planetf1.com

Early I know but F2 have just announced changes for next season. Not seen how the three races per weekend will work (because they haven’t said)

Statement: https://www.fiaformula2.com/Latest/fpa0 ... s-for-2021

Will need to see the format to judge but interesting changes.

My initial reaction was that they shouldn't be changing anything with F2, it's brilliant as it is.

However I can see some benefits here. A number of people have commented on the cost of competing and how it's robbed some genuinely talented drivers of an opportunity in favour of some mediocre billionaires' offspring, so any initiatives that address this problem should be welcomed.

I'm assuming they'll then put the F3 races on the non-F2 weekends. This could help improve F3's viewership, personally I haven't watched it at all as I find watching F3, F2 and F1 (and football!) across the same weekend rather excessive.

j man wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:49 pm

My initial reaction was that they shouldn't be changing anything with F2, it's brilliant as it is.

However I can see some benefits here. A number of people have commented on the cost of competing and how it's robbed some genuinely talented drivers of an opportunity in favour of some mediocre billionaires' offspring, so any initiatives that address this problem should be welcomed.

I'm assuming they'll then put the F3 races on the non-F2 weekends. This could help improve F3's viewership, personally I haven't watched it at all as I find watching F3, F2 and F1 (and football!) across the same weekend rather excessive.

Yeah F2/F3 won’t run the same weekends. Quite happy with that myself as like you I can’t watch everything so F3 misses out at the moment.

F2/F3 need 15 weekends next season. 11 European (including Baku and Sochi) and Bahrain/Abu Dhabi gives 13. Wonder where the other two will be?

I understand and support the desire to reduce costs. However, since the teams in F2 and F3 are mostly the same, doesn't the splitting of F2/3 to different weekends mean that they have to go to more race weekends in the end? Thus, increasing logistics costs?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:29 am

I understand and support the desire to reduce costs. However, since the teams in F2 and F3 are mostly the same, doesn't the splitting of F2/3 to different weekends mean that they have to go to more race weekends in the end? Thus, increasing logistics costs?

I can see the logic and think it should reduce costs overall. Less equipment to transport to each race and teams who enter both can run with fewer staff. I can’t imagine they’d have come up with this without some liaising with the teams, so I’d assume there’s a fair amount of sense to it.

Ilott is seriously quick, no?

Tsunoda messed up big time, will start from near the back, and has put a real spanner into the works of him securing a top-5 finish, which seems to be what Red Bull demand to see from him. (edit: top 5 gets him the required Super License points outright.)

He spun out on his flying lap and couldn't get the car started again.

Mick Schumacher starts 10th.

Everyone ready for a confusing format?

https://www.racefans.net/2020/12/01/for ... announced/

Practice and qualy for both unchanged and on a Friday.

F3:
Saturday - Race 1 (Grid set by qualifying top 12 reversed)
Saturday - Race 2 (Grid set by Race 1 top 12 reversed)
Sunday - Race 3 (Grid set by qualifying results)

F2 is the same but top 10 reversed for the two Saturday races.

JN23 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:46 pm

Everyone ready for a confusing format?

https://www.racefans.net/2020/12/01/for ... announced/

Practice and qualy for both unchanged and on a Friday.

F3:
Saturday - Race 1 (Grid set by qualifying top 12 reversed)
Saturday - Race 2 (Grid set by Race 1 top 12 reversed)
Sunday - Race 3 (Grid set by qualifying results)

F2 is the same but top 10 reversed for the two Saturday races.

Seems odd at first glance, but I get the logic. They've basically added a second sprint race and moved the feature race to Sunday, which is a more sensible order I think. You want the main event at the end.

I'm more bothered by the F2 calendar. They get Silverstone, Monza and a load of concrete garbage while F3 gets most of the best venues. I'm not keen on the idea of 3 of the 24 F2 races being around Monaco.

Two reversed grid races? That's very helpful for identifying the best talent ...
Or is this not the goal anymore? The new system is the much better helping hand for mediocre sons of richdom and famous names ...

Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:14 pm

Two reversed grid races? That's very helpful for identifying the best talent ...
Or is this not the goal anymore? The new system is the much better helping hand for mediocre sons of richdom and famous names ...

Surely there are two possibilities here. Either starting on pole is a massive advantage, in which case the true fastest qualifier still gets an overall advantage as the starting order for the 2nd sprint race is effectively a reverse of the reverse grid, putting them back in the right order. Or, the fastest drivers make their way to the front anyway in which case reverse grid pole is not that much of an advantage.

I don't really see a problem with reverse grids in F2. Sure you get the occasional surprise winner but for the most part the best drivers end up at the top of the standings. Note that of this year's F2 field who are rumoured to be graduating to F1, the likes of Mazepin and Schumacher certainly fit the description of sons of richdom or famous names but both have won two feature races this year and zero reverse grid sprint races.

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:48 pm

Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:14 pm

Two reversed grid races? That's very helpful for identifying the best talent ...
Or is this not the goal anymore? The new system is the much better helping hand for mediocre sons of richdom and famous names ...

Surely there are two possibilities here. Either starting on pole is a massive advantage, in which case the true fastest qualifier still gets an overall advantage as the starting order for the 2nd sprint race is effectively a reverse of the reverse grid, putting them back in the right order. Or, the fastest drivers make their way to the front anyway in which case reverse grid pole is not that much of an advantage.

I don't really see a problem with reverse grids in F2. Sure you get the occasional surprise winner but for the most part the best drivers end up at the top of the standings. Note that of this year's F2 field who are rumoured to be graduating to F1, the likes of Mazepin and Schumacher certainly fit the description of sons of richdom or famous names but both have won two feature races this year and zero reverse grid sprint races.

So, if you're on pole, you'll start 12th in race one. If you're good, you'll end up 3rd- 5th. So, you start 8th- 10th for race two ...
Mostly, two races per weekend will be won by lesser talent, giving " reasons" to promote them if their father's are rich or a famous ex-driver or have the right nationality, etc.
I prefer each race with a new qualifying and without reverse grids.

Mick Schumacher clearly has enough talent to be good F1 midfielder. Mazepin is more the Latifi class. He benfited more from strategy luck ( or from a good race engineer) with the tyres than from reverse grids, that's true.

F3 champ Piastri continues with PREMA to F2.

I think the reverse grids are important for ensuring that the eventual champion has to show a wider range of skills including racing through the midfield. Proving you can qualify on pole and lead from the front does little to prepare these drivers for their likely next step of racing at the tail end or midfield in F1.

Winning sprint races has done little to draw the F1 teams' attention to Felipe Drugovich, even though having his surname plastered on the side of the car indicates some considerable family wealth. Not to mention that Brazil is crying out for their next F1 driver.

I agree about Schumacher. I don't think any of this year's F2 field have shown themselves to be exceptional, but he'll do a decent job in F1. Mazepin though I think is better than many are giving him credit for and I'd put him a level above Latifi. He got up to speed in F2 much more quickly and had a more impressive record prior to that as well. He has been one of the most consistent points scorers this year and I don't think it can all be put down to lucky strategy. He's no superstar, but I don't think he'll be out of his depth in F1.

I think it's a great move to hold them on a separate weekend to f1. I'm looking forward to following the whole championship, something I have struggled to do because of too much TV time along with the f1

INteresting format and I can see the merits in showcasing those drivers who can demonstrate their ability to move through the field.
I do worry that qualifying quickest at Monaco could potentially ruin your weekend though.

I'll reserve judgement on it until we've seen it in action, but just looking at the format, I do wonder if it is an improvement on what we already have.

At the moment, qualifying in the top three means a driver is at an advantage in the first race, have a good shot at a strong result there, and then have to take their chances starting in the 'carbon fibre zone' for the sprint race because of the reverse grid. A podium or even a win in the feature race and then solid points in the sprint race is a realistic result if they have no bad luck. And the worse they qualify, the more chance they have of getting taken out on the first lap, starting near the back in the sprint race, and facing a weekend where even scoring points is a challenge. It places the emphasis on qualifying at the front and makes it a very important session.

Next year onwards, qualifying in the top three means they're starting 8th, 9th or 10th in the first sprint race. They're still in the 'carbon fibre zone' for the (first) sprint race, so that doesn't change anything compared to the current format. But! If they get taken out on the first lap, unless they can recover into the top 10, they're then starting near the back for the second sprint race. Instead of losing up to 17 points courtesy of bad luck in the sprint race, that's increased to a potential 34 points. Nothing really changes with regards to the feature race, although perhaps there is an argument there that if they've had a horrendous Saturday, they may then try to overdrive in the feature race to make up for it.

Given we've only seen seven occasions where a driver has won both the races at a single weekend (Rosberg, Hamilton, Piquet Jr., Pantano, Hulk, Valsecchi and Giovinazzi, in case you're wondering ) statistically it's not too likely that a driver would win the first sprint race and then win the second as well. However, winning sprint race 1 and then going forwards in sprint race 2 isn't unrealistic at all, and we've seen plenty more occasions where a driver has won the feature race and been on the podium in the sprint race.

To me, it seems like this benefits drivers who aren't as quick over one lap, and could also mean that good/bad luck in the sprint races has a bigger role in deciding not just the title fight, but the positions below it as well, which has a direct influence on who gets what superlicense points.

That's a good point - if you get taken out of the first race your whole weekend is possibly ruined. I'm projecting that this format will favour the driver who is both cautious and good at tyre management.

Jenson's Understeer wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:25 am

...

Given we've only seen seven occasions where a driver has won both the races at a single weekend (Rosberg, Hamilton, Piquet Jr., Pantano, Hulk, Valsecchi and Giovinazzi, in case you're wondering ) statistically it's not too likely that a driver would win the first sprint race and then win the second as well. However, winning sprint race 1 and then going forwards in sprint race 2 isn't unrealistic at all, and we've seen plenty more occasions where a driver has won the feature race and been on the podium in the sprint race.

...

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:29 pm

That's a good point - if you get taken out of the first race your whole weekend is possibly ruined. I'm projecting that this format will favour the driver who is both cautious and good at tyre management.

Interesting line up of the drivers that have managed it all except Valsechhi went on to F1 and 2 become Champs.

So maybe winning both races is only done by the best drivers......

Kind of lending weight to the idea that reversed grids can actually reward top drivers not penalise them?....

JN23 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:46 pm

Everyone ready for a confusing format?

https://www.racefans.net/2020/12/01/for ... announced/

Practice and qualy for both unchanged and on a Friday.

F3:
Saturday - Race 1 (Grid set by qualifying top 12 reversed)
Saturday - Race 2 (Grid set by Race 1 top 12 reversed)
Sunday - Race 3 (Grid set by qualifying results)

F2 is the same but top 10 reversed for the two Saturday races.

Reward mediocre talent to find the best talent, I don't understand that, I guess they will say it's to develop race craft but the reality can be it gives you more chance to be crashed out by a numpty.

Have I got this right?

F3
Friday
Practice
Qualifying

Saturday
Sprint Race 1 (Grid from Friday Qualifying, Top 12 Reversed)
Sprint Race 2 (Grid from Sprint Race 1 results, Top 12 Reversed)


Sunday
Feature Race (Grid from Friday Qualifying)

F2
Friday
Practice
Qualifying

Saturday
Sprint Race 1 (Grid from Friday Qualifying, Top 10 Reversed)
Sprint Race 2 (Grid from Sprint Race 1 results, Top 10 Reversed)

Sunday
Feature Race (Grid from Friday Qualifying)



This is ridiculous. Having a single session directly affect 2 races, but in different ways?

If you're approaching qualifying you shouldn't be doing it thinking a good lap means good things for Sunday bad bad things for Saturday!

I'm in favour of reversed grids under the right conditions, but this is just daft. As the saying goes, I give it a year....

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:42 pm

Have I got this right?

F3
Friday
Practice
Qualifying

Saturday
Sprint Race 1 (Grid from Friday Qualifying, Top 12 Reversed)
Sprint Race 2 (Grid from Sprint Race 1 results, Top 12 Reversed)


Sunday
Feature Race (Grid from Friday Qualifying)

F2
Friday
Practice
Qualifying

Saturday
Sprint Race 1 (Grid from Friday Qualifying, Top 10 Reversed)
Sprint Race 2 (Grid from Sprint Race 1 results, Top 10 Reversed)

Sunday
Feature Race (Grid from Friday Qualifying)



This is ridiculous. Having a single session directly affect 2 races, but in different ways?

If you're approaching qualifying you shouldn't be doing it thinking a good lap means good things for Sunday bad bad things for Saturday!

I'm in favour of reversed grids under the right conditions, but this is just daft. As the saying goes, I give it a year....

It's absolute ridiculous, for me the points for reverse grid races should be 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, that's the most reward you should be given for gifted results and wins.

Also any overall construct of who may have been the best driver by virtue of winning the most races can't be made with gifted wins left, right and centre, I can see myself not watching the Saturday races or maybe even giving the series a miss If I consider it to be a nonsense.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:51 pm

Jenson's Understeer wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:25 am

...

Given we've only seen seven occasions where a driver has won both the races at a single weekend (Rosberg, Hamilton, Piquet Jr., Pantano, Hulk, Valsecchi and Giovinazzi, in case you're wondering ) statistically it's not too likely that a driver would win the first sprint race and then win the second as well. However, winning sprint race 1 and then going forwards in sprint race 2 isn't unrealistic at all, and we've seen plenty more occasions where a driver has won the feature race and been on the podium in the sprint race.

...

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:29 pm

That's a good point - if you get taken out of the first race your whole weekend is possibly ruined. I'm projecting that this format will favour the driver who is both cautious and good at tyre management.

Interesting line up of the drivers that have managed it all except Valsechhi went on to F1 and 2 become Champs.

So maybe winning both races is only done by the best drivers......

Kind of lending weight to the idea that reversed grids can actually reward top drivers not penalise them?....

Possibly, although I think the weekends where they each achieved that would have to be looked into. While I'm sure some of them were simply the driver being in a class of his own, I'm pretty sure Giovinazzi's was at the crazy Baku weekend where there were a bunch of safety cars, including the memorable restart where Matsushita did stupid things and caused a load of chaos for the following pack. Not to say Giovinazzi wasn't the fastest driver that weekend (I honestly can't recall if that was the case or not) but there are bound to be instances where circumstance and fortune allowed a driver to do the double.

I think that's going a bit overboard with the partially reversed grid, and with a few too many points awarded for each of those races, but we'll see.

There was a time when the sprint race used 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. That would be more appropriate with 2 sprint races.

Personally I'd demand all drivers put in at least 3 qualifying times. 3rd best dictates the first race grid, 2nd the second and the fastest laps for the feature race. That way the points would be less of an issue.

So currently the F2 scoring is

Qualy
Pole: 4 points

Sprint Race
1: 15
2: 12
3: 10
4: 8
5: 6
6: 4
7: 2
8: 1
F Lap: 2 Points (Top 10 only)

Feature
1: 25
2: 18
3: 15
4: 12
5: 10
6: 8
7: 6
8: 4
9: 2
10: 1
F Lap: 2 Points (Top 10 only)


So with the new format, presumably the 4 pts for Pole is only counted once even tough it determines the grid for 2 x races?

So max points haul for a race weekend is 4+(15+2)+(15+2)+(25+2) = 65?

Lunacy.

Out of curiosity, I looked at what points a driver scores if they qualified in the top 10 and then moved forward three places (or up to, if they are starting 1st/2nd/3rd) in each race...

Qualifies on pole
Sprint race 1: 7th
Sprint race 2: 1st
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 46 (including 4 for pole)

Qualifies 2nd
Sprint race 1: 6th
Sprint race 2: 2nd
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 41

Qualifies 3rd
Sprint race 1: 5th
Sprint race 2: 3rd
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 41

Qualifies 4th
Sprint race 1: 4th
Sprint race 2: 4th
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 41

Qualifies 5th
Sprint race 1: 3rd
Sprint race 2: 5th
Feature race: 2nd
Total points: 34

Qualifies 6th
Sprint race 1: 2nd
Sprint race 2: 6th
Feature race: 3rd
Total points: 31

Qualifies 7th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 7th
Feature race: 4th
Total points: 29

Qualifies 8th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 8th
Feature race: 5th
Total points: 26

Qualifies 9th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 8th
Feature race: 6th
Total points: 24

Qualifies 10th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 8th
Feature race: 7th
Total points: 22

Granted, this is just one example, so it's far from an in-depth analysis. But this one example does suggest that a driver who qualifies closer to the front stands to benefit over a driver who is further back in the top 10, although it does seem like the reverse grids mean there is no real difference in being 2nd, 3rd or 4th if you can move a couple of places forwards.

Tufty wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:51 pm

There was a time when the sprint race used 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. That would be more appropriate with 2 sprint races.

Personally I'd demand all drivers put in at least 3 qualifying times. 3rd best dictates the first race grid, 2nd the second and the fastest laps for the feature race. That way the points would be less of an issue.

That's interesting, what is it with wanting to give mediocre drivers a better chance of doing well, someone cynically suggested that it tends to help better financed but weaker drivers.

Jenson's Understeer wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:25 pm

Out of curiosity, I looked at what points a driver scores if they qualified in the top 10 and then moved forward three places (or up to, if they are starting 1st/2nd/3rd) in each race...

Qualifies on pole
Sprint race 1: 7th
Sprint race 2: 1st
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 46 (including 4 for pole)

Qualifies 2nd
Sprint race 1: 6th
Sprint race 2: 2nd
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 41

Qualifies 3rd
Sprint race 1: 5th
Sprint race 2: 3rd
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 41

Qualifies 4th
Sprint race 1: 4th
Sprint race 2: 4th
Feature race: 1st
Total points: 41

Qualifies 5th
Sprint race 1: 3rd
Sprint race 2: 5th
Feature race: 2nd
Total points: 34

Qualifies 6th
Sprint race 1: 2nd
Sprint race 2: 6th
Feature race: 3rd
Total points: 31

Qualifies 7th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 7th
Feature race: 4th
Total points: 29

Qualifies 8th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 8th
Feature race: 5th
Total points: 26

Qualifies 9th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 8th
Feature race: 6th
Total points: 24

Qualifies 10th
Sprint race 1: 1st
Sprint race 2: 8th
Feature race: 7th
Total points: 22

Granted, this is just one example, so it's far from an in-depth analysis. But this one example does suggest that a driver who qualifies closer to the front stands to benefit over a driver who is further back in the top 10, although it does seem like the reverse grids mean there is no real difference in being 2nd, 3rd or 4th if you can move a couple of places forwards.

You're example shows that it compresses the grid allowing weaker drivers to do better than before.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:54 pm

You're example shows that it compresses the grid allowing weaker drivers to do better than before.

Using the same format, with a driver moving 3 positions forward from his original start position in each race, here's how they'd score in 2020...

Pole: 35 (including 4 for pole)
2nd: 31
3rd: 31
4th: 31
5th: 26
6th: 25
7th: 24
8th: 25
9th: 23
10th: 18

Weirdly, in that scenario, a driver scores more points starting the feature race from 8th than he does 7th.

At a glance (i.e. without looking into percentages of points available etc.,) it actually looks like the 2020 system seems to spread the points more evenly, particularly from 5th to 9th in that scenario. You end up with almost the same points. Whereas the 2021 system, there is a benefit from qualifying in 5th vs 9th. Again, just in that scenario. How it would work with different examples I do not know.

Either way, it still doesn't feel right and I still prefer 2020's system, despite what the above is suggesting

Jenson's Understeer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:28 am

pokerman wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:54 pm

You're example shows that it compresses the grid allowing weaker drivers to do better than before.

Using the same format, with a driver moving 3 positions forward from his original start position in each race, here's how they'd score in 2020...

Pole: 35 (including 4 for pole)
2nd: 31
3rd: 31
4th: 31
5th: 26
6th: 25
7th: 24
8th: 25
9th: 23
10th: 18

Weirdly, in that scenario, a driver scores more points starting the feature race from 8th than he does 7th.

At a glance (i.e. without looking into percentages of points available etc.,) it actually looks like the 2020 system seems to spread the points more evenly, particularly from 5th to 9th in that scenario. You end up with almost the same points. Whereas the 2021 system, there is a benefit from qualifying in 5th vs 9th. Again, just in that scenario. How it would work with different examples I do not know.

Either way, it still doesn't feel right and I still prefer 2020's system, despite what the above is suggesting

What I also don't like about the new system is that it's reversing the grid even before the pole sitter has taken advantage of his pole which he might not, if you've won a race then there's some consolidation for starting the next race in 10th, however you're basically being penalised immediately before having the benefit of a good result.

Tried explaining this to my son and he thought it was stupid. This is a kid who loves F1 and has asked to watch other series. So theres a foot with a bullet through it right there.

His actual question was "does that mean the best drivers can't win"

Anyway, imo they should just bin qualy. Sprint 1 is reversed grid of championship, Sprint 2 is finishing order of Sprint 1 and Feature is finishing order of Sprint 2. Done. That way drivers are forced to work for it, but are continually rewarded for a good finish and climb up as weekend progresses. Would also do fewer points for sprint races rather than points for fewer places.

Honestly, I just wouldn't do reverse grids at all.

If the quickest drivers are starting at the front a lot, good. Let them. The reverse grids punish only the quickest drivers and benefit those who aren't as quick, which allows lesser drivers better results and provides them with possible routes to a superlicense and into F1. Let the series below F2 provide such opportunities, but use F2 to separate the best from the rest and give the clearest indication of which young drivers deserve to be in F1.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:01 am

Tried explaining this to my son and he thought it was stupid. This is a kid who loves F1 and has asked to watch other series. So theres a foot with a bullet through it right there.

His actual question was "does that mean the best drivers can't win"

Anyway, imo they should just bin qualy. Sprint 1 is reversed grid of championship, Sprint 2 is finishing order of Sprint 1 and Feature is finishing order of Sprint 2. Done. That way drivers are forced to work for it, but are continually rewarded for a good finish and climb up as weekend progresses. Would also do fewer points for sprint races rather than points for fewer places.

That's even worse, the better drivers get penalised even more.

Jenson's Understeer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:38 am

Honestly, I just wouldn't do reverse grids at all.

If the quickest drivers are starting at the front a lot, good. Let them. The reverse grids punish only the quickest drivers and benefit those who aren't as quick, which allows lesser drivers better results and provides them with possible routes to a superlicense and into F1. Let the series below F2 provide such opportunities, but use F2 to separate the best from the rest and give the clearest indication of which young drivers deserve to be in F1.

Add to this that the partly-reversed grid system provides a double penalty for bad luck (technical problems, getting taken out), which further distorts the ranking.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:27 pm

Jenson's Understeer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:38 am

Honestly, I just wouldn't do reverse grids at all.

If the quickest drivers are starting at the front a lot, good. Let them. The reverse grids punish only the quickest drivers and benefit those who aren't as quick, which allows lesser drivers better results and provides them with possible routes to a superlicense and into F1. Let the series below F2 provide such opportunities, but use F2 to separate the best from the rest and give the clearest indication of which young drivers deserve to be in F1.

Add to this that the partly-reversed grid system provides a double penalty for bad luck (technical problems, getting taken out), which further distorts the ranking.

Exactly. And the argument that reverse grid races allow teams to see how good a young driver is at overtaking, okay, there is a small amount of truth to that. But no driver is going to be on pole for every race so they will inevitably have to do some overtaking at some point. And if there were two separate qualifying sessions for the two races then that would only increase the occasions in which every driver was faced with having to gain positions.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:05 pm

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:01 am

Tried explaining this to my son and he thought it was stupid. This is a kid who loves F1 and has asked to watch other series. So theres a foot with a bullet through it right there.

His actual question was "does that mean the best drivers can't win"

Anyway, imo they should just bin qualy. Sprint 1 is reversed grid of championship, Sprint 2 is finishing order of Sprint 1 and Feature is finishing order of Sprint 2. Done. That way drivers are forced to work for it, but are continually rewarded for a good finish and climb up as weekend progresses. Would also do fewer points for sprint races rather than points for fewer places.

That's even worse, the better drivers get penalised even more.

How so? Because of the first reversed grid? If so then yes, they do. But their immediate advesraries are penalised to the same degree. So the driver leading the championshiop starts dead-last, but the driver 2nd in the standings is right alongside them and so on. Seems to me to be the perfect way for the cream to rise to the top.

Only danger is you may end up with the top drivers being there because of consistecy rather than outright wins. Mentioned this to a friend and his suggestion was that you keep this format till say the last 3 rounds when they just line up in WDC order so you get the lead drivers on the podium "when it counts". I can see that but I don't like the idea of dicking about with the race weekend format during the season.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:53 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:05 pm

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:01 am

Tried explaining this to my son and he thought it was stupid. This is a kid who loves F1 and has asked to watch other series. So theres a foot with a bullet through it right there.

His actual question was "does that mean the best drivers can't win"

Anyway, imo they should just bin qualy. Sprint 1 is reversed grid of championship, Sprint 2 is finishing order of Sprint 1 and Feature is finishing order of Sprint 2. Done. That way drivers are forced to work for it, but are continually rewarded for a good finish and climb up as weekend progresses. Would also do fewer points for sprint races rather than points for fewer places.

That's even worse, the better drivers get penalised even more.

How so? Because of the first reversed grid? If so then yes, they do. But their immediate advesraries are penalised to the same degree. So the driver leading the championshiop starts dead-last, but the driver 2nd in the standings is right alongside them and so on. Seems to me to be the perfect way for the cream to rise to the top.

Only danger is you may end up with the top drivers being there because of consistecy rather than outright wins. Mentioned this to a friend and his suggestion was that you keep this format till say the last 3 rounds when they just line up in WDC order so you get the lead drivers on the podium "when it counts". I can see that but I don't like the idea of dicking about with the race weekend format during the season.

It's just another system that enables mediocre drivers to win races, it's also a system you would employ to keep the points differences tight and stop any driver from running away with the series thus better ensuring the title goes down to the last race.

Basically I want to see the better drivers winning races anything else just creates fake winners, we see that already in F2 and F3, the new systems just create even more fake winners, you see Ticktum winning a reverse grid race were faster drivers are handicapped and he proclaims to Helmet Marko that he was wrong to drop him from the Red Bull program, I just find it all so fake.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:32 pm

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:53 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:05 pm

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:01 am

Tried explaining this to my son and he thought it was stupid. This is a kid who loves F1 and has asked to watch other series. So theres a foot with a bullet through it right there.

His actual question was "does that mean the best drivers can't win"

Anyway, imo they should just bin qualy. Sprint 1 is reversed grid of championship, Sprint 2 is finishing order of Sprint 1 and Feature is finishing order of Sprint 2. Done. That way drivers are forced to work for it, but are continually rewarded for a good finish and climb up as weekend progresses. Would also do fewer points for sprint races rather than points for fewer places.

That's even worse, the better drivers get penalised even more.

How so? Because of the first reversed grid? If so then yes, they do. But their immediate advesraries are penalised to the same degree. So the driver leading the championshiop starts dead-last, but the driver 2nd in the standings is right alongside them and so on. Seems to me to be the perfect way for the cream to rise to the top.

Only danger is you may end up with the top drivers being there because of consistecy rather than outright wins. Mentioned this to a friend and his suggestion was that you keep this format till say the last 3 rounds when they just line up in WDC order so you get the lead drivers on the podium "when it counts". I can see that but I don't like the idea of dicking about with the race weekend format during the season.

It's just another system that enables mediocre drivers to win races, it's also a system you would employ to keep the points differences tight and stop any driver from running away with the series thus better ensuring the title goes down to the last race.

Basically I want to see the better drivers winning races anything else just creates fake winners, we see that already in F2 and F3, the new systems just create even more fake winners, you see Ticktum winning a reverse grid race were faster drivers are handicapped and he proclaims to Helmet Marko that he was wrong to drop him from the Red Bull program, I just find it all so fake.

OK I get that but I think it overlooks the self-levelling aspect. i.e if a mediocre driver wins a race ( so probably not that bad anyway) then they accumulate points and and are further down the grid the following weekend so are less likely to get another win..

No suggested format is perfect or will please anyone, but I don't feel it's fake.