Should F1 use reversed grids?

In the wake of Formula 1's shock move to double points finales from 2014, the AUTOSPORT team proposed some wild ideas of our own to improve the sport - which certainly polarised reader opinion.

Several of the more controversial suggestions involved reversed grids and forcing the quickest cars and drivers to battle through the field.

So, are reversed grids a good idea for F1? In one of our AUTOSPORT Great Debates two of our staffers battle it out.

YES, says editor-in-chief Andrew van de Burgt

First of all, here's a reality check. The world has changed since you started watching F1. The rise of the internet and the ways of accessing information have dramatically increased people's viewing options and reduced their attention span.

Now, all sport - at a professional level - is part of the entertainment business. In order to justify a prominent position on TV, whether that's free-to-air or subscription, it needs bums on seats.

F3: pure but often processional © LAT

The purists may like the idea of lining the cars up in order of how fast they are and then watching them drive around in that order for two hours. If purity is what you want, go to a Formula 3 race (which I love, by the way). You won't have a problem finding an empty spectator bank.

In my F1 utopia, the season starts with a collective launch. After each team reveals its new car - starting with the team that was bottom of the constructors' standings - its drivers perform a single qualifying lap.

This determines the starting order for the opening race and is the only qualifying session of the year. From then on, each grid is formed in reversed championship order.

I've heard some say that this will devalue a win. I don't get that. That assumes a Caterham or Marussia transforms pole into victory.

I think there's a strong case to suggest that Sebastian Vettel would have still won those final nine races under the reversed-championship-order format, but the races would just have been a lot more interesting, and would finally confound those blinkered detractors who claim he can't race.

As we have seen in races such as last year's Chinese Grand Prix, when Red Bull knew its cars would have to fight through the field, they were set up to overtake. If that was going to be the case in every race then the design of cars would evolve so that there was no need for gimmicks such as DRS.

As a taster, imagine the grid for Malaysia last year: Pastor Maldonado and Nico Hulkenberg on the front row followed by Nico Rosberg and Daniel Ricciardo, with Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen at the back. It sounds a lot better to me.

NO, says features editor Kevin Turner

Making entertainment the main focus of rules can be self-defeating. Just take a look at the impact of central service parks and shorter stages in World Rallying, or the push to start races in dangerous conditions because of TV schedules.

If you sell the soul of something people will switch off anyway.

F1 is the pinnacle of the sport. It should be about the best car/driver winning. If one combination dominates, that's tough. We all want a close contest, but sometimes that just isn't going to happen.

Usain Bolt isn't made to start the Olympic 100-metres final with heavy boots, or from 10m behind everyone else, because it's pure sport. The entertainment comes through seeing someone special perform. It should be the same for F1.

Out-of-position cars can't automatically blast back through, as Alonso found out in 2010 © XPB

Mixing up the starting order does increase the possibility of the 'wrong' driver winning GPs, which surely makes each race worth less. The fastest driver may come through, but that's only likely if they have a significant performance advantage.

In close-fought seasons, it simply may not be possible. Remember the damp squib of Alonso stuck behind Vitaly Petrov in the 2010 Abu Dhabi GP?

Reversed grids are more acceptable in junior categories because they can help drivers learn different facets of the game, but drivers still talk about 'proper' wins as opposed to reversed-grid victories.

Even championships designed more around the fans, such as the British Touring Car Championship, have kept the focus in the right place. With traditional qualifying and two conventional races, the best driver over a weekend is more likely to come away with good points than the winner of the partially-reversed-grid finale.

It adds entertainment value without skewing the season too far.

When it comes to spicing up F1, I can live with KERS/ERS, because of their environmental advantages. I've even managed to stomach DRS on the grounds that it's a plaster over the thornier subject of the cars relying too much on aerodynamic wings that create dirty air.

But reversed grids are a step too far.

This article also appears in the January 9 issue of AUTOSPORT magazine