179 replies to this topic

[Branislav]

 

 

Chase Carey has warned against Formula 1’s history and traditions becoming a “straightjacket” that doesn’t allow the series to consider format changes such as reverse grid sprint races.

 

 

F1 officials have been considering moves to introduce reverse grid sprint races as a replacement for qualifying at select grands prix on the calendar.

 

The proposal was rejected for 2020 after Mercedes stood in the way of unanimous agreement, and although voting structure changes have made it easier to push through in the future, opposition appears to have grown.

 

Outgoing F1 CEO and chairman Carey said that while changes would not sit well with some purist fans, examples from other sports proved they could often be beneficial.

“Most sports, when they’ve talked about changes, the hardcore fans resist change,” Carey said on F1’s Beyond the Grid podcast.

“Major League Baseball, when they had a designated hitter, everybody didn’t like it. The NBA put in a three-point line, the hardcores didn’t like it. You added teams to play-offs, you used to have the league champions play in the World Series, this year they had 16 teams compete.

 

“Really in most of those cases, not all, but in most cases, those changes have ended up being viewed as positive, bringing fresh energy, bringing a fresh perspective.

“I think you have to be careful that you don’t gimmick-up the sport, that you’re recognising the importance of history and the importance of what has made this sport special, but not let that become a straightjacket that doesn’t enable you to consider changes that may truly enhance the sport for fans.”

 

F1 managing director of motorsports Ross Brawn said in the wake of the dramatic Italian Grand Prix at Monza that it was the perfect time to revisit the reverse grid sprint race plan for 2021.

Changes to F1’s governance under the new Concorde Agreement from 2021 mean that only a ‘super majority’ is required to approve a format change, unlike the unanimity required this year.

But more teams have been lending their opposition to join Mercedes, while a number of drivers have also aired concerns about the format change potentially devaluing wins. 

Carey stressed that any call about a format change would be a “group decision” and that F1 was “not going to dictate that” to teams.

“I think a decision like the specific one about a qualifying race, I think is a group decision. From my perspective, we’re not going dictate that.”

“Let’s tee it up, take about the pros and cons, do the appropriate homework of what we think again the benefits and issues with it, and have an honest discussion with everybody,” Carey said. 

“That’s where it’s important to have a spirit of partnership and not look at it as is this good or bad for me as a team, but is it good or bad for the sport, and make an informed judgement.

“Is this a decision that we feel is respectful to the sport and create greater races for fans? At the end of the day, this is what this is all about.

“Not every fan is ever going to like it, you're never going to get to 100%, which is why we have to make the judgement is it something we think on balance will improve the sport.

“Without making it sound like we’re just throwing ideas against a wall, we should always be trying to push ourselves to look at other ways to make the sport more interesting and exciting for fans.”

 

So Mr. Carey, read the poll

[SenorSjon]

“Major League Baseball, when they had a designated hitter, everybody didn’t like it. The NBA put in a three-point line, the hardcores didn’t like it. You added teams to play-offs, you used to have the league champions play in the World Series, this year they had 16 teams compete."

 

Those changes were equal for everyone. It is not that the three point line differed if you were the rank leader or last. With reverse grid, it is just like succes ballast, a penalty for performance.

 

Perhaps Mr. Carey should read the F1 fan surveys more closely, now and those in the past. It contains loads of information that they do their best to contradict. Having pundits serve as 'massaging' the masses is also very obvious and not working. And they need to hardcore fans to keep up with the barren WDC-challenges.

[Neno]

While NBA put 3pt line and was viewed positive somewhat during extended period, even though it was negative at beggining   I see it today  again as something negative. Because NBA has gone from being balanced sport between 2's and 3's to everyone jacking off 3's in 7 seconds or less. That's not positive news and way NBA should be going in future. Regardless what anyone says and comments on this post. 

[William Hunt]

most people are always against change, simply because there are much more conservative people out there

[Risil]

I suppose making F1 worse than it was before would be a sort of change.

F1 could do with some change but I think most fans would rather see more competition for wins, technical regulations that would let cars follow more closely and more circuits with challenge and atmosphere.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Carey is an idiot

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Outgoing Idiot

[Branislav]

most people are always against change, simply because there are much more conservative people out there

I am for natural change not gimmicks like reverse grid.

 

Is it natural that fastest driver start last? Of course not.

 

Is it fair and natural let's say mmmm... equalize PU so everyone has a chance? YES PLEASE! And when we get that then will be no need for GIMMICKS like this, like DRS, like two mandatory stops etc. (actually one but two compound you must use)

Edited by Branislav, 14 October 2020 - 14:26.

[Scotracer]

I love change. Do it.

[jonpollak]

Carey is an idiot

Oh Look, there’s a fan opinion !
Jp

[TomNokoe]

"They wanted to bring in the Turbo Hybrids, and the hardcores didn't like it, but it was a great success!"

 

In this instance, I am indifferent, which is to say - why not try it?

Edited by TomNokoe, 14 October 2020 - 14:27.

[messy]

I'm not against changes, just against s**t ones.

[loki]

Carey is an idiot

Once he made Pet Detective it was all downhill from there.  Playing the fly on Pence’s head was pretty good though.

 

Chase Carey is right about F1 clinging to dated aspects of the past.  Inverted grids aren’t the answer.  That’s for Sat night circle track warriors not big time pros.  His point is that most of F1 are too busy smelling their own farts to have a respect of what is best for the sport.  A big issue in F1 is the entrenched sense of entitlement.  

[loki]

Outgoing Idiot

He’s leaving the CEO role and becoming non executive chairman of Formula One Group.  Structurally that puts him third in command behind Malone and Maffei.  Initial press reports linked him to a role that could have been transitional.   He’ll still be a big picture guy with the change being Domenicali will take over operations.   Carey was the chairman and CEO, Domenicali is the president and CEO.

[Izzyeviel]

I voted yes, I'm not a great fan of the quali concept as it is so would welcome any change.

 

But history is a big part of F1's identity and if they change it too much you throw it away and with goes a lot money. 

[Planetdune]

I dont mind change. Life is too short to do the same thing over and over.. so change away.

[Imperial]

Sprint races will never award the same points as a full race, and so thus will simply become the new 'qualifying' - i.e. nobody really gives a **** if they miss it.

[Paco]

Carey is an idiot

 

 

Outgoing Idiot

 

 

I'm not against changes, just against s**t ones.

 

Exactly.  Some changes made sense to try out (Grooved Tires, Single Lap qualifying) but this is just plain nonsensical.  

 

Soooooo glad to see Carey stepping aside. 

 

Wish the next to go was Ross... he has become a puppet and with no opinion of his own or interesting ideas.  Wish he would just go away as well.  

[Dunc]

The current quali system dates from 2003 and does deserve a rethink. I preferred the system that existed in the 1990s of an hour when anyone could go out on the track but with Mercedes so dominant at the moment I don't think that would improve the show. What might make a difference is more two-day race weekends where teams might have less practice and need to gamble a lot more on setup/parts etc.

[Ben1445]

It think as a general rule Chase Carey has a point. Clinging onto history too much limits the capacity the sport has to adapt and move with the times and this can be detrimental. 

 

The particular question of reverse grid qualifying is a pretty minor and insignificant subset of that point.

[Loosenut]

I suppose making F1 worse than it was before would be a sort of change.

F1 could do with some change but I think most fans would rather see more competition for wins, technical regulations that would let cars follow more closely and more circuits with challenge and atmosphere.

Every change to the formula since 1998 seem to have had the primary aim of avoiding anything like this..

[Fastcake]

In general the point is correct. There are way too many people in Formula One, and a great many outside as well, who are fixed to a certain way of doing things and won’t try to move on and adapt to new things. Or for that matter, undo previous changes that haven’t worked.

In the particular subject of reversed grids though, we can already see without trying it that it’s a bad idea. Both in terms of it being an artificial construct against one of the principles F1 should keep to, and from a practical point stupid to do while the cars struggle to overtake.

[fed up]

I'm not against change, in fact change can be good. But reverse grids? no, please!

[William Hunt]

I am for natural change not gimmicks like reverse grid.

 

Is it natural that fastest driver start last? Of course not.

 

Is it fair and natural let's say mmmm... equalize PU so everyone has a chance? YES PLEASE! And when we get that then will be no need for GIMMICKS like this, like DRS, like two mandatory stops etc. (actually one but two compound you must use)

 

The same was said (you're saying it againg) about DRS or even about the Halo and other stuff that's now normal, don't be so conservative, it's good for F1 to experiment with new idea's, that also doesn't mean that they will be implemented permanently

[Atreiu]

Carey is an idiot. Has this been covered already?

The 3 point line is the same for both teams and there is no 4 point line which helps losers catch up. Neither do losing teams start games up by 10 to help them win a few.

[Branislav]

Let me see.

 

First race in narrow Albert Park, reverse grid sprint race qualifying 15 laps. Lewis start dead last. Do you think he will climb to first. Of course not, he will reach to 10th and in that place start the race. And then in race he will climb to third most. Or fourth. And do I want to watch Max winning a race without fight with Lewis. No.

 

And next weekend Max will start dead last. And all over again.

 

What do we get? Complete **** up

[PayasYouRace]

Yes. Let's try it out. It sounds like fun.

[Anja]

I mean, he's not wrong in that F1 could indeed use some changes. But reverse grids are just a gimmick, not a real change. Just like every gimmick, it would give everyone something to talk about for a little while, turning the attention away from the bigger problems. And once the novelty wears off - after a few months, maybe a year - we're back to square one, with all the fundamental flaws still very much present. 

 

At this point I don't even care very much about the idea itself. Whatever, have at it. But it's bizzare how fixated they are on it. Like it's going to be the ultimate solution to all of F1's problems. And the criticism of it comes from all directions - teams, drivers, fans - but oh no, everyone is just irrationally afraid of change. Yeah, sure 

Edited by Anja, 14 October 2020 - 15:56.

[pdac]

Liberty have bought the F1 brand name. But they want to build that brand. You don't build a brand by continuing as you've always done. Of course he thinks F1 needs to do different things. He's not interested in appeasing the existing fan base. He wants to build a new, bigger, more lucrative fan base. Nothing wrong with that - unless you are one of the existing fans that like things the way they have always been.

[ThadGreen]

I see there has been some comments here concerning the NBA, well the NBA players are for all intensive purposes are now running the game (into the ground?) and the tv viewing figures are dreadful (70% less viewers for game 5 of the finals this year compared to last year). In F1 the teams seem to have a bigger say in the rules than the body running it and perhaps face the same decline in viewership as the NBA?.

 

Concerning reverse grids, well I don't know, I would like to know exactly how long the sprint race would be and how many there would be (4 sprints total, 10 cars in each of the first two and the fastest 5 of those go on to the 3rd race which determines the starting 10 on the grid, slowest 5 race for positions 11-20?) Of course sprint races would add further wear to the engines which are limited so that needs to be addressed. So there are a lot of unknowns which need to be addressed.

 

Bottom line for me is, be careful when giving too much power to the contestants.     

 

Edit: I didn't vote in the poll because as I have said above I need more information.

Edited by ThadGreen, 14 October 2020 - 16:06.

[PayasYouRace]

I mean, he's not wrong in that F1 could indeed use some changes. But reverse grids are just a gimmick, not a real change. Just like every gimmick, it would give everyone something to talk about for a little while, turning the attention away from the bigger problems. And once the novelty wears off - after a few months, maybe a year - we're back to square one, with all the fundamental flaws still very much present. 

 

At this point I don't even care very much about the idea itself. Whatever, have at it. But it's bizzare how fixated they are on it. Like it's going to be the ultimate solution to all of F1's problems. And the criticism of it comes from all directions - teams, drivers, fans - but oh no, everyone is just irrationally afraid of change. Yeah, sure 

 

Using your post as an example, why is it everyone seems to forget the massive aerodynamic rule changes and budget cap coming into the sport, which are addressing some of those bigger problems. They have not been forgotten.

[Atreiu]

The same was said (you're saying it againg) about DRS or even about the Halo and other stuff that's now normal, don't be so conservative, it's good for F1 to experiment with new idea's, that also doesn't mean that they will be implemented permanently

Both your examples are undermine your point.
DRS, 10 seasons and counting.
Halo, 3 and counting.

Or think of:
Refueling, 16 seasons.
Grooved tyres, 11 seasons.
Current hybrid engines, 7 and counting...

F1 reacts very slowly to its mistakes.

[Branislav]

Liberty have bought the F1 brand name. But they want to build that brand. You don't build a brand by continuing as you've always done. Of course he thinks F1 needs to do different things. He's not interested in appeasing the existing fan base. He wants to build a new, bigger, more lucrative fan base. Nothing wrong with that - unless you are one of the existing fans that like things the way they have always been.

I don't like this quali either. But this is not a solution. Fastest drivers to start last is not right. It can't be.

 

Imagine first race and Grosjean on pole. And Max and Lewis you don't see them.

 

Gimmicks

[Squeed]

He’s leaving the CEO role and becoming non executive chairman of Formula One Group.  Structurally that puts him third in command behind Malone and Maffei.  Initial press reports linked him to a role that could have been transitional.   He’ll still be a big picture guy with the change being Domenicali will take over operations.   Carey was the chairman and CEO, Domenicali is the president and CEO.

Non-executive usually means the guy has been moved from a decision-making role to an advisory role.  He got kicked upstairs to a toothless job. 

Edited by Squeed, 14 October 2020 - 16:06.

[Anja]

Using your post as an example, why is it everyone seems to forget the massive aerodynamic rule changes and budget cap coming into the sport, which are addressing some of those bigger problems. They have not been forgotten.

 

So why not just let the new rules play out and see how it's working?

 

 

While we're on it, pretty much everyone is positive about these rules, at worst there's just some scepticism about their effectiveness. So it's a perfect, recent proof that the point about "resisting change" is just BS. 

Edited by Anja, 14 October 2020 - 16:12.

[FLB]

So... Instead of being an asset, the history of Grand Prix racing is now a hinderance, is that what Mr. Carey is saying...?

[vlado]

While NBA put 3pt line and was viewed positive somewhat during extended period, even though it was negative at beggining   I see it today  again as something negative. Because NBA has gone from being balanced sport between 2's and 3's to everyone jacking off 3's in 7 seconds or less. That's not positive news and way NBA should be going in future. Regardless what anyone says and comments on this post. 

 

Interesting.

 

Was there a 3 point shot before 1979/80 season ? 

[masa90]

Oh hell no, why do they have to try to force that reverse grid crap on the sport? Fix the mainissues, dont add more gimmicks.

 

This way of almost blaming fans for not agreeing to their stupid gimmick fantasy makes me frustrated.

[Burtros]

I would rather F1 was not in a position where it has to look at things like this, and I do think if F1 could address the other issues it has it wouldn’t need to look at them.

However, partly because of a changing world and partly because of its own bad governance, bad tracks and bad regulation set, this is where we are.

Overall I am not against seeing how it goes at a few events next year.

[Neno]

Interesting.

 

Was there a 3 point shot before 1979/80 season ? 

It existed but not in NBA. 3pt line was first introduced in ABA at beggining of 60's. They introduced so their league was providing different excitement of basketball from NBA. In way to equalize big man and smaller players in game of basketball. Which was good decision and thinking for almost now 70 years. But I dont feel it is anymore. 

Edited by Neno, 14 October 2020 - 17:03.

[pdac]

Using your post as an example, why is it everyone seems to forget the massive aerodynamic rule changes and budget cap coming into the sport, which are addressing some of those bigger problems. They have not been forgotten.

 

Because we don't believe they will affect things very much, if at all.

[pdac]

I don't like this quali either. But this is not a solution. Fastest drivers to start last is not right. It can't be.

 

Imagine first race and Grosjean on pole. And Max and Lewis you don't see them.

 

Gimmicks

 

Absolutely.

[SirT]

Non-executive usually means the guy has been moved from a decision-making role to an advisory role.  He got kicked upstairs to a toothless job. 

 

Unless your name is Niki Lauda. Who was, non-executive chairman of Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport,

 

Edited by SirT, 14 October 2020 - 17:29.

[Ruusperi]

Gosh, are they really gonna force the idea of reverse grids until it's accepted? Sorry, but even if you repeat it million times, it's still awful idea.

 

Please, with your seemingly endless energy, concentrate on the real problems (lack of competition, lack of teams, lack of overtaking etc). Too difficult you say? Well boo-hoo.

[loki]

Non-executive usually means the guy has been moved from a decision-making role to an advisory role.  He got kicked upstairs to a toothless job. 

Carey will still be the interface to the FOG board as he is now.  That’s not exactly toothless.  The troika is Malone, Maffei and Carey.  Domenicali is there to do the heavy lifting and execute strategy.   This is a media and events play that happens to encompass a sport.  All three of those guys are media guys.  Domenicali’s gig is to keep the race boys happy and execute the long term goals of the board.  Carey has a lot more juice than Domenicali does.

 

Oh hell no, why do they have to try to force that reverse grid crap on the sport? Fix the mainissues, dont add more gimmicks.

 

This way of almost blaming fans for not agreeing to their stupid gimmick fantasy makes me frustrated.

Specific to the grid invert he said that was something that wasn’t going to be forced on the teams.  The jist of his thought is that there should be new ideas that should be discussed and taken under consideration.  The premise is that as a whole the teams are resistant to change.  His criticism is the lack of willingness to even talk about different things.  It’s the fixing of the main issues where the teams are the most resistant.  They had to be dragged kicking and creaming to the budget cap and for more equitable prize fund distribution.  The problem isn’t Liberty, it’s Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull. In that order.

 

One issue asking fans what they want and driving the decisions based primarily on that is that those attitudes and opinions tend to be looking backwards instead of forward.  Had Henry Ford asked people what they wanted in terms of personal transportation they would have responded with “faster horses”.   People would have told Gates, Woz and Jobs that no one needed a computer at home let alone connect them all together on a network.  And why on earth would you need to have one in your pocket all the time?  While it’s good to gauge what people like it’s poor to use that as a primary driver of strategy.  

[SophieB]

Oh hell no, why do they have to try to force that reverse grid crap on the sport? Fix the mainissues, dont add more gimmicks.

 

This way of almost blaming fans for not agreeing to their stupid gimmick fantasy makes me frustrated.

 

Yeah, I thought there was more than an element of buck passing going on there too. When  Ross was appointed, we were promised an end to this kind of papering over the cracks with stupid gimmicks and told that instead there would be a proper root and branch analysis of the structural problems afflicting the sport, an agreement about where the sport needed to be headed and a plan with milestones on it for how to get there.

 

Now it’s a couple of years later and apparently back to same old stupid crap being suggested and yeah, kind of a suggestion this is somehow OUR fault because we don’t want change which is just so insulting. If they fail to bring about meaningful change, this will be down to the incompetence of the sport’s powers that be and no-one else.

[Rodaknee]

What's all this about 3 point lines in a sport that means sod all to me and probably 90% of the rest who follow F1?  Couldn't he have mentioned a world wide sport like football where they've drastically changed the rules to make it more popular?  Course he couldn't, because international sports don't change the rules every year or so for the 'show'.

 

I think we all knew Bernie's sprinklers were a joke, but this crew seem to be deadly serious with their stupid ideas.  Is there something in the water over there?

[Kalmake]

It existed but not in NBA. 3pt line was first introduced in ABA at beggining of 60's. They introduced so their league was providing different excitement of basketball from NBA. In way to equalize big man and smaller players in game of basketball. Which was good decision and thinking for almost now 70 years. But I dont feel it is anymore. 

Baseball designed hitter rule was also first used in the less popular "MLB-half", AL in 1973. This is year is the first time both AL and NL use the rule.  Also the rule allows pitchers to be obese. 

 

Not sure if these were the best examples Carey could have chosen.

[ATM]

One of the things which actually works is the qualy system. Why is everybody trying to destroy this too?

[Ben1445]

I'm honestly struggling to see here what Carey has said which is objectionable. Or why there's such a strong focus on a reverse grid qualifying race. 
 
I mean: 

“Really in most of those cases, not all, but in most cases, those changes have ended up being viewed as positive, bringing fresh energy, bringing a fresh perspective. I think you have to be careful that you don’t gimmick-up the sport, that you’re recognising the importance of history and the importance of what has made this sport special, but not let that become a straightjacket that doesn’t enable you to consider changes that may truly enhance the sport for fans.”

This just sounds entirely sensible. 

And then when touching on the sub-topic of reverse grid qualifying races, which is one of the ideas for potential changes: 

“I think a decision like the specific one about a qualifying race, I think is a group decision. From my perspective, we’re not going dictate that. Let’s tee it up, take about the pros and cons, do the appropriate homework of what we think again the benefits and issues with it, and have an honest discussion with everybody,” Carey said. “That’s where it’s important to have a spirit of partnership and not look at it as is this good or bad for me as a team, but is it good or bad for the sport, and make an informed judgement. Is this a decision that we feel is respectful to the sport and create greater races for fans? At the end of the day, this is what this is all about. Not every fan is ever going to like it, you're never going to get to 100%, which is why we have to make the judgement is it something we think on balance will improve the sport. Without making it sound like we’re just throwing ideas against a wall, we should always be trying to push ourselves to look at other ways to make the sport more interesting and exciting for fans.”

Again, I don't really see what's unreasonable about these comments or why the poll on this thread is about reverse grid qualifying races in particular and the conversation so skewed in that direction. 

 

The real topic for me is to ask to what extent is the history of F1 actually a 'straitjacket' for change and if it is stopping F1 from making genuinely good changes how do you break down this barrier? Perhaps the mere consideration of reverse grid qualifying is meant to be a sacrificial proposition to loosen up the buckles on the straitjacket and pave the way for positive change of a lesser magnitude...