F1 ters grid sıralama yarışı planı rafa mı kalktı

Formula 1 has repeatedly sought to inject artificial unpredictability into its race weekends through the introduction of reverse-grid qualifying races. Despite two prior attempts to garner support from teams, and two subsequent failures, the sport’s commercial rights holder remains undeterred, embarking on a third, determined push to approve the contentious plan for the 2021 season. However, recent remarks from influential team principals during the Russian Grand Prix indicated that this latest effort is destined for a similar defeat, highlighting a deep-seated philosophical divide within the pinnacle of motorsport.

Abiteboul: “We don’t want to turn Formula 1 into DTM”

The core proposal for reverse-grid qualifying remains consistent with what was tabled 12 months prior. At a select number of Grand Prix weekends, the traditional qualifying session would be replaced by a sprint race. Crucially, the starting order for this sprint event would be determined by reversing the current championship standings, meaning the championship leader would start last, and the driver at the bottom of the standings would begin from pole position. The finishing positions of this sprint race would then dictate the starting grid for Sunday’s main Grand Prix. The stated aim is to create more dynamic and unpredictable racing, forcing front-running teams to carve their way through the field and offering midfield contenders a rare opportunity for a strong starting position.

F1’s initial attempt to implement such races was for the 2020 season. At that time, sporting regulations demanded the unanimous consent of all teams for significant changes. This proved to be an insurmountable hurdle, as leading teams like Mercedes and their customer, Racing Point (now Aston Martin), staunchly opposed the concept, citing concerns over sporting integrity and the artificial nature of the spectacle. Consequently, the proposal was rejected in late 2019. A second attempt was made earlier in 2020, during the rapid reorganisation of the calendar in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. F1 sought to introduce reverse-grid races for the second event of ‘double-header’ weekends, but again, faced the same opposition and the plan was shelved.

However, the landscape of Formula 1 governance has since undergone a significant shift. The new Concorde Agreement, signed by all 10 teams, the FIA, and Formula 1 management, came into effect, altering the voting requirements for rule changes. Unanimity is no longer a prerequisite for modifications to sporting regulations. Instead, for changes proposed at this late stage in the season for the following year, a ‘super majority’ vote within the F1 Commission is now required. This mandate translates to at least 28 out of 30 available votes. The F1 Commission comprises 10 votes for Formula 1 itself, 10 for the FIA, and one vote for each of the 10 competing teams. Theoretically, this new structure suggested that reverse-grid qualifying races could be pushed through even in the face of objections from Mercedes and Racing Point, provided all other teams rallied behind the proposal.

This hope, however, was swiftly dashed at the Sochi Autodrom. McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl delivered a clear and unequivocal statement, declaring his team was “absolutely not supportive of the idea of introducing reverse grids.” His sentiments were echoed by Renault managing director Cyril Abiteboul, who strongly indicated his team’s opposition. Abiteboul articulated a compelling argument that the comprehensive new technical regulations slated for 2022, designed to promote closer racing and facilitate overtaking, would naturally generate more exciting races without resorting to what he termed “artificial measures.”

Abiteboul elaborated on his stance, acknowledging that “reverse grids is a great opportunity for mixing things up and offering a show,” but firmly asserting his belief that “it’s an artefact and we should have the ambition of offering exciting races without that artefact.” He highlighted the genuinely thrilling races witnessed in both the current and previous seasons, which occurred without any artificial manipulation of the grid. For Abiteboul, the sport’s true focus should be on achieving a more competitive field. “If you have 20 cars within half a second, or a second, that will offer you a great show in my opinion – providing you have the opportunity to overtake. We don’t want to turn Formula 1 into DTM. So, I think that we are near enough 2022 not to have to use that artefact at this point in time,” he concluded, drawing a stark comparison to the German touring car series known for its spec-car, close-quarters racing.

Andreas Seidl of McLaren articulated a very similar perspective. He stressed that with the seismic rule changes planned for 2022, it “would be wrong to introduce any artificial randomness” through reverse-grid sprint races. The core argument from these teams is that Formula 1 should strive for organic, merit-based excitement, rather than manufactured drama that could undermine the sport’s inherent competitive principles.

It is difficult to overlook the evolving self-interest that likely underpins the objections from McLaren and Renault. Twelve months prior, both teams were arguably less competitive, making a ‘shake-up’ potentially less threatening. However, in the current season, both have made significant strides, becoming regular contenders in Q3 and engaging in a fierce battle for third place in the Constructors’ Championship, often against Ferrari, a team frequently demonstrating stronger race pace than qualifying performance. Given the likelihood of a similar competitive order in 2021, both McLaren and Renault would be sacrificing a hard-earned competitive advantage by supporting a plan that deliberately shuffles the grid. For them, merit-based progression through traditional qualifying is now a tangible asset, not a hypothetical benefit.

F1 claimed Monza showed how a reverse-grid race would look

Assuming that Mercedes and Racing Point steadfastly maintain their opposition to reverse-grid qualifying races, and now joined by McLaren and Renault, F1 faces an almost impossible task of securing the 28 votes necessary for implementation. The situation becomes even more challenging when considering the universal disapproval expressed by the drivers themselves, whose views on the proposal range from mild indifference to outright hostility. Many drivers view such artificial changes as devaluing their skill and the purity of competition.

Nevertheless, Formula 1 management appears intent on laying the groundwork for a future bid to win over hesitant teams. Just two weeks prior to the Sochi discussions, F1 conducted a fan survey via its official Fan Voice website, ostensibly to gather public opinion. However, the survey was widely criticised for its overtly leading questions, which often framed the exciting and unpredictable Italian Grand Prix as a perfect, de facto test case for reverse-grid qualifying races, rather than an organic outcome of unique circumstances. The survey conspicuously sidestepped the significant implication that this proposal would entail abandoning traditional qualifying sessions, thereby ending an unbroken, 70-year-old tradition that is fundamental to Formula 1’s identity.

The outcomes of the official survey were somewhat obscured, but an accompanying, independent poll, after receiving over 2,700 responses to the question “do you agree/disagree that reverse-grid qualifying races are something F1 should consider?”, revealed that “strongly disagree” was the single most popular answer. While the combined ‘agree’ options slightly outnumbered the combined ‘disagree’ options by a mere 1%, this narrow margin for a heavily steered survey speaks volumes about genuine fan sentiment. The poll, notably, soon disappeared from the platform.

Independent polls conducted by RaceFans.net reflect a far stronger and more consistent disapproval of the plan among dedicated fans. A staggering 68% of readers indicated they “strongly disagreed” with introducing reverse-grid qualifying races in 2020, and an even higher 71% strongly disagreed with the prospect of holding races without traditional qualifying sessions. These results underscore a significant disconnect between F1’s perceived need for artificial excitement and the preferences of its core fanbase, who value sporting integrity and traditional race formats.

Irrespective of what any F1-commissioned poll might suggest, it is abundantly clear that teams are unlikely to be swayed if their competitive interests are at stake. Those who have previously shown some openness to the concept appear to be reading the writing on the wall. At Sochi, some proponents were already exploring alternative scenarios, however unlikely, in which the reverse-grid qualifying race concept might be cautiously trialled.

Wolff and Horner differ over the reverse-grid proposal

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner encapsulated this internal conflict: “It’s conflicting in many ways. The racer in you and the purist says it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.” He acknowledged the appeal of a mixed-up race, referencing the exciting, though naturally occurring, events at Monza. “Then of course you see a race a little bit like in Monza and that brings the point to the fore again of mixing things up and obviously the best way of mixing things up is something like a reverse grid. That is artificial but inevitably, when you have the fastest car starting at the front of the race, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out that in many cases they will stay in grid order.” Horner concluded by suggesting a cautious approach: “I think that Formula 1 shouldn’t be scared of perhaps trying something different. If there was an occasion or a type of venue or an invitation race or maybe even a non-championship race, that something like that could be tried, it would be very interesting to see what the outcome of it would be.” The prospect of F1 organising a non-championship race, however, is highly improbable; the sport hasn’t seen one since 1983, highlighting how far-fetched this “alternative scenario” truly is.

Meanwhile, the opponents of the plan sense that the window of opportunity for such radical, artificial changes is rapidly closing. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, a long-standing and trenchant critic who likens reverse grids to “WWE” (World Wrestling Entertainment), expressed optimism that the impending appointment of ex-Ferrari boss Stefano Domenicali as Formula 1 CEO will safeguard the sport from such gimmicks. “He knows the sport inside out,” said Wolff. “I think sport comes first. And he’s going to stay away from, in my opinion, artificial things. He’s a purist.” Domenicali’s reputation as a traditionalist and a staunch advocate for sporting integrity resonates deeply with those who prioritize genuine competition over manufactured spectacle. His leadership is widely seen as a bulwark against superficial attempts to boost entertainment, instead focusing on fundamental improvements to the racing product.

Given the escalating opposition from key teams, the consistent disapproval from drivers, and the clear preference of a significant portion of the fanbase, coupled with the imminent arrival of a leadership figure known for his purist approach, it seems increasingly unlikely that Formula 1 will see a qualifying race with a truly unconventional pole-sitter, such as Romain Grosjean. Indeed, based on past comments, it is not a prospect that Grosjean himself, or many of his fellow drivers, would welcome with enthusiasm.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Related Articles: 2020 F1 Season & Beyond