I think they will use this as a chance to try reversed grids. Practice Friday. Qual and race 1 Sat. Reverse grid Sunday. Saturday races could even be potentially shortened... 2 Races on two Dif tracks on same weekend has 0% chance. Not even remotely feasible from a logistics POV. Mark my words,... this is being discussed. It's the only way Chase Carey's comments of 15-18 races this year is even remotely possible.
For many years, heck decades I have been a proponent of reversed grids. Hell, that'd be awesome if it actually would happen. The racing would be spectacular. And your argument makes sense, in a time crunch, this would be the solution and fun.
From a F1 follower point of view, I would prefer the whole championship to be canceled this year, instead of being tempered with. I know it could be feasable to arrange a few races towards the end of the year, perhaps. But the proposal of doubling races at some venue simply to say we had 18 GPs completely devalue the championship in my eyes. I don't even know if the teams could do it from a practical/staff aspect. I am not against the introduction of reversed grid per se (I like it in other series), but there is a need for proper reflection before going down that route. Although it could be adopted in a hurry, at the moment, it's not in the rules the teams have signed for. Reverse grids would cancel the need for qualifications, and do away with Pole Position. That would affect the attending public. The reverse grid system also opens the door to strange manipulations at times; that wouldn't be F1 at all !!!
William you raise some valid points. IMHO none of them are insurmountable... I suspect there would still be qualifying,... and that sets the grid for race 1. Reverse grid for race 2 based on race 1 finish. Practice Friday. Qual and Race 1 Sat. (Saturday races could potentially be shortened) Reverse grid Race 2 Sunday. This scenario, or something else with 2 races in weekend is the only way I can make sense of Carey's 15-18 races still likely comment Finally, the teams have a vey strong financial incentive to race... not sure that many will protest too much... Mercedes and Ferrari might care more about PR than the money,... but the rest...
More or less, what you propose is to run F1 GPs along F2 rules. It's quite a departure from the present format.
True. But any scenario to get to 15-18 races starting in July at the soonest will be "quite a departure from the present format".
I don't know why that expression "15-18 races". With 2 races per weekend, it has to be an even number, no? The .F2 format is different for a reason. F2 is a feeder formula, run as a specs series. F1 is a world constructors championship, on top of being a world drivers championship. You may artificially mix the field to spice the show in a lower series, but F1 is supposed to reflect the true value of cars and drivers. Imagine the feeling of Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari if they cars were constantly relegated at the back of the grid for the second race at each GP!!
Not a very good comparison; the ACO manipulates the rules constantly to attract constructors or chose the winner. How will you explain to a top engineer that his car has to start races at the back of the grid for being "too fast"? It is not the ethic of F1 to penalise success.
The rules are the same for everybody, so it makes no difference. Oh, c'mon. How many times have we seen that movie before? Whether it is being forced to add weight to an F1 car to get to the minimum or a super cool innovation is being banned for no good reason (e.g. the gyro in the Renault nose for being an aero help). Or DAS to bring up a more recent one. Success is always penalized to make the playingfield even. Might not happen instantly (Brawn Superexhaust) but eventually. The name implies it already: It is formula racing, based on a formula that's the same for everybody.
What you are talking about is forcing designers to respect the rules (like minimum weight), or restricting a new innovation. Penalising success is different. That's manipulating the odds, and just turning racing into a lottery. Could you imagine, for example, Micheal Schumacher having to start last on the grid after each of his 91 wins? Would you have considered that fair? On some circuits, you couldn't overcome that handicap. Like you said "a formula that's the same for everybody", and that means the best at the front, and the others trying to catch up. That's the essence of F1, it's not a handicap series, and never has been. If the organisers turn it into "a dog and pony show", just to spice up the racing, that won't be F1 anymore.
I agree this should be considered a real possibility. It would need all the teams to agree,or maybe just a majority? Top 3 teams i can imagine would be against it but the rest would love it. Suggest Silverstone would be the first race once UK is clear as most teams are based within 2 hour drive.August would be great but will all this really be over by then? Other aspect is spectators , perhaps run behind closed doors with Liberty paying the promoters from the money they get from Sky etc.
The reverse grid would be nice... if the Racing Points, the Alpha Tauris and the Alfa Romeos didn´t play hold/let pass tactics depending on whoever is behind. For Renault it would be a PITA, as their only customer is a direct rival. I vote NO.
I am also against tempering with the ethos of F1. . The best come to the from, and stay at the front until others can catch them. That's the spirit of motor racing; anything else would be just an orchestrated parody of racing. F1 has never been run as a handicap championship, nor a video game. So, please, less silly ideas; we just have to wait for the pandemic to stop, and F1 to resume.
I am against it too. I see reverse grids used in the British Touring Car Championship, and I like it there. This is not a serious series, and putting on a show is the aim of introducing some handicap elements. They have success weight penalties, reverse grid order, and even lottery grid; it's all good fun, and teams and spectators accept in in good spirit. But adopting that for a World Championship would be nothing short of scandalous. Imagine the skulduggery and manupulation some teams would use to get their way. With the money at stake, we may just as well trust criminal organisations to run F1 !!!
Quite frankly that's the only obstacle I see (apart from a potential travel/entry into country ban affecting the teams). The teams could take it upon themselves to stay safe and out of each other's way. As long as there are no spectators, races could be held. The iffy bit would be to figure out how to pay the race organizer. I suppose F1 could simply lower/wave the fee for the organizers since AFAIK the bigger income is from TV money anyway.
the Canadian GP will make a decision by May 1 to run the GP in late summer or fall, or non at all.so the JUNE 14 Date is out.
I'll take and look forward to whatever race is up for grabs that can be deemed safe for all concerned.
Since you are a proponent of reverse grids, this article I found in Motorsport will give you more ammunition. "The story of F1’s most incredible win from the back https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/long-beach-1983-watson-win/4773934/ On March 27th 1983 John Watson pulled off one of the most remarkable victories in Formula 1 history, winning the US GP West at Long Beach from a lowly 22nd on the grid."