How F1 squandered an opportunity to experiment

One of Formula 1's greatest contradictions is that while it's a hotbed of technical innovation and continuous transformation, the people who actually call the shots are change-phobic to an almost hysterical degree. Worse still, since Bernie Ecclestone short-sightedly granted the teams a voice in decision-making, the blunt hand of tawdry self-interest has crushed many new ideas at the embryonic stage.

Older readers and trivia whizzes will recall that Elvis died on the toilet. Well, despite an extraordinarily long sitting, and a copious amount of heaving and straining, F1 has managed to pass the 2021 regulations without suffering a heart attack. Sadly, one of the more interesting ideas that could have been implemented, and which was mooted to be trialled next year, has fallen foul of the it-can't-be-done crowd.

The phrase "reversed grids" naturally causes a collective shriek among 'purists', but the concept put forward by Liberty wasn't quite the gimmick those in opposition made out. No less a brain than Ross Brawn thought it worthwhile to evaluate a different qualifying format at two or three events next season, for which the grid would be set by a qualifying race in which the field went off in the reverse of their championship order.

Still, the very mention of "reversed grids" evokes that automatic response. But if you were suffering a bout of the tremors at the sheer effrontery of such a thing, fear not - your saviour is at hand in the form of Mercedes boss Toto Wolff, who, along with an un-named team principal, vetoed it at a meeting before the Mexican GP.

"I did it because we have a responsibility to preserve the DNA," said Wolff. "It felt wrong, not to preserve an advantage - because maybe it would have been good for us as Ferrari would have been behind us when you look at current qualifying pace. I voted against it because when you're looking at the Olympic 100m final, you're not making Usain Bolt start five metres behind just to make it exciting."

This is sheer cant, with a side order of whataboutery. More than that, it's naked self-interest hiding beneath a flag of convenience. If you think Wolff kicked this one into the long grass purely out of altruism, you'll believe anything.

Valtteri Bottas's march through the field from the back of the Abu Dhabi grid to just short of the podium (and he might have been on the podium but for that computer-says-no phase when DRS was unavailable) was among the most interesting elements of that race until the final lap. But of course, Mercedes doesn't send cars out into the field to finish third or lower, regardless of what might jolt the audience from its collective afternoon nap, so anything that militates against the fastest cars starting from the front is disagreeable.

In the spirit of learning and experimentation, W Series ran a non-championship reverse-grid race at Assen this year just to - whisper it - see what would happen. The result was a thrilling race with a close finish (pictured above). This was the sort of practical simulation F1 could undertake if certain folk within it didn't pettily object at the prospect of any change that might insert unpredictability into the established order.

So as the Blessed Toto gathered his vestments and retreated to the rectory, Brawn responded with understandable peevishness. "I thought it was a fascinating contest," he said. "And the drivers were a little bit nervous, which I can understand, but we were just asking for the opportunity for three races to try the format. If it doesn't work, we put our hands up; if it does work, great. If it's something in between, we can work with [that] just to help us develop the format of racing. And it's frustrating that we've not been able to do that, but I think that's - unfortunately - the classic problem with Formula 1."

Isn't it just? Qualifying races may not be the right answer, but as we look to a changing future and an evolving demographic, F1 needs to be able to ask the right questions as a starting point. From there the right answers may come. But so long as the right of veto rests with corporate functionaries, who answer to boards and bottom lines rather than motor racing's audience, any change will always be nixed outright or diluted into ineffectual pointlessness.