planetf1.com

An exciting F1 format with a balanced and fair playing field ought to look more like this:

1. Qualifying

2. Forward Grid Race (from qualifying positions) last approx 1 hour

3. Reverse Grid Race (from qualifying positions) last approx 1 hour

4. Aggregate Times decide winning positions Fastest Qualifying Time + Forward Grid Race Time + Reverse Grid Race Time

Now some people might complain about DRS trains etc, but the truth is it's a fairer system. All drivers have to cope with roughly the same amount of overtaking, dirty air, random crashes and the best performers still win on average and over the course of the year. A bad qualifying does not ruin your race chances and a good qualifying does not all but guarantee victory.

This is the fairest format and the format real racers and fans ought to relish. The reversing of the grid ought to level the game in the same way footballers or tennis players swap ends of the pitch/court at intervals.

The best thing is YOU CANNOT SLOW DOWN OR COAST JUST TO SAVE TYRES or FUEL etc. Every lap counts because they are all added up at the end. A fast qualifying time might not give any benefit on the grid but will often gain an additional place at the end in a close race. So everyone has to drive fast at all times.

Won't number 2 drivers slow opponent number 1 drivers down? Well yes that's because the didn't overtake them, which is part of the challenge.

As much as I'm a fan of nascar. We are not nascar. We dont need gimmicks. Dont fix what ain't broke. We have not had a problem with the format of the race weekend in 70 years. Superficial changes. Like losing practice time or changing the Qualifiying format. But not the race format. Sure. The race distance has gone down. For example. Monaco used to be 100 laps. It's now 78 laps.

No stupid gimmicks. Reverse grids etc. Its not f1. If you wanna watch that. Go watch btcc or nascar for gimmicky formsts

Yeah reverse grids are a no for me. In all of the series I’ve watched that toyed with reverse grids, one theme keeps coming up, which is cost. Reverse grids tend to result in more crashes, which means more money spent on parts and repairs.

The sport can’t talk about cost savings, while on the other hand flirt with reverse grids

As soon as I read "Aggregate Times", I was out on this suggestion.

I also don't want two 1 hour races. I want a 2 hour race.

I'd actually love a shorter sprint race, and I don't one the face of it mind reverse grids - but not if it means we lose the main event.

Charles LeBrad wrote:Yeah reverse grids are a no for me. In all of the series I’ve watched that toyed with reverse grids, one theme keeps coming up, which is cost. Reverse grids tend to result in more crashes, which means more money spent on parts and repairs.

The sport can’t talk about cost savings, while on the other hand flirt with reverse grids

If the sport can talk about cost savings but continue to support the current PU's then nothing is off the table.

I agree with all the above naysayers.

I'd also add: Two one-hour races may seem to equate to one two-hour race but that's like saying two three-set tennis matches equate to a five-set match. The tests of a two-hour GP are driver fitness and stamina; pacing; being able to look after the car and tyres; tactical use of pitstops; contending with a greater weather influence.
Any minor formula has lottery-like reverse grids and sprint races of up of an hour. If that's what you want stick to them..

I want to be able to know who has won when the chequered flag comes out, not have to wait for everything to be calculated based on the previous race and the qualifying times etc.

I appreciate that it's likely to be on-screen already - but for me the person that crosses the line first should always be the winner (except in the circumstance of a penalty being applied as it is now at times).

I also like the fact that F1 is a two hour long race, I look forward to it every race weekend. I think to shorten the races would be a mistake.

Aggregate times is a big no no for me. F1 should be a race, not a time trial. You'll frequently end up with the situation where one driver can just follow another driver home in race 2 rather than trying to overtake because they finished ahead of them in race 1.

I'm not totally opposed to reverse grids though. It works well in F2 I think, aside from at circuits like Monaco where overtaking is too difficult.

Posted a reply to this earlier but no sign of it.

Only thing I wanted to offer up is regarding reversed grids. They divide opinion so strongly but really only because of what we have been used to for so long. Thing to remember is that qualifying as we know it exists only as a solution to a problem - that being that you can't start the cars line abreast. Pre-war they just drew lots. Presumably the concept of qualifying and fastest driver starts in front was deemed a more elegant and fair solution. And maybe it is. But a form of reversed grid should really just be considered an a different solution to the same problem. I don't often disagree with the Wolff man but I don'ts see them as a gimmick.

Some say it would unfair as it penalises a driver for success. Well, kind of, but a couple of things to consider (assuming it's based on reversed WDC standings:

1) Every driver is "penalised" equally. I.e if you're leading the WDC, the driver who is 2nd will only be 1 car in front and so on - it's not like the leading driver would be at the back and their opposition at the front.

2) If a driver is leading the WDC (and therefore starting last) the system can't be penalising them THAT much - as clearly they are still accumulating more points than anyone else.

3) the system is "self leveling". So lets say a relative tail ender starts up front, gets a clear run and manages a haul of points. That will put them up the WDC standing and consequently DOWN the grid for the next race.


It's hard to argue that a driver who wins the title under this system wouldn't be worthy. It would emphasise the ability of drivers to RACE as opposed to just drive fast. For example, I don't think Rosberg would have taken his title ahead of Hamilton under this system. And having seen some of Vettels "come back" drives it would have been interesting to see if Leclerc could still have matched him racing like this.

I'm not saying the system is without it's flaws I see them and acknowledge them, but I do think it's short sighted to dismiss the idea outright.

First lap carnage? I don't see it . It's a 2 hour race, and the smart drivers race accordingly. Currently the backmarkers drive with more desperation as the opening laps are often their best chance to gain places. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain - the opposite would be true if they were running a reversed grid.

What to do with Saturday for the fans? Easy: sprint race for the reserve drivers. Small grid the only issue there.

Last word (and year) on the matter from me. Suzuka 2005.

DOLOMITE wrote: Only thing I wanted to offer up is regarding reversed grids. They divide opinion so strongly but really only because of what we have been used to for so long. Thing to remember is that qualifying as we know it exists only as a solution to a problem - that being that you can't start the cars line abreast. Pre-war they just drew lots. Presumably the concept of qualifying and fastest driver starts in front was deemed a more elegant and fair solution. And maybe it is. But a form of reversed grid should really just be considered an a different solution to the same problem.

To me qualifying is far more than a solution to a problem. There is an art to the perfect quali lap, and those drivers like Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton etc who have mastered it have set themselves apart and proved they are amongst the fastest ever by doing so. The table of most-pole-positions is in some ways a better pointer to driver talent than most-wins or titles. Any driver will tell you that the final Q3 lap when it's all or nothing is the ultimate challenge for him, and achieving the perfect lap is a huge high. To replace this with a grid lottery or slowest-first would diminish the sport greatly for both drivers and (knowledgable) fans.

tim3003 wrote: To me qualifying is far more than a solution to a problem. There is an art to the perfect quali lap, and those drivers like Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton etc who have mastered it have set themselves apart and proved they are amongst the fastest ever by doing so.

Fastest over a single lap, yes I agree and it's enjoyable and impressive to watch. But ultimately the aim of the game is to win the race. That requires a wider skill set. They are racing drivers not qualifying drivers. And it DOES only exist as a solution to a problem - that is literally the reason it exists.

tim3003 wrote: The table of most-pole-positions is in some ways a better pointer to driver talent than most-wins or titles. Any driver will tell you that the final Q3 lap when it's all or nothing is the ultimate challenge for him, and achieving the perfect lap is a huge high.

No, it's an indication of a specific skill. I don't know what "any driver" would tell me, but I'm guessing most would trade a pole for a race win....

tim3003 wrote: To replace this with a grid lottery or slowest-first would diminish the sport greatly for both drivers and (knowledgable) fans.

Just as well no one is proposing a lottery then! And I don't think anything would be diminished. You ever done any karting/racing? Getting a good result from a low grid slot is often more satisfying than qualifying up front and just keeping it clean for the duration of the race.

DOLOMITE wrote:Posted a reply to this earlier but no sign of it.

Only thing I wanted to offer up is regarding reversed grids. They divide opinion so strongly but really only because of what we have been used to for so long. Thing to remember is that qualifying as we know it exists only as a solution to a problem - that being that you can't start the cars line abreast. Pre-war they just drew lots. Presumably the concept of qualifying and fastest driver starts in front was deemed a more elegant and fair solution. And maybe it is. But a form of reversed grid should really just be considered an a different solution to the same problem. I don't often disagree with the Wolff man but I don'ts see them as a gimmick.

Some say it would unfair as it penalises a driver for success. Well, kind of, but a couple of things to consider (assuming it's based on reversed WDC standings:

1) Every driver is "penalised" equally. I.e if you're leading the WDC, the driver who is 2nd will only be 1 car in front and so on - it's not like the leading driver would be at the back and their opposition at the front.

2) If a driver is leading the WDC (and therefore starting last) the system can't be penalising them THAT much - as clearly they are still accumulating more points than anyone else.

3) the system is "self leveling". So lets say a relative tail ender starts up front, gets a clear run and manages a haul of points. That will put them up the WDC standing and consequently DOWN the grid for the next race.


It's hard to argue that a driver who wins the title under this system wouldn't be worthy. It would emphasise the ability of drivers to RACE as opposed to just drive fast. For example, I don't think Rosberg would have taken his title ahead of Hamilton under this system. And having seen some of Vettels "come back" drives it would have been interesting to see if Leclerc could still have matched him racing like this.

I'm not saying the system is without it's flaws I see them and acknowledge them, but I do think it's short sighted to dismiss the idea outright.

First lap carnage? I don't see it . It's a 2 hour race, and the smart drivers race accordingly. Currently the backmarkers drive with more desperation as the opening laps are often their best chance to gain places. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain - the opposite would be true if they were running a reversed grid.

What to do with Saturday for the fans? Easy: sprint race for the reserve drivers. Small grid the only issue there.

Last word (and year) on the matter from me. Suzuka 2005.

I agree with this, I don't see any fundamental reason why the cars have to start in descending speed order other than clinging dogmatically to "how it's always been". I think it's much less gimmicky than numerous other initiatives that have already been introduced with the aim of improving the racing. Think DRS, artificially fragile tyres, the top 10 starting the race on qualifying tyres, being forced to run certain tyre compounds in the race etc.

Doesn't F1 have by far the biggest motorsport audience in the world yet there will always be others that think it needs fixing into something that would be nothing like the F1 we support, there are other sports to follow if people are so unhappy.

DOLOMITE wrote:Posted a reply to this earlier but no sign of it.

Only thing I wanted to offer up is regarding reversed grids. They divide opinion so strongly but really only because of what we have been used to for so long. Thing to remember is that qualifying as we know it exists only as a solution to a problem - that being that you can't start the cars line abreast. Pre-war they just drew lots. Presumably the concept of qualifying and fastest driver starts in front was deemed a more elegant and fair solution. And maybe it is. But a form of reversed grid should really just be considered an a different solution to the same problem. I don't often disagree with the Wolff man but I don'ts see them as a gimmick.

Some say it would unfair as it penalises a driver for success. Well, kind of, but a couple of things to consider (assuming it's based on reversed WDC standings:

1) Every driver is "penalised" equally. I.e if you're leading the WDC, the driver who is 2nd will only be 1 car in front and so on - it's not like the leading driver would be at the back and their opposition at the front.

2) If a driver is leading the WDC (and therefore starting last) the system can't be penalising them THAT much - as clearly they are still accumulating more points than anyone else.

3) the system is "self leveling". So lets say a relative tail ender starts up front, gets a clear run and manages a haul of points. That will put them up the WDC standing and consequently DOWN the grid for the next race.


It's hard to argue that a driver who wins the title under this system wouldn't be worthy. It would emphasise the ability of drivers to RACE as opposed to just drive fast. For example, I don't think Rosberg would have taken his title ahead of Hamilton under this system. And having seen some of Vettels "come back" drives it would have been interesting to see if Leclerc could still have matched him racing like this.

I'm not saying the system is without it's flaws I see them and acknowledge them, but I do think it's short sighted to dismiss the idea outright.

First lap carnage? I don't see it . It's a 2 hour race, and the smart drivers race accordingly. Currently the backmarkers drive with more desperation as the opening laps are often their best chance to gain places. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain - the opposite would be true if they were running a reversed grid.

What to do with Saturday for the fans? Easy: sprint race for the reserve drivers. Small grid the only issue there.

Last word (and year) on the matter from me. Suzuka 2005.

I don't think that's the case that it's a 2 hour race. The reverse grid race proposal is to replace qualifying and I think would last half an hour or so, purely to set the grid for the usual Sunday race.

pokerman wrote:Doesn't F1 have by far the biggest motorsport audience in the world yet there will always be others that think it needs fixing into something that would be nothing like the F1 we support, there are other sports to follow if people are so unhappy.

Agree to a point - but you always need to keep checking things. We wouldn't have the Qualifying we have now (which I consider to be the best version of Qualifying) if the authorities weren't willing to change things.

Herb wrote:

pokerman wrote:Doesn't F1 have by far the biggest motorsport audience in the world yet there will always be others that think it needs fixing into something that would be nothing like the F1 we support, there are other sports to follow if people are so unhappy.

Agree to a point - but you always need to keep checking things. We wouldn't have the Qualifying we have now (which I consider to be the best version of Qualifying) if the authorities weren't willing to change things.

It's still single lap quaifying though, people like the present format so why the need to change, all the past qualifying systems that failed was because there was an inbedded lottery to try and mix up the grid and the qualifying itself was farcical.

Looks like it's not going away anytime soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAO5stJ ... ploademail

People in general I would say love watching qualifying but they are prepared to ignore what people want because it's more important to manufacture mutliple winners, a different winner every race similar to FE. Then it becomes merely entertainment and not a sport like many other sports I watch, F1 always takes priority for me but not that version of F1.

We know fans don't want it because there was a vote in 2019 and it wasn't even close, also looking at the comments below the video about 90% are against it, good luck wih going against popular opinion.

I don't have an in-principle objection to reverse grids, but I don't think they belong in Formula 1.

To me, a Grand Prix should be a single, highly significant motor race -- one per country, and certainly no more than one per weekend. I think we already have too many Grands Prix. With two races held each week, neither one can be considered a Grand Prix.

Another issue with reverse grids is overtaking. A reverse grid is designed to reward overtaking by forcing the fastest drivers to come through the field. However, in an F1 car that's often simply not possible, so what it would actually do is muddy the points table by giving free points to people who would never have started ahead organically.

Personally, I feel that F1 should try to return to its roots, not chase quick excitement. We need technical regulations that impress and awe spectators, with room for genuine innovation, not simply chasing ever-tinier loopholes with massive computing power. Cars need to be difficult to drive at the limit promoting mistakes, and tyres need to support the driver and allow them to push and attempt moves.

Hi everyone. Sorry in advance for the long read. I have a post following this one that talks about in more detail how I would set up the race weekend.

To me, qualifying in its current format is fine. Pole positions with a qualifying session just seem an intrinsic part of modern F1, although FIA and more so Liberty seem to be looking at ways of ‘improving the show’ to engage new audiences and/or make casual followers into hardcore followers.
As most of us in this forum would know due to watching F1, the racing is heavily influenced by the aerodynamics of the current cars, which as has been documented widely throughout the last few years, make overtaking and following somewhat difficult (hence why there is DRS). It is unknown (albeit likely from the preliminary computer simulations the FIA have done?) whether the new cars from 2022 will improve the overtaking situation, although I guess that’s one of the key sporting aims.

Considering the cost-cutting that F1 are enacting by creating a budget cap, it makes sense to further limit track-time over the duration of a race weekend, and this could indirectly improve the ‘show’ by a little bit by limiting the track time that the teams have to find the optimum setup for the weekend. I still think that teams will be able to nail down the best setup for the track via computer simulations, prior data etc., but by cutting the practice sessions from three to two/one, this is a way to limit track-time and hopefully add a bit more of the unknown into the contemporary F1 mix, which has been a little lacking.

I would most likely get rid of both Friday Practice Sessions and just keep the Saturday Practice session. If track promoters want an F1 session on the Friday to help bring in crowds on then keep one of them (although perhaps condensing running to just two days would work better for F1, it probably makes things much more difficult for support categories etc.).

I would replace the lost practice session(s) with a Reverse Grid Race of a timed duration of say either 30 or 45 minutes plus one lap once this time has elapsed, that can follow Qualifying as it currently is with Q1, Q2, Q3 (I would also ditch the rule that the top 10 need to start on their Q2 tyres). I think the ‘timed’ aspect of the Reverse Race is a better alternative than a lap count as it better fits a qualifying theme, and I think it would add to the drama as well by having a timed countdown to the end of the Reverse Race. It is also differentiated from the more traditional lap count of the main Sunday race that is F1’s staple.

I would have the pits open for this Reverse Race, but it wont be mandatory to make a pitstop. This could add a strategy element; if it is a 45-minute race, do you risk losing time in the one pitstop you would ideally make (but gain fresh air and tyres for the late part of the race), or make the tyres last to the end?

I think if the driver and car combination is good enough, they’ll find their way to the top 6 by the mid-point of the normal Sunday race at most tracks anyway, especially if Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull maintain their advantage over the rest of the field.

Basically my idea for F1’s race weekend format in a nutshell is to replace 2 of the practice sessions where cars circulate purely to find setup or test new components, with a reverse race that contributes to 50% of the Qualifying result, thereby also lowering track time and utilising the time that the cars are on track more meaningfully (i.e. more entertaining). In my next post, I have written how I would setup the Reverse Race and Qualifying Session as a whole.

Continuing on from my post directly above this one, essentially both the Qualifying as is and the 45 minutes + 1 lap Reverse Grid Race have a Qualifying points system, where each driver is given a number of points dependent on where they finish for both the Qualifying and Reverse Race respectively.

The way I would do it is have Qualifying as it currently is prior to the Reverse Race, which would follow within an hour of the Qualifying session (Parc Ferme applies after the Qualifying Session, prior to the Reverse Race). This means that if an accident occurs in the Reverse Race, it wont hinder drivers in the Qualifying session, and if there is bad weather, the more fairer qualifying session can be used to determine the grid. Penalties for engine components or gearbox or sporting penalties for poor driving etc. can applied to the final grid after the Qualifying Session and Reverse Race are done.

Basically, as there is 20 drivers, first place for the Quali Session and the Reverse Race both individually get 20 ‘Quali’ points for each. Second for each gets 19 points, third gets 18 points etc. down in 1 point intervals to 20th, who gets 1 point. Then, you add up the ‘Quali’ points, with the drivers in order from highest points to lowest points for the normal race as it is on a Sunday. If two or more drivers achieve the same number of points, then the Qualifying Session points take precedence and the driver with best position in the Qualifying Session starts higher.

An example: Hamilton at the 2019 Belgian GP (a track with decent overtaking opportunities), qualified 3rd, so therefore would be awarded 18 ‘Quali’ points. As he was 1st in the Championship coming into the race, he starts the Reverse Race 20th (last). I’ll conservatively predict that Hamilton will finish the Reverse Race 7th, so would be awarded 14 points (I think he could easily finish higher in a half-distance Reverse Race, but I’ll go low for the example). Therefore Hamilton has 34 ‘Quali’ points.

Now, I’ll use Perez as the midfield benchmark. At 2019 Belgian GP he qualified 9th (12 ‘Quali’ points). He went into the race 13th in the Championship, so would start the Reverse Race 8th. I’m going to predict that he finishes the Reverse Race 2nd (19 ‘Quali’ points) (although I think there is a fair chance he would finish lower). Therefore Perez would have 31 Quali points, still less than Hamilton’s total, remembering that any tie in Quali points is dealt with by assigning the higher qualifying session position as the tie-breaker.

Lastly, I’ll use Russell as the backmarker benchmark. He qualified 19th (2 ‘Quali’ points), and was 20th in the championship going into the race, so starts in 1st for the Reverse Race. Considering the lack of pace in the Williams, I think he would finish the Reverse Race 15th (6 ‘Quali’ points, although to be fair I can see this being lower as well). Therefore Russell finishes with 8 ‘Quali’ points, which I think would put him in the bottom five of the race grid, although possibly above the bottom 2 he would usually be in with some luck.

Therefore, it seems to me that it is possible that this system may not change much in qualifying, although this is based on my own single prediction. Who knows if some drivers take it easy and play it safe or go hard and risk damage in the Reverse Race, which could change the race grid outcome.

Perhaps to give the Reverse Race a little more legitimacy/incentive, actual Championship points can be awarded to the first five finishers (e.g. 5 points for 1st, 4 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, 2 for 4th, 1 for 5th), but I’d probably avoid that, so that as a part of Qualifying, the Reverse Race stays purely as a means to organise the grid for the race, not to give out Championship points.

The first race of the year would be based on the previous year’s championship, with new teams automatically starting at the front of the very first Reverse Race. Driver’s replacing another driver take the previous year’s championship position of the replaced driver.

I think what I have proposed isn’t perfect and I’m sure there are problems that I haven’t foreseen, but I think it is a way to ‘improve the show’, and lessen track time whilst not completely lose the meritocratic basis of F1. I’ll admit that its less likely that the starting grid will have the fastest cars at the front with it being likely that the upper midfield would start higher than they do now. Perhaps at tracks like Monaco (where overtaking is very difficult) there probably should only be a Qualifying Session without a Reverse Race to maintain the integrity of the normal race and Championship.

Exediron wrote:I don't have an in-principle objection to reverse grids, but I don't think they belong in Formula 1.

To me, a Grand Prix should be a single, highly significant motor race -- one per country, and certainly no more than one per weekend. I think we already have too many Grands Prix. With two races held each week, neither one can be considered a Grand Prix.

Another issue with reverse grids is overtaking. A reverse grid is designed to reward overtaking by forcing the fastest drivers to come through the field. However, in an F1 car that's often simply not possible, so what it would actually do is muddy the points table by giving free points to people who would never have started ahead organically.

Personally, I feel that F1 should try to return to its roots, not chase quick excitement. We need technical regulations that impress and awe spectators, with room for genuine innovation, not simply chasing ever-tinier loopholes with massive computing power. Cars need to be difficult to drive at the limit promoting mistakes, and tyres need to support the driver and allow them to push and attempt moves.

Could you imagine reverse grids at Monaco?

If you have to have reverse grids...

Friday as usual.

Sat morning, 30 minutes free practise. 1 hour after that goes into a 35% distance sprint race. Reverse championship order for the first sprint race of the season. Then the next sprint race (at the next event will be the reverse of how the last sprint race finished).

So for the first sprint race you’ve got two Williams at the front.. but whoever finishes last in that sprint race is on pole for the next one.

Points for sprint race are the old system. 10-8-6–5-4-3-2-1. A point for the driver that makes up the most places.

3 hours after the sprint race finishes, normal qualifying begins, but you just have q1 and q2. Cuts down the viewing time and tyre use etc.

Alternative idea- the sprint race is on Friday and for 3rd/4th drivers only. Maybe a field of 10 or 20.

The day Formula 1 holds a reverse grid race is the same day Formula 1 is finished.

It's an unpopular gimmick even in grassroots motorsport. It should not be happening at the top level.

I didn't think the existing format was broken. F1 just needs to be more competitive. Then that automatically makes qualifying and the race more exciting and unpredictable.

oz_karter wrote:The day Formula 1 holds a reverse grid race is the same day Formula 1 is finished.

It's an unpopular gimmick even in grassroots motorsport. It should not be happening at the top level.

I didn't think the existing format was broken. F1 just needs to be more competitive. Then that automatically makes qualifying and the race more exciting and unpredictable.

Me too, I think that perhaps the powers that be think diehard F1 fans will always be diehard F1 fans come what may, if you make massive fundamental changes to the way that races are run then it stops becoming F1 for me.

In this instance no more qualifying laps and the faster cars being handicapped in order to produce multiiple winners, sport at the highest level should be a meterocracy.

Reverse grids don’t need to completely replace qualifying, and I really hope that they don’t because as many have said on here qualifying can often be the highlight of the weekend and just as entertaining as the race. Reverse grids could compliment qualifying and the current format though, if introduced at select races.

I’m on the fence. I like the current format but it can perhaps place to much emphasis on one lap pace – perhaps a little too often, a driver in the right car, who can put in a decent single lap, can drive away at the lights and remain more or less unchallenged through the race. Do that consistently, with a reliable car over the season and that could be a fair formula to take the title.

But, if they were to introduce reverse grids only at select races and circuits (not Monaco for starters) then those weekends would place more emphasis on a drivers race craft and overtaking. If they do consider reverse grids, I really hope that it’s not a standard format that is applied to every weekend. They should look to find the right balance.

By having a handful of races with reverse grids over the season, this also forces the teams to balance car development a little more evenly between pure pace in clean air, and when following other cars – which should even improve the quality of the races that keep to the current format and don’t involve a reverse grid.

The old format is still the best to me. Free practice in the morning, an hour or hour-and-a-half in the afternoon for qualifying. Both on Friday and Saturday. And a warm-up on Sunday morning.

One question though: does F1 still have a particular number of cars they have to guarantee at the start of the race? If so, how many cars do they have to have? Which may mean qualifying could be superfluous.

A thought I've already expressed some time ago; with declining race etiquette among drivers these days, having the fastest cars at the front is as much a safety feature as it is an unnecessary advantage. First corner accidents show just how many errors these top drivers still make.

Imola has been confirmed as a two day event with just a single 90 minute practice session on Saturday morning: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... XR3ts.html

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are on reducing practice time? It seems that compromised practice time over recent seasons has led to some good racing and strategy variation, USA 2018 for example.

So what we want from F1 is to be given less?

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:52 am

So what we want from F1 is to be given less?

I haven’t said that - I’m just opening a discussion.

I usually enjoy watching/following practice but can see the argument for reducing it, especially in the era of budget caps.

For what it’s worth, this doesn’t seem to be F1 trying something different. It’s apparently to do with noise laws In Italy.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, given they have no recent data for the circuit too as it's not been used for years in F1

JN23 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:58 am

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:52 am

So what we want from F1 is to be given less?

I haven’t said that - I’m just opening a discussion.

I usually enjoy watching/following practice but can see the argument for reducing it, especially in the era of budget caps.

For what it’s worth, this doesn’t seem to be F1 trying something different. It’s apparently to do with noise laws In Italy.

You did liken it to producing better races so that's a bit like a vote in favour.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:13 pm

JN23 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:58 am

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:52 am

So what we want from F1 is to be given less?

I haven’t said that - I’m just opening a discussion.

I usually enjoy watching/following practice but can see the argument for reducing it, especially in the era of budget caps.

For what it’s worth, this doesn’t seem to be F1 trying something different. It’s apparently to do with noise laws In Italy.

You did liken it to producing better races so that's a bit like a vote in favour.

I did and that’s because it seems to be true from what I see, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m in favour of reducing practice. I’m sure someone can tell me where we’ve had compromised practice and a dull race.

SteveW wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:07 pm

It'll be interesting to see what happens, given they have no recent data for the circuit too as it's not been used for years in F1

Alpha Tauri 1-2 after their day there recently?

JN23 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:40 pm

SteveW wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:07 pm

It'll be interesting to see what happens, given they have no recent data for the circuit too as it's not been used for years in F1

Alpha Tauri 1-2 after their day there recently?

I missed that they'd been there

Stranger things have happened this year, that's for sure! (not particularly in F1, but nothing would really surprise me in 2020 any more )

I don't like it.

Mainly because I'm now working form home, and I can have the practice on in the background.

I don't think I'll ever be pleased at getting less F1.

I like the idea moving forward if the plan is to pack triple-headers and race perhaps 25 races in a season in the future. Then, overall, we'd get more racing despite having some shortened weekends to lighten the load, and introduce some variety and extra variables regarding performance and strategies at some races.

Invade wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:16 pm

I like the idea moving forward if the plan is to pack triple-headers and race perhaps 25 races in a season in the future. Then, overall, we'd get more racing despite having some shortened weekends to lighten the load, and introduce some variety and extra variables regarding performance and strategies at some races.

My tendency is to agree with earlier posters who are against losing F1 track time throughout the season, but your post makes a compelling argument as they continue to condense the calendar and add races. Plus as technology and engineering continually improves, along with the data available to the drivers it means that the level of consistency that the teams reach does start to make it all feel a little predictable. Perhaps with all the improvements it wouldn’t be the worse thing to dial back the practice time available.

I’ve often wondered if it would be worth considering limiting the amount of data that the teams can collect on track or pass onto the drivers, in an effort to shift the balance even slightly back towards the drivers contribution over that of the car/team. Would cut down on some of the costs and I feel that the viewer would gain rather than lose out? May also help stem the gaps between the teams a little.

I quite like the idea. 90 minutes is ample time for everyone to have a few practice runs to fine-tune setup, do a quali sim and then a longer run to test a race stint. The junior categories get 1 practice session on a race weekend so why not F1? The current format of three sessions does seem excessive when you see how much of it they spend sat in the garage.

I actually think it might work better for fans at the track as well (although I'm assuming there won't be any in this case). Having been to a few GPs myself, Friday can be a bit of drag, particularly by the afternoon, with lots of cars going round but not a lot of actual competition going on. Sure it's great to watch the cars in action, but a whole day of watching them go round the track without any real competitive purpose is a bit much for me.

Invade wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:16 pm

I like the idea moving forward if the plan is to pack triple-headers and race perhaps 25 races in a season in the future. Then, overall, we'd get more racing despite having some shortened weekends to lighten the load, and introduce some variety and extra variables regarding performance and strategies at some races.

Someone pointed here before that one of the main drawbacks of having so many races was that it would massively decrease the likelihood of having a season finale decider. Furthermore, I think the more GPs there are, the less appreciative of them we will be, ultimately lowering our satisfaction of every race weekend. Law of diminishing marginal utility and all that.

I think we could do away with Friday practices but only if we could replace them with something else on Friday for the paying punter.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:26 pm

I think we could do away with Friday practices but only if we could replace them with something else on Friday for the paying punter.

This probably works both ways as well, I’m sure the circuits would like something on Friday that they can make money off.