Patrick Head and reverse grids

Patrick Head has criticised the current Formula One qualifying regulations during a seminar given to the colleges staff and students. "Everyone complains about a lack of overtaking in F1 but I can't see how there can be a lot of overtaking when you put cars on the grid in order of their speed. It means that by definition that the car in front of you is a bit quicker than you and the one behind is a little bit slower - so how can you have overtaking?

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/content/news.htm

It's just logical. Why there was passing in Japan 2005? Because the quicker cars were behind...

But those quicker cars were working through much slower cars for the most part.

If you ran Japan 2005 via Patrick's suggestion, then it would not work out the same.

Races via Head's idea would certainly be kinda interesting, but it is not like the cars on the last row would be able to breeze past those in front of them (seeing as they would not be slow enough for that, in the most part).

I have this thing whereby I like to see the cars qualify according to their potential. It may not maximise overtaking potential, but it does reward excellence.

Can see his point, but.....doesn't work like that.

Kimi working his way from back to third this weekend is another example.

You can apply that logic to other formulas though - why was there (looking back when grids were better) always good overtaking in FF?

Maybe it (y'know, "them") needs to look at the massive difference between the different teams and cars, but then I guess you start looking at restrictions all over again. Brings in the argument of punishing teams for being better and having better staff (or resources, which can be money, which is a different matter again).

Except, logically, regards the line of thought in question, they would need to be looking at ways to increase in the differential between teams.

In F1, under current regulations, if everyone on the grid had similar performance, then there would not be much passing at all.

So, really, we need to have each team be 2-seconds/lap faster than the team ahead/behind them (thinking in terms of a traditional grid), then reverse that order.

Then we could watch the slower cars drop back as the faster ones move forward.

WOW. I would LOVE to see that.

Brilliant.

"I think the races should run in reverse championship order, so the lowest points scorer would be on pole and the points leader on the back of the grid, so then you would have to have over taking" Head's comments from the above link

so is he saying there should be no qualifying at all and just having the teams line up according to the WDC standing but in reverse order?

i must be missing something here cause this sounds a little cracked!

Maybe he wants reverse qualifying. Slow cars at the front, quick at the rear. I can just see it now, Ferrari and Renault duking it out for pole by seeing who can cover the lap in 2 hours or more. :laugh:

Qualifying would take about a week. :laugh:

Anyone who breaks or causes a red flag goes straight to pole. :laugh:
-

Ok Patrick how about this one?

Why not just get rid of Blue flags and make the front runners overtake Back-markers the hard way, rather than forcing them to move over! :D

Now that, actually, is a good point.

Gotta make sure the back markers are sensible (and not ever so slightly star struck first GP start chappies who decide to take MS out in the championship decider to get a few minutes of fame...) BUT overtaking the hard way could be more fun - especially as it can be crucial time wise when the guy in front is being chased, can make a lot of difference.

The FIA won't just come round to that way of thinking. The FIA have introduced the new rules to try and make a much more level playing feild, so that teams can not be comprimised in anyway, like having drivers sent ot the back of the grid, ballast, etc. This is F1, not BTCC. How have they made BTCC more entertaining, not by making the racing more of a level playing feild, but by adding ballast, reverse grids.

I agree with Patrick Head, but thats just not the way to do it.

Its F1, not 'Wacky Races'.

http://www.hotink.com/wacky/07.gif

The parc fermé-regulations made the lack of overtaking even worse. Because of the parc fermé-regulations the starting grid is (almost) ordered to the race pace. That has to be changed. Even in 2002 we saw some great battles between Montoya and Schumacher, because the Williams-team just had a good pace in qualifying.

Ok Patrick how about this one?

Why not just get rid of Blue flags and make the front runners overtake Back-markers the hard way, rather than forcing them to move over! :D


You know, before, drivers tended to have to pass backmarkers... nowadays at the very moment a slower car is in the eyesight of the leader he gets either 10 blue flags or a menacing hand...

Why not just get rid of Blue flags and make the front runners overtake Back-markers the hard way, rather than forcing them to move over! :D

I have been wanting this for ages, but I would make one adjustment to your suggestion.

Do not get rid of the blue flags, for they do serve a purpose, but just make them for information purposes.

Yea really quicksilver.

I honestly don't see how this is remotely rational. With this i see two bad scenarios.

Option 1: Normal qualifying where the pole sitter sits at position 22. Last person gets pole position. Leads to the scenario quicksilver pointed out.

Option 2: Remove qualifying completely and reverse the finishing order to get starting order. Under this method, we'd have Albers, Fisichella, Villenuve and Ide in the first two rows and in position 22, Alonso Schumacher, Raikkonen and Button. Your reward for winning is having to start at the back of the grid next race. Not to mention the fans would get even less for their money now they'd miss qualifying and add yet another hit agains the sport.

Option 2 would pretty much rule out back to back wins.

Option 3:

Well, Patick's suggestion is running the grid in reverse championship order.

I also agree with Patrick's comments

Years ago If you had a bad qualifying session you could go away completely change the cars setup to solve the problem, (Hungary 89 being a classic example) Coupled with that the requirements of the race (In the no re-fueling days) were completely different to qualifying so a car that was quick in qually wasn't necessarily as fast in the race

Now there is very little you can do to the car at the end of qualifying and the requirements on the car are very similar in qually and the race so Patrick is spot on The fasted car in qualifying is going to be the fastest in the race more often than not

Do not get rid of the blue flags, for they do serve a purpose, but just make them for information purposes.

Good point, prefer that idea....

Do not get rid of the blue flags, for they do serve a purpose, but just make them for information purposes.
in other words, blue flags = ignore with extreme prejudice. the track would awash with moving roadblocks.
-

http://www.hotink.com/wacky/07.gif

With such a big car, why do they all sit in the front?

Maybe you could run the fisrt half of the season normally and then the second half with reverse grids. Maybe.

Hey I didn't say it was a good idea!!

Nah that wouldn't work either, that would be too confusing and silly! It's got to be one or the other.

John - it's wacky races - doesn't matter!

We have debated this several times. IMO, the solution is so simple (too simple so F1 will likely not ever go there). Revamp the points system to include points for qualifying order, then reverse the top ten on the starting grid. Or draw for starting positions among the top 10. Either way would be better than what we have.

I'm still on the points for qualifying business. But that's my opinion. Don't agree with reversing top ten or whatever, nor pulling out starting positions - they've got to the front cos they've done a better job than everyone else - they're quickest.

So if they are quickest, they can collect the extra qualifying points and proceed to overtake the cars in front of them!!

Rather than run off leading the parade.

in other words, blue flags = ignore with extreme prejudice. the track would awash with moving roadblocks.

For the most part, I don't think backmarkers have any particular desire to hold up the leaders. It doesn't help the help backmarker to do that.

Baaaaad idea -- penalizing teams by putting them at the back of the grid is simply not right. Also qualifying and racing are different - different setups, different fuel strats --1? 2? 3? pit stops? And besides, the best chance we will have to see overtaking will be the Centerline Downwash Generating wing. Anyway - I loved the last race -- it was exciting and there was quite a bit of overtaking.

I never liked the idea of reverse grid. Yes, Suzuka with Michael, Kimi and Alonso all starting from the midfield and back is interesting, but honestly, it takes away the idea of competition.

How much are you going to award qualifying pole for? 1point, or 10 points? Say both Kimi and Alonso are evenly matched in pace and machinery, and fighting for WDC, you think they would prefer qualifying 10th (hence start on pole) and have a great chance of scoring 10 full points, or for the sake of pole (that one or two points) and start 10th and see his rival run away with the win?

The problem with the 90s era qualifying is that teams only come out in the last 30mins. The problem is now solved, and once some edges are smoothed out (regarding the shootout), then we will have a decent qualifying session. As for the race, we'd have the Mclarens providing us with "reverse" grid action. ;)

As for the race, we'd have the Mclarens providing us with "reverse" grid action. ;)

More often than not. ;)

I'd like to see the final part of qually turned into a mini-race.

They all line up on the grid using the times from the second part of qually and are spaced one car for each row of the grid at the start with what will be race fuel.They can tootle around if they like for 10th place or go all out for pole.I think that it would turn into an interesting cat and mouse game with no one wanting to go flat out but everyone wanting pole.

Why one on each row?

Surely the start is one of the best chances to see a changed order?

Why one on each row?

Surely the start is one of the best chances to see a changed order?

I was thinking that they could choose which side of the grid they might like to start from and also to lessen the chance of a collision at the first corner.I'd like to see it happen,but it probably won't.

I would've thought the drivers would al have no desire to collide, so, if in doubt, would er on the side of caution.

How much are you going to award qualifying pole for? 1point, or 10 points? Say both Kimi and Alonso are evenly matched in pace and machinery, and fighting for WDC, you think they would prefer qualifying 10th (hence start on pole) and have a great chance of scoring 10 full points, or for the sake of pole (that one or two points) and start 10th and see his rival run away with the win?



There's a simple answer for that also. Keep points for qualifying, but draw for starting position. No sandbagging then, and we'd get some interesting grids and racing. And that's what its all about. Patrick Head is right. The current system does not promote the excitement it should and it never will as long as F1 remains so set in having the fastest qualifier lead the field from the starting grid.

It would also be interesting to ask the drivers themselves; I'd be willing to bet that most would welcome the added challenge of earning a win on the track by outdriving the opponent. Not in the pits ... and having the fastest car would not necessarily result in a win if the driver wasn't as racey as his opponent.

And besides, the best chance we will have to see overtaking will be the Centerline Downwash Generating wing.

depend who you listen to some F1 designers I've spoken to say it wont work and that it looks daft.


did anyone hear the sprint race proposal? 10 lap sprint race on race fuel on the saturday to decide grid slots with points awarded for the top three sprinters 3 for the win, 2 for second and 1 for first. The sprint grid is out of the hat. And it would work well perhaps for the final chunk of qually

More entertaining and of course the cars can be fettled overnight by the teams (though fuel levels are fixed by sealing of the tanks).

And it would work well perhaps for the final chunk of qually



Of course it would (have you read previous posts). ;)

What's wrong with having the fastest cars starting at the front? Isn't that whole point of motor racing?

What's wrong with having the fastest cars starting at the front? Isn't that whole point of motor racing?

The fastest car will be at the front.But it must be the fastest in all conditions.

I'd imagine that it is quite possible for a team to build a car that will always qualify in pole position,but would be totally useless in the race.If you make qualifying a series of tests,then the true fastest car will always be at the front (so long as it is driven correctly that is).

No CamF1. It's not. And that is what this thread is about. If Driver A is faster than driver B, then it should not be a problem for Driver A to overtake driver B on the track. Not give Driver A a head start and to lead a parade around the track, as too often happens in today's F1. If someone like Patrick Head brings up the subject, hopefully someone of influence is listening.

I would agree that having the fastest car start at the front is not the point of motor racing, but I would also say it is not the point of motor racing to engineer ways for them to not be at the front.

Head has say it way back in the 90s, that as long as we have qualifying and the fastest car start in front, theoretically we shouldn't have overtaking in the race as the fast cars will just pull away.

BUT, reverse grids, and worse still picking the starting position from a hat randomly, are pure ridiculous for a credible championship. If FIA really implements it, i see many complaints.

I'd rather venture as far as having a sprint race for the top 10 cars for 5 laps after qualifying, and with standard ECU, drivers have no launch control or traction control... Someone will screw up, and the positions will shuffle, but at least, it's not random or artificially created (and perhaps points for the first (or first 3) drivers)

The results from the sprint race will dictate the starting position for the actual race.

I don't know, but i believe many people, me included, will be difficult to be convinced with reverse or random grid for FIA. It's good for a show, but the credibility of the championship (by leaving it to the "luck") shouldn't be compromised

The sprint/mini-race would last 20 minutes (no set number of laps) the flag is waved at the end of 20 minutes,first one there having completed the most number of laps gets pole.Simple innit.

I would agree that having the fastest car start at the front is not the point of motor racing, but I would also say it is not the point of motor racing to engineer ways for them to not be at the front.

Exactly....well put ;)

Driver A starts ahead of Driver B because Driver A is quicker. We shouldn't then engineer a way to put Driver A behind Driver B to make some overtaking....Driver A is quicker but doesn't mean it will be easy for him to overtake (Murray always had a phrase there).

Exactly....well put ;)

....Driver A is quicker but doesn't mean it will be easy for him to overtake (Murray always had a phrase there).

Don't you mean sometimes impossible to overtake, depending on the track in many cases. And there lies another huge problem ... probably the biggest problem facing F1 today. Of course it should never be easy to overtake but neither should it be next to impossible. But that is another subject.

I like the idea of a 20 minute sprint but the engine rule makes that possibility remote at best.

I don't believe anything is ever impossible, it just rates very highly on the grades of difficulty ladder ;)

So it sounds as if you think everthing is "hunky dory" in F1 today.

The question is, will remaining status quo attract new fans?

Hunky dory? Nope. Where did I say that...?

People say overtaking at Monaco is impossible. It's not, but it is bloody difficult!

F1 is the pinnicle of motorsport. Drivers spend 20 years of there life to get there by proving they are the best, why when then do that and get the privilege of the driving the best car should they be then penalised by being handicapped.

Same with the teams, just because a team has a quick car doesn't been it should be handicapped either.

The F1 world champion should be the best driver (& that means they are clever enough to get in the right car @ the right time) & the constructors champion the best car, simple.

If you want entertaining races watch Mike Baldwin & co in the mini races to get ur fix of overtaking then watch F1 to appreicate exellence.

You can say that, but some of the drivers have experienced this sort of thing in some of the lower formulas or similar competition.

The driver doesn't necessarily need to be clever...they just need to have a clever manager! ;) Doesn't *always* mean you'll get best drives however (when you want them).

Can see his point, but.....doesn't work like that.

Kimi working his way from back to third this weekend is another example.

You can apply that logic to other formulas though - why was there (looking back when grids were better) always good overtaking in FF?


Simple...FFs can run in the slipstream and get a good tow to overtake. They do not have wings creating dirty air and can therefore run close through the corner leading on to the straight. I've seen a car enter the final club straight at Silverstone in 6th place, but get a good tow and pass the other guys to win into the final corner. It was nearly always like that as karting is now.

Look at the GP at Monza 1971. 5 cars battling at the front changing positions all the time, an almost dead heat - because they chucked the wings off.
They won't get rid of them today of course because they will make up some excuse regarding safety and then say the wings are necessary for advertising to pay for their development in the wind tunnel anyway.

Bah choose someone to come and reply properly! ;) FFs were the first things that came to mind but yes...that is the point. Sure examples can be found in the wing formulas too though. You could still have applied his logic to FF...(quickest cars / reverse grids / keep the overtaking).

Just a thought here...does race-fuel in qualifying not decrease the possibility of overtaking?

I mean, without it, if a car qualifies 3rd, but not much behind the guys in front, then they could plan on doing an extra stop. This tends to give the guy on lighter fuel a massive incentive to endevour to find a way to overtake (and there is a reasonable chance it may happen).

With race-fuel, such situations mean a lighter car will most likely be in front in the heavier one. This does not aid overtaking. It is possible that, due to a big speed differential, the lighter car is nonetheless behind the heavier one (which produces a similar scenario outlined above): however, the difference is never likely to be as large with race-fuel as it may otherwise be - tend to be a light-heavy fuel load difference whilst remaining on the same fundamental strategy.

Also, I have never understood the idea of race-fuel increasing the "unknown" of how much they are carrying: surely letting everyone refuel after qualy leaves the maximum amount of mystery.

I may not be fully thinking this through, as an inherent bias in my mind might be clouding my thought processes.

Meh, well, anyway, just a thought.

My first thought on a reverse grid scenario is that the first corner would be bloody murder!

Also, it would cheapen what it means to win an F1 race. Think of Button. Always competitive, never able to win, but what if he starts ahead of Michael, Kimi, Fernando, etc every race because he's behind on points? If he does finally win, it would seem somewhat cheapened IMHO.

Well, there is a degree of self-regulation to it.

If Button was to be in a position to win, then he would have to be outscoring the others, in which cases he would end up starting behind them.

I can see your general point, though, which makes me think it would work better if it was the reverse of the result of the previous race rather than championship order.