The evidence for F1 reverse grids

Whenever any Autosport writer suggests introducing reverse grids in Formula 1 is the most effective way to deliver what many fans are clamouring for, much of the response is very negative.

It's frustrating, because it's comfortably the most effective and least contrived way to deliver that. Provided, of course, you want to change what has been a successful formula since qualifying was adopted for the 1933 Monaco Grand Prix and rapidly became the standard.

Whether or not you want to make such a dramatic change - and personally, I reckon the past eight decades of grand prix racing has been pretty thrilling - if you are going to take the current complaints seriously, reverse grids have to be considered.

Setting aside the various arguments about the detail (exactly how to set the grids and what to do about a race like Monaco, for example), there are plenty of case studies proving how effective it would be to scramble the grids.

Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen were all out of position at Suzuka in '05 © LAT

The 2005 Japanese Grand Prix is often cited as the greatest Formula 1 race not just of recent years, but of all time. And it was all the consequence of rain in qualifying, which mixed up the grid.

It created the circumstances that allowed Fernando Alonso to go around the outside of Michael Schumacher at 130R on his way to third, and for Kimi Raikkonen to overtake Giancarlo Fisichella for victory on the last lap after starting 17th on the grid.

It was a thrilling performance from the Finn, then in his pomp and a very different proposition behind the wheel to the current Raikkonen, and his victory that day was so spectacular because he had to work so hard.

Yes, the McLaren-Mercedes MP4-20 was a seriously fast car, but Raikkonen could not miss a beat on his way through the field. Had he wasted a lap making up any of the positions he did, he would have run out of time to catch and pass Fisichella for the win.

And the need for a driver to work for a victory is the essence of a system that puts the drivers with the advantage of the fastest cars down the order. Suzuka is not a perfect example, but it does illustrate that the privilege of an advantage in starting position doesn't guarantee victory even for a good driver in a top car, as Fisichella (who started third) was.

A race 10 years earlier, the 1995 Belgian GP, is another example that proves the concept. Championship protagonists Michael Schumacher and Damon Hill started 16th and eighth respectively after another rain-hit qualifying session.

Yet they ended up battling at the front, with Schumacher winning from Hill, in another race that looms large in the memory.

An example that tackles one of the major criticisms of the reverse grid formula is the 2007 European GP. Famously, a tyre gamble in changing conditions enabled Markus Winkelhock to lead on his only grand prix start driving for the worst team on the grid - Spyker.

Following a safety car restart he led across the line, but was shuffled back to eighth by the end of that lap - a reminder that a slow car is still a slow car, even when given track position.

Winkelhock's lead was short-lived at the Nurburgring in 2007 © LAT

The lesson of that is that nobody in a Manor or a McLaren in 2015 would be able to hang on to a place at the front of the field for very long.

This is desirable because many of the most dramatic grands prix over the years have been won from far down the grid. But such instances are incredibly rare.

So the argument that reverse grids will somehow allow no-hopers in third rate cars to win is nonsensical. Provided, of course, the circuit configurations allow overtaking.

There have been 927 world championship grands prix held (this number disregards the anomalous points-paying Indianapolis 500s of 1950-60) and just 22 of them have been won from grid positions outside the top 10.

That's 2.4 per cent of races. This happens, on average, once every three-and-a-bit years. But that should not be any surprise.

F1 winners from outside top 10:

Year  Race             Driver            Grid
1960  Argentina        Bruce McLaren       13
1961  France           Giancarlo Baghetti  12
1962  Belgium          Jim Clark           12
1971  Italy            Peter Gethin        11
1973  South Africa     Jackie Stewart      16
1975  Spain            Jochen Mass         11
1977  Austria          Alan Jones          14
1977  Argentina        Jody Scheckter      11
1978  South Africa     Ronnie Peterson     11
1982  USA-Detroit      John Watson         17
1983  USA-Long Beach   John Watson         22
1989  Hungary          Nigel Mansell       12
1990  Mexico           Alain Prost         13
1995  Belgium          Michael Schumacher  16
1996  Monaco           Olivier Panis       14
1999  Europe           Johnny Herbert      14
2000  Germany          Rubens Barrichello  18
2003  Australia        David Coulthard     11
2005  Japan            Kimi Raikkonen      17
2006  Hungary          Jenson Button       14
2008  Singapore        Fernando Alonso     15
2012  Europe           Fernando Alonso     11

Usually, it's either rain or a qualifying problem that triggers this. But there have been other reasons, such as the win from the lowest grid position of all.

That was in the 1983 Long Beach GP, when John Watson won from 22nd on the grid - with team-mate Niki Lauda, who lined up right behind him - following him home. This was caused by the Michelin rubber used by McLaren not performing well over a qualifying lap, but having dramatically better race performance than the Goodyear and Pirelli runners.

As a general rule, put the fastest cars right up front on the grid and there's no reason to expect a car that has, on merit, qualified deep in the midfield, to finish ahead of them.

As for the claim made earlier that reverse grids is the most effective way to achieve what people are calling for (exciting, action-packed races), consider this.

You can have cars that are six seconds a lap faster than they are currently, and which look slightly more dramatic thanks to more swoopy aerodynamic parts - as is being suggested for 2017. But if you put them on consistent tyres and start them in pace order, the fastest car will start at the front and finish at the front around 85 per cent of the time (which is the Mercedes strike rate over the past two seasons).

The best drivers generally end up in the best cars (with a few unfortunate exceptions, such as McLaren's 2015 line-up), so why not challenge them a bit more?

What do we want to see from the best drivers? Speed. The ability to overtake. Consistency of performance. All of these things mark out the great drivers.

And even from lower down the grid and without winning, it's possible for these qualities to shine through.

The other advantage of a reverse grid rule is that it will inevitably create greater strategic variety. No longer is the aim simply to stay up front, but for drivers to be able to unleash their speed.

Reverse grids wouldn't have meant McLaren vs Manor for race wins in 2015 © LAT

This means F1 will have to focus less on pushing for high-degradation Pirelli tyres and eliminate probably the main cause for criticism in F1 that we have heard over the past five seasons.

As another example, take the 2005 Australian GP. Again, rain hit in qualifying and this time Fisichella was able to win (from pole), but it was his Renault team-mate Alonso that starred.

Alonso started 13th, and finished third just under seven seconds behind the Italian having shown he comfortably had the speed advantage over his team-mate and would have thrashed him had they started together.

In a well-structured reverse grid format two drivers in the same car would not start so far apart, therefore ensuring the class of a driver like Alonso's would be rewarded compared to a team-mate performing less well.

In short oval racing, the best drivers have to fight through the pack to prevail. Yet they frequently do so. And many from that form of racing see that as the natural order of things.

And provided the grid is decided equitably rather than at random (which is absolutely crucial to preserving the integrity of competition) the challenge is the same.

The action that could be created by this kind of racing is tantalising. And it would unquestionably deliver the kind of consistent, dramatic racing that most call for at the same time as ensuring drivers win races and championships through their own skill rather than simply luck.

The evidence is clear: if people really want the kind of consistently action-packed races they say they want to, this is the path to take.

The counter-argument is that races like Suzuka 2005 are special precisely because they are so race.

But there's no question F1 needs to look at itself and decide on a sensible direction that will create the conditions to deliver the kind of racing to shore up its popularity.

And reverse grids is a far more effective idea to consider than a lot of the suggestions that have been made recently to increase F1's appeal.

Whether it pursues it depends a lot on what it is decided grand prix racing wants to be.

That's an argument for another day. But it's not valid for people to call for a certain type of action on track to be created, but then complain about this option as somehow not worth even considering.