My first Thread - Dear Bernie......

[AlexN8710]

Hi All,

First time on this particular forum. I'm really enjoying F1 at the moment, but feel I'd like to offer my 2c worth of changes that could make F1 more interesting/sustainable/relevant. This isn't new, but I hope those in the know and who love the sport will chip in.

Dear Bernie. Step aside. Toto or Christian are the future. F1 needs to reconcile what it is. Formula E renders F1 a bit irrelevant as a 'green exercise', but using less to do more isn't bad either. To me, F1 is 20 something of the very best drivers in the world, driving the most terrifying cars around tracks at ludicrous speeds.

Costs

• $120,000,000 team budget cap. Can be done. F1 engineers can do anything.
• Get rid of 'Ferrari payments' in favour of a more equitable share of revenues. 50% split evenly between teams, 50% split into bonus' for top ten teams in constructor's championship. Screw those who threaten to leave. Lower costs will attract more teams.
• Introduce a simplified, wide, control rear wing. Essential to encourage natural overtaking/following
• Control gearbox (Ricardo, Hewland?) internals of 6-7 forward ratios. Case it or package it however you like.
• Limit races to 20 per season.
• Encourage alcohol, pharmaceutical sponsorship etc. Whoever has the money is good enough. Johnny Walker is a good example of how F1 can promote responsible drinking while still allowing us to have fun and watch cars go real fast!
• Simplify engines (given below) to reduce costs and encourage new suppliers.
• Reduce track fees so we can keep all the amazing European tracks we all love in the calendar.

Cars

• 2m track.
• Wider tyres to encourage mechanical grip.
• Minimum weight reduced to 640kg.
• Ballasting to be a mandated spot of the car to reduce disadvantage to larger drivers. ( Mark Webber, Hulk, I'm thinking of you).
• Wider nose cone to accommodate larger drivers.
• No DRS.
• 6 or 7 forward ratios. More than enough.
• Keep ICE as is. Ditch the turbo and heavy/complicated intercooler/piping.
• Keep as much of ERS as possible. I think it's very clever.
• Increase power from electric components to around 220hp.
• Run a sustainable fuel, such as E100? A dye could be added so the fuel burns with a colour for safety. There is no need for us to give up loud engines. Just offset carbon emissions and enjoy the power hike. Ethanol has real world implications for developing countries that probably wont have an electric car infrastructure for many, many years.
• Remove fuel flow restrictions. This would allow the engines to run at 14-15,000 rpm. I think the current engines sound great, but nothing sounds great when you are constantly short shifting? In this day and age, a V6 is as close as we will get to a V12 sound, and is much less complicated.
• Impose a 150kg limit on fuel whether refuelling is in or not. Using less is good, but not at the expense of on the limit racing.
• Remove power steering. Keeps costs down and sorts boys from men.

Regs

• Award points for top 8 drivers only.
• Award points for fastest lap/top 10 qualifying position.
• Award 5 extra points for race wins at 3 'Jewel in the crown races'. This could be Spa, Monza and Monaco?
• Allow customer cars. First year they are awarded no championship points, but get an equal share of revenue thereafter. Could act as an impromptu research and development team/technical partner for larger teams parts?
• New teams must have at least a $80,000,000 upfront investment to cover 2 years operating costs.
• 10 engines/gearboxes per season. As long as it fits under the budget cap, It's fine.
• Limit of 26 cars on the grid.
• Absolutely re-introduce a firm 107% rule.
• Introduce more durable tyre compounds that have a usable performance window. Marbling is wasteful and tyre management is just not F1.
• Minimum 2 pit stops per race to encourage faster driving.
• Obtaining a Super license requires at least 1 x 3rd place championship finish plus 10 feature race wins in a sanctioned open wheel spec series (GP2, FR3.5, F3, Indycar)....Sorry Kimi. I'm sure there are pay drivers who will still get through, but at least they will be of sufficient experience and talent....(cough, couch, Chilton).

That's all for now. I don't think F1 is far off being legendary again, but is definitely going through a bit of an identity crisis. Maybe not green, but should be sustainable.

Alternatively, we could get Ferrari to build 24 641/2 V12's and call it GP1? Id go to that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Toto or Christian are the future.

I stopped reading after this point. Wolff and Horner have a vested interest in seeing their teams succeed. They are probably the least-appropriate people to run the sport.

Also, Bernie doesn't read these forums.

 

[mustafur]

In a open Formula like F1 simply saying saving costs can be done by X doesn't work, changing the regulations no matter what you do will increase costs as teams try to take advantage of new regulations as best they can by outspending each other.

Regardless of popular opinion i don't agree with DRS or rubbish tyres though, going down the Entertainment route never ends up overly entertaining and muddles up what actually is proper entertainment.

 

[Northstar]

I don't think you realize what it is Bernie actually does or what he has control over...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Dear Bernie. Step aside. Toto or Christian are the future.

No, they aren't. I doubt that many people could juggle F1 in the way that Bernie is employed to do. He is an employee, remember, he doesn't own F1.

To me, F1 is 20 something of the very best drivers in the world, driving the most terrifying cars around tracks at ludicrous speeds.

Which is what it is now. If they were pottering around a car park last Sunday then Vettel wouldn't have been pouting so much in brown trousers after his tyre failure.

• $120,000,000 team budget cap. Can be done. F1 engineers can do anything.

• Get rid of 'Ferrari payments' in favour of a more equitable share of revenues. 50% split evenly between teams, 50% split into bonus' for top ten teams in constructor's championship. Screw those who threaten to leave. Lower costs will attract more teams.

• Introduce a simplified, wide, control rear wing. Essential to encourage natural overtaking/following

• Control gearbox (Ricardo, Hewland?) internals of 6-7 forward ratios. Case it or package it however you like.

• Limit races to 20 per season.

• Encourage alcohol, pharmaceutical sponsorship etc. Whoever has the money is good enough. Johnny Walker is a good example of how F1 can promote responsible drinking while still allowing us to have fun and watch cars go real fast!

• Simplify engines (given below) to reduce costs and encourage new suppliers.

• Reduce track fees so we can keep all the amazing European tracks we all love in the calendar.

Tiny budget cap? How do you enforce that? There'll certainly be less money coming into the sport, as we'll see shortly.

Get rid of Ferrari payments, fine, but they're not directly linked to the revenue split. It's not the nature of the overall split that's being disputed by any teams but the sub-split of that team-for-team. I wouldn't argue with a more equitable split but, inevitably, that's going to be points-driven if it's to remain fair.

Wider tyres...can't argue with that one although you haven't mentioned compounding or life.

Simplified rear wing that's standardised? No, it needs to go completely and be replaced by the TWG's proposed winglets over each rear tyre. The problem is that you're killing lap-times despite saying you want to improve them. You won't replace 1900-ish kg of downforce by adding much larger unsprung tyres. Also, once you standardise bodies then you lose Formula status and become a spec-series. That's GP2.

Control ratios... presuming that they're geared to the fastest track on the calendar then what's the difference to what they have now in terms of potential laptime? At the moment they can change the ratios once in the year. The "repackaging" is where the devil's detail will be, F1 engineers can do anything as you already noted.

20 race limit, that's practically in effect already.

Reduce track fees, but... there are already at least 20 tracks a year willing to pay. It's supply/demand pricing, if you force the calendar to cheaper tracks then the teams take less money in your division-of-earnings proposal, no?

2m track, presuming that you don't mean a 2m track length and you mean car width...now it's harder to get past the cars on the older Euro tracks that you want to force-include. In fact, it's harder to get past on most.

• Minimum weight reduced to 640kg.

• Ballasting to be a mandated spot of the car to reduce disadvantage to larger drivers. ( Mark Webber, Hulk, I'm thinking of you).
• Wider nose cone to accommodate larger drivers.
• No DRS.
• 6 or 7 forward ratios. More than enough.
• Keep ICE as is. Ditch the turbo and heavy/complicated intercooler/piping.
• Keep as much of ERS as possible. I think it's very clever.
• Increase power from electric components to around 220hp.
• Run a sustainable fuel, such as E100? A dye could be added so the fuel burns with a colour for safety. There is no need for us to give up loud engines. Just offset carbon emissions and enjoy the power hike. Ethanol has real world implications for developing countries that probably wont have an electric car infrastructure for many, many years.
• Remove fuel flow restrictions. This would allow the engines to run at 14-15,000 rpm. I think the current engines sound great, but nothing sounds great when you are constantly short shifting? In this day and age, a V6 is as close as we will get to a V12 sound, and is much less complicated.
• Impose a 150kg limit on fuel whether refuelling is in or not. Using less is good, but not at the expense of on the limit racing.
• Remove power steering. Keeps costs down and sorts boys from men.

Minimum weight at 640kg...why? There'll be an obvious cornering benefit but you'll reduce the overall ERS potential, that's the densest part of the car apart from the engine block. Slower.

Fixing the ballast makes it harder for a team to be competitive depending on the size of their driver, not more competitive. Wider nose cone... drivers don't sit in the nose cone. No DRS... fair enough, I like that idea.

6-7 forward ratios are more than enough, you say... they're fixed to eight now so what's the difference? The ratios have to be set to cover the whole season (or half of), one change is allowed in the year. I don't see what changes unless you're adding a massive cost by allowing the teams to change them at every race. You also add gearbox wear with all that torque going through longer ratios for a greater time.

Ditch the turbo? A waste of available power-from-fuel if you do that. Every bit of potential energy should be harvested, in my opinion.

Sustainable fuel....F1 needs to drive this area, I agree. Why switch to ethanol? An F1 car runs nearly as fast on road fuel as it does on race-prepared fuel, they're over 99% the same, at least according to Shell and their V-Power test.

Remove fuel flow restrictions, impose 150kg fuel flow limit, I think you're shooting up the wrong tree. Clever fuel flow restrictions might be the answer but you're ignoring something important; drivers and teams will always drive to a new maximum, whatever the limit you'll always see lift-and-coast and short shifting because teams will always anticipate safety cars/weather/delays, it's just how race planning works.

Remove power steering and fit those bigger tyres? Sounds quite unsafe.

• Award points for top 8 drivers only.
• Award points for fastest lap/top 10 qualifying position.
• Award 5 extra points for race wins at 3 'Jewel in the crown races'. This could be Spa, Monza and Monaco?
• Allow customer cars. First year they are awarded no championship points, but get an equal share of revenue thereafter. Could act as an impromptu research and development team/technical partner for larger teams parts?
• New teams must have at least a $80,000,000 upfront investment to cover 2 years operating costs.
• 10 engines/gearboxes per season. As long as it fits under the budget cap, It's fine.
• Limit of 26 cars on the grid.
• Absolutely re-introduce a firm 107% rule.
• Introduce more durable tyre compounds that have a usable performance window. Marbling is wasteful and tyre management is just not F1.
• Minimum 2 pit stops per race to encourage faster driving.
• Obtaining a Super license requires at least 1 x 3rd place championship finish plus 10 feature race wins in a sanctioned open wheel spec series (GP2, FR3.5, F3, Indycar)....Sorry Kimi. I'm sure there are pay drivers who will still get through, but at least they will be of sufficient experience and talent....(cough, couch, Chilton).

Limit the number of teams that can score points and you limit the number of teams that can be as attractive to sponsors, you limit how many can earn money from the points pot and you limit the infield-fighting. A car in twelfth has something to fight for at the moment.

Fastest lap points, I'd go with that, I'd also be open to considering quali points.

Extra points for winning "Jewel in the Crown" races? I can see it being a bonus for some teams but I don't see what it gives to the sport overall. It could well reduce the incentive to "race" at places like Spa where a Safety Car is 80% likely.

Customer cars that can't score points? Why would I bother buying one if I'm going to pay to run it with no points payout? I've already had to stump up $80,000,000 via people who share my thinking that this is a good idea. If I can find any.

10 engines and gearboxes, is that per car or per team? If it's per car then that's a cost increase from the current status.

Limit of 26 cars on the grid, we have that now... don't we?

Re-introduce 107% rule... that hasn't changed, why would it be more firm? At the moment exceptions are allowed by force majeure, you want the little teams to have more earning potential rather than less so why change it?

More durable compounds, that means slower racing.

2 pit stops for faster driving, how does that work? The compounds are harder so there'll be little need for 2 stops, there's no refuelling so they'll be carrying the same weight, all the stops do is add more stress to the cars.

Super-licence rules, I see what you're getting at there but then I watch GP2 and wonder if they should even be allowed out on their own.


Overall it seems that actually you want to move away from Formula racing and end up with a fixed-spec GP-type series that's slower. It could potentially be slower than GP2 unless you're going to force the changes right down the chain. I don't see how that makes F1 either more sustainable or more attractive?

Add to that your cosh-on-the-head fiscal ideas and I think you've simply created a more expensive, slower version of spec-series that already exists. It would no longer be the premier sport and the decline would be far from a gentle spiral. If your rules were implemented then it wouldn't surprise me to see the big teams split away and simply continue with a New F1.

 

[AlexN8710]

Typical, a wave of Nay saying and negativity with no suggestions.

The idea of this is to discuss changes, by offering....suggestions.

Please lets not turn this into a d**k swinging contest.

 

[Carbonox]

10 feature race wins required in GP2? That's something even Vandoorne could hardly achieve before more than likely leaving at the end of this season.

Besides, the sign of a promising GP2 driver is typically that they achieve good results and/or a championship early on in their career at the series, typically meaning they gather less wins than those who take 4 years to win a title.

 

[AlexN8710]

I'm

I stopped reading after this point. Wolff and Horner have a vested interest in seeing their teams succeed. They are probably the least-appropriate people to run the sport.

Also, Bernie doesn't read these forums.

I'm sure Bernie did when he took control. That really worked out well for Brabham long term.

If not those guys, who?

Suggestions please

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Typical, a wave of Nay saying and negativity with no suggestions.

So, in other words, all ideas are good ideas because somebody took the time to have the idea?

Good luck with that attitude ...

Suggestions please

What makes you think that anybody here has any potential or is in any position to change things?

 

[Famine]

a d**k swinging

Dark? Dank? Duck?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Please lets not turn this into a d**k swinging contest.

Dark? Dank? Duck?

I'd be up for a duck-swinging contest.

 

[Sick Cylinder]

Hi All,

First time on this particular forum. I'm really enjoying F1 at the moment, but feel I'd like to offer my 2c worth of changes that could make F1 more interesting/sustainable/relevant. This isn't new, but I hope those in the know and who love the sport will chip in.

Dear Bernie. Step aside. Toto or Christian are the future. F1 needs to reconcile what it is. Formula E renders F1 a bit irrelevant as a 'green exercise', but using less to do more isn't bad either. To me, F1 is 20 something of the very best drivers in the world, driving the most terrifying cars around tracks at ludicrous speeds.

Costs

• $120,000,000 team budget cap. Can be done. F1 engineers can do anything.
• Get rid of 'Ferrari payments' in favour of a more equitable share of revenues. 50% split evenly between teams, 50% split into bonus' for top ten teams in constructor's championship. Screw those who threaten to leave. Lower costs will attract more teams.
• Introduce a simplified, wide, control rear wing. Essential to encourage natural overtaking/following
• Control gearbox (Ricardo, Hewland?) internals of 6-7 forward ratios. Case it or package it however you like.
• Limit races to 20 per season.
• Encourage alcohol, pharmaceutical sponsorship etc. Whoever has the money is good enough. Johnny Walker is a good example of how F1 can promote responsible drinking while still allowing us to have fun and watch cars go real fast!
• Simplify engines (given below) to reduce costs and encourage new suppliers.
• Reduce track fees so we can keep all the amazing European tracks we all love in the calendar.

Cars

• 2m track.
• Wider tyres to encourage mechanical grip.
• Minimum weight reduced to 640kg.
• Ballasting to be a mandated spot of the car to reduce disadvantage to larger drivers. ( Mark Webber, Hulk, I'm thinking of you).
• Wider nose cone to accommodate larger drivers.
• No DRS.
• 6 or 7 forward ratios. More than enough.
• Keep ICE as is. Ditch the turbo and heavy/complicated intercooler/piping.
• Keep as much of ERS as possible. I think it's very clever.
• Increase power from electric components to around 220hp.
• Run a sustainable fuel, such as E100? A dye could be added so the fuel burns with a colour for safety. There is no need for us to give up loud engines. Just offset carbon emissions and enjoy the power hike. Ethanol has real world implications for developing countries that probably wont have an electric car infrastructure for many, many years.
• Remove fuel flow restrictions. This would allow the engines to run at 14-15,000 rpm. I think the current engines sound great, but nothing sounds great when you are constantly short shifting? In this day and age, a V6 is as close as we will get to a V12 sound, and is much less complicated.
• Impose a 150kg limit on fuel whether refuelling is in or not. Using less is good, but not at the expense of on the limit racing.
• Remove power steering. Keeps costs down and sorts boys from men.

Regs

• Award points for top 8 drivers only.
• Award points for fastest lap/top 10 qualifying position.
• Award 5 extra points for race wins at 3 'Jewel in the crown races'. This could be Spa, Monza and Monaco?
• Allow customer cars. First year they are awarded no championship points, but get an equal share of revenue thereafter. Could act as an impromptu research and development team/technical partner for larger teams parts?
• New teams must have at least a $80,000,000 upfront investment to cover 2 years operating costs.
• 10 engines/gearboxes per season. As long as it fits under the budget cap, It's fine.
• Limit of 26 cars on the grid.
• Absolutely re-introduce a firm 107% rule.
• Introduce more durable tyre compounds that have a usable performance window. Marbling is wasteful and tyre management is just not F1.
• Minimum 2 pit stops per race to encourage faster driving.
• Obtaining a Super license requires at least 1 x 3rd place championship finish plus 10 feature race wins in a sanctioned open wheel spec series (GP2, FR3.5, F3, Indycar)....Sorry Kimi. I'm sure there are pay drivers who will still get through, but at least they will be of sufficient experience and talent....(cough, couch, Chilton).

That's all for now. I don't think F1 is far off being legendary again, but is definitely going through a bit of an identity crisis. Maybe not green, but should be sustainable.

Alternatively, we could get Ferrari to build 24 641/2 V12's and call it GP1? Id go to that.

Welcome to GTPlanet!

My 2 cents - the key to improving F1 is to make overtaking possible, but it needs to be real overtaking not artificial from a button. Overtaking becomes easier if braking distances are lengthened and safety improves if cornering speeds are reduced. The easiest way to do this is to reduce aerodynamic downforce which also has the side effect of making the air just behind the car less turbulent so that overtaking opportunities are further improved.

Reduction in downforce also has the benefit of making the cars easier (i.e. less physical to drive). I recently finished reading Desire Wilson's excellent book (Driven by Desire) and she comments on how much harder and less pleasant F1 cars became to drive after ground effects were introduced, also how suspension movement was reduced and spring rates (harsh ride) increased by a factor of more than 10 - these things result in cars where it is harder to get to the limit and the limit itself is narrower.

My solution to F1's problems would therefore be either to abolish front and rear wings altogether or to greatly reduce their size - if they are kept they would be a control wing which all teams would use. The level of downforce could be mandated at a set speed - this is easy enough to test.

Tyres and mechanical grip could be increased and there is no need for rubbish tyres and all the other current gimmicks in F1. There is no need for pit stops at all - at the moment they are mandated because the TV contracts guarantee a certain minimum air time by showing the cars stops.

I don't agree with extra points for qualifying and fastest lap etc - if the racing is good it doesn't need to be supported by gimmicks. A reduction in corner speeds would also mean that the current trend for very wide and boring track designs could be reversed. F1 racing was exciting in the 60's, 70's, 80's and part of the 90's, but as braking distances reduced, corner speeds increased, overtaking disappeared and we started going to more and more wide, boring tilke tracks I found I only needed to watch the first lap and last lap and it was fine to either sleep or cut the grass for the rest of the race.

Seeing the best drivers in the world race should be great, but watching a local club event now holds much more interest than F1.

 

[Jimlaad43]

My solution to F1's problems would therefore be either to abolish front and rear wings altogether

That is the stupidest idea ever. The point of F1 is to produce the fastest cars around, and by removing all their downforce you're going to stop that happening.

The cars just need to be faster. More downforce so the corners can be done quicker AND the cars have enough grip to utilise the current engines fully. I want to see lap records broken in the race, not a few seconds off it in quali.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Typical, a wave of Nay saying and negativity with no suggestions.

The idea of this is to discuss changes, by offering....suggestions.

Please lets not turn this into a d**k swinging contest.

You offered a list of suggestions that (as you said yourself) turn the sport into a GP style series. You proposed the end of the Formula status, you gave no reason for getting rid of Bernie Ecclestone and nor did you say why you thought the raft of technical changes had anything to do with him (they don't).

Your idea sucked harder than Bernie's Brabham Fan Car, in my opinion.

I second the duck-swinging, sounds like a lorra laughs.

 

[Sick Cylinder]

That is the stupidest idea ever. The point of F1 is to produce the fastest cars around, and by removing all their downforce you're going to stop that happening.

The cars just need to be faster. More downforce so the corners can be done quicker AND the cars have enough grip to utilise the current engines fully. I want to see lap records broken in the race, not a few seconds off it in quali.

Personally I think you're completely wrong and you obviously think the same about my ideas - that's fine we all have an opinion. F1 has been struggling for years to try to re-enable overtaking - I've just put forward the easiest way to do it.

The cars now go about the same speed in a straight line that they did in 1938.

The purpose of F1 can be debated, but it isn't to produce the fastest cars around. I would like it to be about motor racing, but now it appears to be about maximising television revenues, taking the cars to countries which are the highest bidder to race on sterile wide open tracks with no racing heritage.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The purpose of F1 can be debated, but it isn't to produce the fastest cars around.

Wrong.

I would like it to be about motor racing

It is.

but now it appears to be about maximising television revenues,

It is. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

F1 has been struggling for years to try to re-enable overtaking - I've just put forward the easiest way to do it.

Which was this;

My solution to F1's problems would therefore be either to abolish front and rear wings altogether or to greatly reduce their size - if they are kept they would be a control wing which all teams would use. The level of downforce could be mandated at a set speed - this is easy enough to test.

So you'd like to go back to 1938 lap times, it seems, that or start getting rid of the Formula aspect of the racing by making it spec. Both of those things would kill the sport stone dead, hardly an improvement.

You've said you want to reduce corner speeds; what happens when your 1938 plan comes good and the cars are 20-or-30 seconds a lap slower than GP2? Do you kill their sport too?

Finally; you'd like an end to the "wide modern tracks" but you'd like to go back to a 1938 speed/grip spec on narrow historic tracks (despite modern F1 cars arguably being able to hit 240+ mph with no downforce). It'd end up being similar to the days when there was an F1 funeral every other weekend. That seems irresponsible, don't you think?

 

[Sick Cylinder]

Ask yourself which have been the best F1 races that you have seen in your lifetime and I expect it will include some of the wet races where grip levels were reduced, cornering speeds were down and braking distances were increased. The racing authorities have been treading a path trying to control corner speeds and grip levels since the death of Senna, but each time they reduce tyre or wing sizes the Engineers find more aerodynamic grip. I just proposed that instead of frequent small steps they try a few big ones. I am not proposing a return to 1930's lap times - that wouldn't happen, but the cars would be safer with lower corner speeds and there could be fewer punctures without wings.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Ask yourself which have been the best F1 races that you have seen in your lifetime and I expect it will include some of the wet races where grip levels were reduced, cornering speeds were down and braking distances were increased. The racing authorities have been treading a path trying to control corner speeds and grip levels since the death of Senna, but each time they reduce tyre or wing sizes the Engineers find more aerodynamic grip. I just proposed that instead of frequent small steps they try a few big ones. I am not proposing a return to 1930's lap times - that wouldn't happen, but the cars would be safer with lower corner speeds and there could be fewer punctures without wings.

2015 Hungary
2014 Bahrain
2013 Britain
2012 Valencia
2011 Germany
2010 Canada
2009 Brazil
2009 Belgium
2008 Japan
2008 Germany
2008 Canada
2008 Australia
2007 Canada

Nice and dry

 

[ChromeBallz]

The solution isn't more rules, but less rules. Aside from some sort of budget cap or another measure that makes less well financed teams more competitive, i don't see a reason to limit technological development - In fact, it may result in more works teams emerging, as they have a very effective R&D opportunity in F1 in such cases (despite my later point, it still yields a lot of data and innovation for use in road cars).

A max of 26 cars? I don't see the reason for that. What's wrong with 28 or more cars on the grid? It only means teams and drivers have to be more competitive and we'll see more racing and more overtaking, more spectacle.

The superlicense thing had me chuckling a bit. No one can seriously argue that Max Verstappen does not deserve to be in an F1 car after what he managed to do, as well as how he composes himself, in this season so far (although he does actually meet the criteria you propose already).


Lastly, the eco mania is really annoying. F1 should be the pinnacle of automotive racing and technological development in that area. If that requires more fuel, than so be it. It has zero impact on the actual problem. A grid of 20-30 cars spending a few 100KG of fuel 20 times a year is literally nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of cars guzzling fuel every single day of every single year all of the world.

F1 is not the place where eco-friendly driving should be promoted (leave that to the American market, where fuel is consumed even more than air or water, to start making an example). This really annoys the crap out of me.

And i want the old sound back. F1 is also a spectator sport - I want the sound, i want the overtaking, i want the spectacle. I want the world champion to actually feel like a world champion, not the leader of a procession like it has been so often the case in the last few decades.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Just getting rid of the diffuser and reducing the front and rear wings to the kind of single element flat plane wings they used to use at Hockenheim before that track was shortened would be almost enough.

Lose DRS, then soft tyres that need two stops, medium tyres that need one stop and hard tyres that will go the distance and you're set.

No more compulsory pitstops and give them enough fuel to go the distance without having to soft pedal it.

As for engines and tyres. No limits on entrants or development, just a rule that you have to sell your engine/tyre whatever else to any team that wants it at a price cap the FIA sets. That will at least cap the cost of entry for smaller teams. I don't think there is a way of stopping a big team that has the money from spending it. Perhaps removing all winglets and other aero devices from the body and making it aero slick might work, but they'd only find something else to spend money on.

Top six score points on the old scale of 10,6,4,3,2,1 for the drivers but points all the way down for teams.

 

[Carbonox]

If we're making changes, why not go with @Famine's adjusted constructors' championship system? The current point system definitely overemphasizes fluke results that can and will have a big impact in a battle between teams that don't often score any points.

 

[Famine]

A max of 26 cars? I don't see the reason for that. What's wrong with 28 or more cars on the grid?

They don't fit in the pit lane.

 

[Jimlaad43]

No more compulsory pitstops and give them enough fuel to go the distance without having to soft pedal it.

After everyone complained about fuel saving in Canada, lots of team members and pundits were quick to point out that the teams would find a way to burn off a load of fuel in the first few laps to get much lighter, and then fuel save as normal for the rest of the race.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No more compulsory pitstops and give them enough fuel to go the distance without having to soft pedal it.

Lift-and-coast has always existed to some degree or other though. "Enough fuel to go the distance" sounds simpler than it is. If you let the car carry 200kg of fuel then they'll still reach the line on vapour. So you make it 250kg, 300kg and so on. Guess what'll happen?

All you've done is put 4000kg of fuel in a start line accident rather than 2000kg, you haven't altered racing. The only difference in modern times is that drivers are radio-coached on fuel usage, it's very very rare to see a car stop out-of-fuel nowadays... which personally I prefer.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Lift-and-coast has always existed to some degree or other though. "Enough fuel to go the distance" sounds simpler than it is. If you let the car carry 200kg of fuel then they'll still reach the line on vapour. So you make it 250kg, 300kg and so on. Guess what'll happen?

All you've done is put 4000kg of fuel in a start line accident rather than 2000kg, you haven't altered racing. The only difference in modern times is that drivers are radio-coached on fuel usage, it's very very rare to see a car stop out-of-fuel nowadays... which personally I prefer.

Irrelevant. They don't have enough fuel deliberately in order to justify the hybrid. I say use hybrid as extra power and let them have enough fuel to run the distance. Yes they will put less in to save weight and coast as necessary but that is an option. Not forced on them as is the case now.

 

[spacecowboy73]

Personally I think you're completely wrong and you obviously think the same about my ideas - that's fine we all have an opinion. F1 has been struggling for years to try to re-enable overtaking - I've just put forward the easiest way to do it.

I think the easiest way to help F1 increase overtaking is to increase the ground effect from the floor of the car. I'm happy the teams are finally looking into doing this. It's worked in IndyCar for a long time and I've been wondering when F1 would finally realize this.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I think the easiest way to help F1 increase overtaking is to increase the ground effect from the floor of the car. I'm happy the teams are finally looking into doing this. It's worked in IndyCar for a long time and I've been wondering when F1 would finally realize this.

That was banned in F1 at the end of the 1982 season. Corner speeds would get out of hand. That would lessen overtaking not increase it.

 

[spacecowboy73]

Many of the teams seem to disagree:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120362

 

[TenEightyOne]

Irrelevant. They don't have enough fuel deliberately in order to justify the hybrid.

Not at all irrelevant. A driver never has the perfect amount of fuel. They'll burn as much as they can (recovering whatever energy they can along the way) to get to the line fastest. They'll either finish with too much fuel (and therefore a slower car) or they'll under-anticipate the amount required for the full distance. It's always been that way and will continue. I agree that the fuel allocation is stingy in order to force hybrid development but that doesn't change the overall thinking behind fuel use.

I think the easiest way to help F1 increase overtaking is to increase the ground effect from the floor of the car.

Floor downforce is to be recovered in 2017. The difficulty is in ensuring (as @Tired Tyres said) that the cornering speeds don't get out of hand. Another is making sure that the car sticks in a high-speed spin. Some think that if Rosberg's Blanchimont blowout had happened with ground-effect then the departure could have been far more violent and/or airborne.

 

[ChromeBallz]

They don't fit in the pit lane.

Lol, okay, that's a good point XD

Still, afaik there were GP's with more than 30 participants. Did the pits for those tracks get rebuilt?