What exactly is a reverse grid,as talked about to spice things up in F1?

[lbsf1]

I think the problem is all the cars are too similar. The fia should say. Right have any engine you want, and airodynamics. Then some teams might run lighter more economical engines so they are more reliable and earlier in the race may be faster. Some teams however might choose to run some massive monster of an engine that drinks fuel like a thristy elephant they would be amazing to watch fast at the end of the race when they have less fuel to lug around however would be unreliable. Free rain on the aerodynamics would allow teams to try out daring ideas like the skirt idea some team had in the 70/80s.
However to keep it safe they should keep the safety regulations.
F1 should be the pinacle of motorsport. However other championships are getting close to f1 kinds of performace.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

You do realize the Lotus' are about 4-5 seconds a lap slower, right? Even if he'd be stuck behind Webber or Vettel, they would just make a train of three and breeze past that Lotus

That would be correct if the Lotus were right in front of them, which would mean they managed to overtake McLaren, Mercedes, Force India, Williams and Toro Rosso first.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I think the problem is all the cars are too similar. The fia should say. Right have any engine you want, and airodynamics. Then some teams might run lighter more economical engines so they are more reliable and earlier in the race may be faster. Some teams however might choose to run some massive monster of an engine that drinks fuel like a thristy elephant they would be amazing to watch fast at the end of the race when they have less fuel to lug around however would be unreliable. Free rain on the aerodynamics would allow teams to try out daring ideas like the skirt idea some team had in the 70/80s.
However to keep it safe they should keep the safety regulations.
F1 should be the pinacle of motorsport. However other championships are getting close to f1 kinds of performace.

That would give us the modern - and once again scary - equivalent to this:

 

[crooky369]

Love that old Fiat! It has something ridiculous like a 27 litre engine in it!

 

[yeti]

Give us a shout and I'll drag you along to Hillsborough.

He he he!!! Yeah - I can imagine!!!

Still - gotta be better than Cheltenham Town?!

C.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Technology gets to a point where it 'takes over' the spirit of the activity; and driver's abilities are not as distinguishable (a word?)

Have you ever seen a formula ford 1600 race; now that is a scramble; watched races at Mont Tremblant; lots of overtaking! 👍

 

[Pescara for GT5]

I still don't get it,why would a guy on pole would want to start from the back of the pack?
So it means people would try to go slower than others in order to start from the front?
I am sorry but please explain.

YOu are right.

 

[Ardius]

Technology gets to a point where it 'takes over' the spirit of the activity; and driver's abilities are not as distinguishable (a word?)

Have you ever seen a formula ford 1600 race; now that is a scramble; watched races at Mont Tremblant; lots of overtaking! 👍

But here is the crux of the issue - shock horror - F1 is not just about the driver and actually never really has been.
Its about teams and although driver ability obviously comes into it, its not the focus of F1. Drivers are a human face for F1, but they are not the sole competitors.

Take the technology out of F1 and its no longer F1. Just the same as taking out the humans.

Honestly, if people really, really want lots of overtaking and a focus on the driver and his abilities then watch the local spec-series Formula races, karts or Touring Cars. If you want to watch a battle of teams, their technology, their drivers, their strategies...watch F1.

However, I think there are some areas of technology which could be banned to help the racing action but still retain an element of technology and team-work. For example, ban semi-auto transmissions and bring back manuals, but still allow development in this area. But technology should not be thrown out and F1 turned into a spec-series and nor should it be re-molded to focus on the driver and less on the teams.

 

[Joylord]

What’s wrong with bringing back turbo’s with economically smaller engines (fuel saving 1300cc eg.) with all the technology they can shove into it. Adjustable wings like on the Enzo and AMG SLS so stable under braking and fast down the straight. Have skirts for mechanical grip like most people have said it is the pinnacle of racing with massive developments and engineering marvels.

 

[Ardius]

What’s wrong with bringing back turbo’s with economically smaller engines (fuel saving 1300cc eg.) with all the technology they can shove into it. Adjustable wings like on the Enzo and AMG SLS so stable under braking and fast down the straight. Have skirts for mechanical grip like most people have said it is the pinnacle of racing with massive developments and engineering marvels.

Hmm, well the problem with this is that it wouldn't provide much racing. Cars would be fast, yes, but with such impressive braking with the flaps and the skirts to create amazing grip you aren't going to create much overtaking, it will make the problem even worse.
But powerful and economic turbo engines I'm all for, the rest of it kind of needs to be limited in some way though if we want some kind of overtaking. A balance between technological development, teamwork and demonstrating driver ability and racing needs to be made. Simply giving the teams free reign is not necessarily going to satisfy the latter two.
F1 does need to make overtaking easier, lets get that straight. But it shouldn't pursue it at the loss of its identity.

 

[Joylord]

Hmm, well the problem with this is that it wouldn't provide much racing. Cars would be fast, yes, but with such impressive braking with the flaps and the skirts to create amazing grip you aren't going to create much overtaking, it will make the problem even worse.
But powerful and economic turbo engines I'm all for, the rest of it kind of needs to be limited in some way though if we want some kind of overtaking. A balance between technological development, teamwork and demonstrating driver ability and racing needs to be made. Simply giving the teams free reign is not necessarily going to satisfy the latter two.
F1 does need to make overtaking easier, lets get that straight. But it shouldn't pursue it at the loss of its identity.

But if the driver is controlling the wing flaps surely this will encourage over taking down the straights and under braking but all the grip comes from mechanical grip. As for the turbos the drivers can control the boost so there for with a certain number of engines throughout the year drivers could make or break places.

 

[Ardius]

But if the driver is controlling the wing flaps surely this will encourage over taking down the straights and under braking but all the grip comes from mechanical grip. As for the turbos the drivers can control the boost so there for with a certain number of engines throughout the year drivers could make or break places.

I was referring to the airbrakes and the skirts, you're talking about reducing brake distances further which doesn't help overtaking, it discourages it. It plays into the problem of having the best technology but taking away from the racing. A little like the example of taking away the drivers and using computers to drive the cars - yes it would probably be faster and more technologically impressive but would it be interesting to watch?
There's certainly a balance that has to be struck - F1 can't be all technology but it can't be all overtaking and driver ability.
As much as an F1 car should be the ultimate racing machine, I think there should always be an element of limitation for the sake of competition. How big this element should be is the debate really. I don't know whether I would really enjoy watching a series where all the cars are all the ultimate in performance but cannot battle on track. Even though I don't think F1 is all about overtaking, I do think it should have some (and they should be quality overtakes, not overtakes born of particular strategies per se - what is a quality overtake is up for debate I guess).

 

[Zeit1377]

Well, the idea is that the fastest qualifier is the fastest car of the grid, which is why he starts last. The slowest qualifier (theoretically) is the slowest car on the grid, which is why he is "supported" by starting first. The fastest should be able to overtake the field to get to the front, while the slowest will have the opportunity to fight for his position. It's like putting the smallest guys in the front in a group of people, because those who are tall have a good view anyway. Putting the tall ones to the front because they are tall and the small ones in the back because they are small makes no sense.

So, putting the fastest driver in the front and the slowest driver in the back, as we know it, doesn't make much sense in theory, because the fastest one will just drive away and the slowest one will creep along in the back. The grid will just expand over the duration of the race, but drivers will already be sorted by speed.

NOT at all. It has nothing to do with "qualifying". Reverse grid means the pecking order from last RACE results are reversed; WINNER of 1st race is last on the grid of 2nd race and LAST driver from 1st race starts on POLE in 2nd race.
Advice: Don't comment because you have to. Stop misleading people with a fake helmet pic.

 

[PzR Slim]

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

 

[Northstar]

You:

Advice: Don't comment because you have to.

Also You:
Registers solely to respond to a 9 1/2 year old post written by someone that hasn't even signed on in nearly 2 years.