closely matched cars racing each other on equal footing, with the occasional topsy turvy, crazy race mixed in every now and again.

As F1 fans we just understand that it isn't going to happen all the time, but F1 shouldn't ever be about penalising those who excel.
Click to expand...
How do we know what its actually like without it actually happening?

If it's done in reverse championship order it's hardly a penalty, I get it's not normal but who decided that having the fastest car at the front of the grid is the best idea?

If you add feats of passing and battling into the equation required to win who is to say it's less?

I completely disagree that it doesn't add to the sporting aspect and just the entertainment aspect.
 
After the penalties for Hamilton and Giovinazzi, the only change in order among the top six for the entire second half of the race was Raikkonen falling out of it.

Gasly jumped Sainz and Stroll at the second race start, and got Raikkonen during the lap. Stroll fell off and, after a decent battle for a lap, ended up behind Sainz, and that was it. The order on lap 30 was:

GAS
RAI
[GIO]
SAI
STR
NOR
BOT
RIC

And at the chequered flag it was:

GAS
SAI
STR
NOR
BOT
RIC

I think that, in ordinary circumstances, a race where the top six finishing order was set on lap two would not be judged as a thriller. So what would shaking up the grid order actually achieve?
 
Famine
After the penalties for Hamilton and Giovinazzi, the only change in order among the top six for the entire second half of the race was Raikkonen falling out of it.

Gasly jumped Sainz and Stroll at the second race start, and got Raikkonen during the lap. Stroll fell off and, after a decent battle for a lap, ended up behind Sainz, and that was it. The order on lap 30 was:

GAS
RAI
[GIO]
SAI
STR
NOR
BOT
RIC

And at the chequered flag it was:

GAS
SAI
STR
NOR
BOT
RIC

I think that, in ordinary circumstances, a race where the top six finishing order was set on lap two would not be judged as a thriller. So what would shaking up the grid order actually achieve?
Click to expand...
No one exactly had any strategy to work with, and with DRS trains it's very hard to pass, but I think the idea behind it is to fix up the farcial Qualifying that happens at Monza.
 
Or, see how the races at Imola and Mugello go, and alternate between them. Monza isn't working with these cars.
 
mustafur
I completely disagree that it doesn't add to the sporting aspect and just the entertainment aspect.
Click to expand...

Because handicaps are inherently not sporting. Should we have forced Bolt to run in a pair of 20 year old Reeboks? Should we hold the best horses for a few second longer in the gates? Should they have given Tiger Woods some wooden golf clubs at the height of his domination? None of those changes would be fair and sporting, but instead penalise people for being good.

Telling Mercedes they have to start a quali race at the back of the grid because they're doing the best is penalising them, no other way to put it.
 
Monza has always been bad for F1 racing, but surprisingly the last 3 races there have been thrillers, so the comment about "not working with these cars" only really applies to qualifying.
 
Samus
Because handicaps are inherently not sporting. Should we have forced Bolt to run in a pair of 20 year old Reeboks? Should we hold the best horses for a few second longer in the gates? Should they have given Tiger Woods some wooden golf clubs at the height of his domination? None of those changes would be fair and sporting, but instead penalise people for being good.

Telling Mercedes they have to start a quali race at the back of the grid because they're doing the best is penalising them, no other way to put it.
Click to expand...
It's not like their rivals are 1st while they are last, their main rivals will be next to them, how is it any different to DRS giving the car behind the advantage?
 
Famine
After the penalties for Hamilton and Giovinazzi, the only change in order among the top six for the entire second half of the race was Raikkonen falling out of it.

Gasly jumped Sainz and Stroll at the second race start, and got Raikkonen during the lap. Stroll fell off and, after a decent battle for a lap, ended up behind Sainz, and that was it. The order on lap 30 was:

GAS
RAI
[GIO]
SAI
STR
NOR
BOT
RIC

And at the chequered flag it was:

GAS
SAI
STR
NOR
BOT
RIC

I think that, in ordinary circumstances, a race where the top six finishing order was set on lap two would not be judged as a thriller. So what would shaking up the grid order actually achieve?
Click to expand...

Jack Aitken pointed out the same thing on Twitter - the radical order change was mostly through two consecutive safety periods (SC, Red Flag). I worry we'll get a knee-jerk reaction from F1 that isn't fully thought through and which ends up having undesirable effects further down the road (hur hur). The new approach to tyre compounds following Canada 20?? springs to mind.
 
For the time being the only minor rulers which I think should come into place are to scrap the Q2 tyre rule (unless you're Mercedes you're basically forced to start on softs), and do tiered qualifying at Monza and Monaco to stop traffic jams for tows and people blocking each other.
 
Samus
Because handicaps are inherently not sporting. Should we have forced Bolt to run in a pair of 20 year old Reeboks? Should we hold the best horses for a few second longer in the gates? Should they have given Tiger Woods some wooden golf clubs at the height of his domination? None of those changes would be fair and sporting, but instead penalise people for being good.

Telling Mercedes they have to start a quali race at the back of the grid because they're doing the best is penalising them, no other way to put it.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the BTCC which has forged itself a spectacular history of ballast and reverse grid racing. It can just flat-out make for much better entertainment, which for us is what its all about no?
 
I think they need to introduce ballast as a way to equalize the field. Its a fair option. WEC does it very well.

Also they should mandate all three tire compounds to be used.

And they should use practice times to establish a Q1 and Q2 just like MotoGP does.
 
Most of the arguments against reverse grid races boil down to “it’s different and therefore I don’t like it”. It’s a helluva lot more organic than things like BoP and ‘fanboost’ that a lot of racing championships use these days. It’s more organic than DRS and the artificially ***** tyres F1 has been using to ‘increase the show’ for years. It’s arguably even more organic than budget caps and the current knockout qualifying format we have that was specifically created to make qualifying more entertaining. People forget there was an era in F1 where grids was drawn by lots, rather than by qualifying pace. It’s amusing to see people not complain about the ‘start on tyres used for fastest Q2 time’ which is significantly more gimmicky.
With reverse grids, it gives the slower and less-funded teams a chance of scraping together more championship points if they’re willing to be risky and defend for their life. It also makes the championship that much harder to win. It’s not easy to slice through an entire field of cars when all of your championship rivals are doing the same. It wouldn’t just be a case of Max Verstappen at Monaco 2018, it would be watching the top drivers in the championship all being forced to get around slower cars without leaving themselves vulnerable to their championship rivals attacking from behind. Imagine Lewis and Max trying to get through the field without letting the other one get too far ahead. And unlike with lap traffic, every battle is for position and points. Slower cars aren’t going to get blue-flagged, so they’re not going to just roll over and cede positions.

if they don’t want to abolish Saturday qualifying completely, the best way to do it would probably be a ¼ distance sprint race on Saturday with the grid based on the reverse of championship order. Then Sunday’s full-length race grid being the finishing order from Saturday’s event.
 
I think the 3-period Saturday qualifying works pretty well overall. I remember what it was like when they just had an hour to build their quickest time. It generally ended up a snooze-fest for most of the time with a hectic last ten minutes. Unless it had been raining and the track was drying or was dry but due to rain, which mixed it up a little. If the 'top ten starting on Q2 tyres' was a gimmick you'd see teams sand bagging for that coveted 11th place rather than pushing to get into Q3, which is something you don't see happening. The lower teams want that extra ten minutes of TV exposure for their sponsors as much as they want track position.

instead of a reverse grid sprint race (is it a full reverse grid or a selected portion of the grid like in BTCC R3 that's been proposed?) - Why not have a totally randomly selected grid for a shorter pre-feature race sprint (for half points) which also forms the grid for the feature race? You could have this on Saturday morning as perhaps a 40 minute race instead of qualifying.
 


In the post-race footage, Carlos looks like a guy that just realised he's made a terrible mistake.
 
Samus
Because handicaps are inherently not sporting.... Should we hold the best horses for a few second longer in the gates?
Click to expand...

Sorry to bust your bubble, but horses are handicapped in certain races. It creates a kind of BoP system by putting lead weights in the saddles (based on the jockey's weight and previous performance), to give all competitors a chance. The handicap system is based on previous performance over the last six races, and the horses they're racing against.
 
-Fred-
In the post-race footage, Carlos looks like a guy that just realised he's made a terrible mistake.
Click to expand...

2021 will be painful. 2022 could be better, but I don't have high hopes. They couldn't win with Alonso or Vettel. It doesn't seem like Leclerc will be getting a championship anytime soon.

So 2022, McLaren will probably be [still] ahead of Ferrari. The winner here is Ricciardo. Slight win for Alonso to get back into F1 with Renault. They could be beating Ferrari too. :lol:
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
2021 will be painful. 2022 could be better, but I don't have high hopes. They couldn't win with Alonso or Vettel. It doesn't seem like Leclerc will be getting a championship anytime soon.

So 2022, McLaren will probably be [still] ahead of Ferrari. The winner here is Ricciardo. Slight win for Alonso to get back into F1 with Renault. They could be beating Ferrari too. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's not just the performances because I somehow don't feel like McLaren's going to be fighting for wins with the Mercedes engine anymore than they currently do (keep in mind they have to rework the whole car and it could potentially hurt them). I feel like he's going to miss the atmosphere within the team most of all. Vettel looks like he's aged 5 years since the winter break.
 
-Fred-
It's not just the performances because I somehow don't feel like McLaren's going to be fighting for wins with the Mercedes engine anymore than they currently do (keep in mind they have to rework the whole car and it could potentially hurt them). I feel like he's going to miss the atmosphere within the team most of all. Vettel looks like he's aged 5 years since the winter break.
Click to expand...

Alpha Tauri and RB are doing better since they went with Honda. They can make a more compact rear end due to the engine design. (Split turbo)

Maybe McLaren can find more rear downforce with more rear floor area after the engine change?
 
F1 is a meritocracy, they should focus on regulations that enable close racing, at the end of the day there are too many aspects of F1 from the regulations to the track design that ensure you get the same result every week.


For instance;
Cars are too fast meaning you get tarmac run-off

Tarmac run-off means that 99% of driver errors go effectively unpunished

Driver errors going unpunished mean that drivers in the fastest cars are even more likely to finish in front, you take away a significant variable for different results.

Thats why people like street circuits, you get punished for mistakes and they're more unpredictable. That's also one of the reasons why MotoGP has more winners, you make mistakes there and you'll get tossed off the bike.
 
Last edited:
DG_Silva
Sorry to bust your bubble, but horses are handicapped in certain races. It creates a kind of BoP system by putting lead weights in the saddles (based on the jockey's weight and previous performance), to give all competitors a chance. The handicap system is based on previous performance over the last six races, and the horses they're racing against.
Click to expand...
Basically the Melbourne Cup; the most famous handicap of them all. The current system that's used in F1 is like the Cox Plate where the fastest horse wins, not the one with the best handicap. You may be on a fast horse in the Cup but it carries more weight than a slower horse. Don't know if F1 should adopt the same kind of principle, but I want entertainment so it may not be a bad decision.
 
Last edited:
The way I look at it F1 has the highest quality of drivers in the world with only a handful on a good season given the machinery to show anything.

I love the open formula concept don't get me wrong but the balance is off big time.

You could be the clear fastest driver on the grid by a country mile and if your not in a Mercedes your basically in existing mode, waiting for no reason.

I don't know the answer, some seasons you get lucky with the regulations and it's a big battle and then for what seems like the vast majority of seasons it's just a one team domination.

In the last 10 years only 2 teams have won a world championship, and with only 1 driver change in those years happening with the winning teams(Rosberg for Bottas).
 
Since the dawn of motor racing the victories have usually gone to the best teams with the best cars and best drivers. Unreliability, rule changes, innovations in technology from upstart players, economic downturns, wars and major accidents have prevented any one team from dominating the results over a such an extended period of time as now. What we have now is the ultimate payoff of stability and perfection of the art and science.

But if (and it's a big if) sponsors, circuit owners and paying spectators are unhappy enough, and the basic economics are disturbed, changes can be artificially made to ensure closer competition plays a more major role. Indy Car and NASCAR are examples of how that can be done. Even the humble sport of kart racing has heat races and inverted grids, as well as spec equipment. The cream still rises to the top, but in a more entertaining way.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back