Don't dismiss reverse grids too quickly

It's easy to laugh off the suggestion of introducing reverse grids in Formula 1. After all, it means the slowest will be given an advantage...won't it?

But according to the results of the recent fan survey conducted by F1 Racing in association with AUTOSPORT and Motorsport News, 24.1 per cent of you are open to the idea of reverse grids in grand prix racing - and you are right to take that position, even if it also means three quarters are against it.

Before seriously analysing the validity of this proposal, you must disabuse yourself of the notion that this is about rewarding failure. Instead, it is about redefining what constitutes racing success. More specifically, about what those doing the winning need to do to achieve it.

That might seem like a semantic argument, but it's the foundation of any debate on this topic.

Slow cars would not win races. For proof of that, just look at the Hungarian Grand Prix; Roberto Merhi got ahead of both Saubers at the start.

He started the second lap ahead of both, but finished it behind them. And that's what was the second-slowest car in the field passing the slowest (albeit with an unusually large gap between the two thanks to the year-old Marussia that's still in use). So this isn't about allowing slow cars to win races.

Provided that the reverse grid is arranged equitably, rather than at random, this satisfies the need for sporting fairness. After all, the only reason that cars are lined up in practice-pace order is that the organisers of the 1933 Monaco Grand Prix came up with the idea and everyone went with it - so there's no reason to consider it an immutable law of nature.

Complaints about contemporary grand prix racing take myriad forms. Many of them focus on the lack of action, boring races, drivers in the best cars not having to work for victories and an unfair battle between the haves and the have-nots.

Reverse grids would force leading drivers to overtake rivals © LAT

All manner of suggestions have been made for how to change the regulations to encourage this, but reversing the grid will automatically create the conditions needed to deliver exactly what everybody wants.

After all, what qualities do you want to see a great racing driver demonstrate? Speed, obviously. Overtaking skills. Nerve. Consistency. Determination. The ability to go toe-to-toe with their rivals and prevail. Well, reversing grids is something that makes all of those qualities essential.

As Gary Anderson pointed out in his column, one of the reasons that the recent British and Hungarian GPs were so gripping is that they started off with the qualifying order being overturned.

There are some valid negatives. The fact that grand prix racing has done pretty well for itself during the past eight decades with qualifying as part of its fabric does carry some weight.

And on the streets of Monaco, it's possible for much slower ones to keep attackers behind indefinitely just by driving tidily and not making mistakes. So you would either have to accept that's the case or consider that a special event with conventional qualifying.

There are also difficult questions about what to do with qualifying. The idea of continuing to have qualifying to decide the reverse grid and awarding points is nonsensical - the line-up should be based on something that cannot be manipulated.

F1 does need a focal point on Saturday. Maybe that takes the form of a sprint race, as has been suggested recently?

While there are some questions that have to be worked on, the overall result would be very positive. And it's not just in the interest of 'improving the show' by guaranteeing more incident-packed races.

For years now, people have complained about cars not being able to follow each other closely because of turbulence.

Well, in a reverse-grid world, it's no longer possible to produce a car that works brilliantly in clean air but is more compromised in traffic. Today, you can do that, but with this rule change the complexity would have to be offset by a pragmatic need to work across a broader range of conditions.

Likewise, the trade-off between downforce (drag) and straightline speed will be more difficult. There will therefore be more variables at play throughout the field, and variables are always good for racing.

British and Hungarian GPs were shaken up by early changes to the order © XPB

So would it be possible to win from the back? Well, the answer is yes. Let's look at the Hungarian Grand Prix as a case study.

Lewis Hamilton, conveniently for the purposes of this example, relegated himself to 10th on the first lap by going off the track.

At the Hungaroring, a track not famed for ease of overtaking, he was up to fourth place on lap 25. So that took just 36 per cent of the race. On his way to doing that, he got ahead of some pretty quick cars.

So to assume that the quickest cars can't get through reasonably quick traffic is a mistake. Doubly so when you bear in mind that the quickest cars will start at the back - in effect, the key will be the drivers who are most incisive will have the advantage.

This would surely lead to the driver having greater influence on the overall result than he does currently. If you can't overtake, you're going to go nowhere in a reverse-grid formula. But the best all-round drivers will thrive.

Then, there is also the strategic variety this can create. Currently, F1 strategy is relatively predictable. The frontrunners all start on the softer Pirelli tyres and do a one, two or three stop race and there often isn't a great deal of difference between tactical approaches.

And despite the current support for refuelling, it would be the same if that came back.

But there are different approaches to going from the back to the front. Do you start on the slower tyre, get that out of the way when you know traffic will be a problem and then make hay later in the race (a la Mark Webber on his way from 18th on the grid to third in China in 2011.

Or do you go with the quick tyre, aim to attack properly and not risk losing sight of those in faster cars who take that option.

If it's the former, it sets the quickest cars on a collision course to the end of the race, often with the car ahead on the slower rubber.

If it's the latter, it creates a race on equal footing for those lower down the order. The incisive overtakers will prevail and the best drivers will more consistently be the ones that rise.

Granted, teams will work out the ideal strategic approaches soon enough but the number of variables influencing a race will be significantly multiplied.

Mark Webber raced from back to front in the 2011 Chinese Grand Prix © XPB

Short-oval racing has used this kind of format in the past. And while road racing is very different to that form of the sport, if you watch a National Hot Rod race in the UK, you'll see that overtaking is not exactly easy - yet the best drivers do it.

There would be some problems potentially posed by smaller teams being affiliated to big ones. After all, a Red Bull should expect an easier ride in getting past a Toro Rosso than a Mercedes would - so that's another area that the rulemakers would need to be wise to.

If F1 were to consider this idea seriously, the next step would be to run some serious simulations and see what sorts of results might be thrown up.

The rules set would need some work to ensure that the way the grid is calculated is the right one - reverse championship order would make sense, although to this you would have to factor in ways to deal with new drivers coming in mid-season.

Obviously, you would also need a rules framework for early in the season. But as this is a topic that has been addressed before, there is an example here of how things could work.

The bottom line is that if F1 is in the serious trouble that so many claim it is in, for those who wail that something must be done, reverse grids implemented on an equitable, non-random basis is the best option.

The fastest drivers will still win, the champion will probably be even more worthy and the races will be more dramatic.

If you want to modify F1 with a single change that would solve all the perceived problems, this is the one to make. It's far more desirable than ideas of going down the 'GP1' route.

It just needs the mindset to be modified. After all, there's no reason why the fastest should be given the extra advantage of starting at the front, make them work for it.

But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the current format to my mind and it would not be a problem to continue with it.

It's just that this one, dramatic and fascinating change is the thing that would create the kind of racing people are always clamouring for.

Certainly, it would be wrong to dismiss it out of hand on the basis of 'tradition'. Even if, ultimately, it might be considered a step too far in tinkering with a time-honoured format.