What Autosport would change about F1

One of the best races in dry conditions where almost all of the favourites started from 12, 15, 16 or whatever was and still is Suzuka 2005.

I couldn't get enough of races like that. Favourites start from behind and still have good chances to win. But there wouldn't be such a thing as easy wins anymore. Even in dominant cars.

That means: Reversed starting grid with a big enough incentive so everyone gives really everything in qualifying to be fastest.

Big enough incentive means: 12 or 13 points for pole (meaning that this driver starts from 10). And then 10 points for the second fastest in qualifying (starting from ninth) and so on (down to the tenth fastest who gets one or two points and starts from one). The eleventh fastest and whoever starts below that starts from eleven and below (no changes).

I think the reverse grid aspect of Suzuka 2005 is overrated. Having a 'green' track that the cars aren't setup for also contributes. It injects chaos/disparity that you don't get in a normal weekend.

It's why wet-dry races tend to be better than full wet.

The problem with all these "get rid of all the restrictive rules" arguments is that they don't tell us what to do when Red Bull/Vettel wins every race of the year and viewing figures go through the floor.

The problem with all these "get rid of all the restrictive rules" arguments is that they don't tell us what to do when Red Bull/Vettel wins every race of the year and viewing figures go through the floor.

But that seems to happen anyway.

It seems plausible that the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari might spend to keep up with Red Bull if they were allowed more elaborate engine programmes.

A non-starter. Every team's first car would produce downforce beyond the limit of the human body.

But that seems to happen anyway.

 

It seems plausible that the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari might spend to keep up with Red Bull if they were allowed more elaborate engine programmes.

Well replacing aerodynamic dominance with engine/money dominance doesn't do a lot for me

Well replacing aerodynamic dominance with engine/money dominance doesn't do a lot for me

Aerodynamic dominance vs engine dominance vs KERS dominance vs suspension dominance (vs. possibly, maybe, crap-in-races-but-great-in-qualifying tyres dominance) might produce a show. It's a simplification but the more variables you introduce, the more you give individual teams the chance to shine and the more avenues you give for sponsors/manufacturers/investors. The 2014 rules are bringing engines and possibly KERS back into play and I imagine aero and suspension development will never go away without spec parts. Tyre competition would offer another avenue but lately there's been every indication that the FIA have tried to introduce this, without success.

I mean, in 2013 we had one team with an extremely aero dominant philosophy vs one team with a suspension/vehicle dynamics approach (Red Bull vs Lotus), with Ferrari and Mercedes fitting somewhere in between. The way those two paths led to battles for position was the most interesting thing about the season (and probably led to the Silverstone actual PR-disaster and near real-disaster).

I don't know how you pay for it all. But allowing more freedom to design engines seems to have brought money from Honda and a renewed commitment from Renault, who were on the verge of quitting. I don't know how you get anyone else to pay for F1 right now. Sadly every tyre company must now see top-level motorsport as an invitation to widely-known and loved sportsman to slag off your products. And that didn't start with Pirelli.

The other philosophy is cutting costs, but that's difficult to achieve and frequently results in cutting the things race fans are interested in.

Edited by Risil, 04 January 2014 - 18:27.

Aerodynamic dominance vs engine dominance vs KERS dominance vs suspension dominance (vs. possibly, maybe, crap-in-races-but-great-in-qualifying tyres dominance) might produce a show. It's a simplification but the more variables you introduce, the more you give individual teams the chance to shine and the more avenues you give for sponsors/manufacturers/investors. The 2014 rules are bringing engines and possibly KERS back into play and I imagine aero and suspension development will never go away without spec parts. Tyre competition would offer another avenue but there's been every indication that the FIA have tried to introduce this lately without success.

 

I mean, in 2013 we had one team with an extremely aero dominant philosophy vs one team with a suspension/vehicle dynamics approach (Red Bull vs Lotus), with Ferrari and Mercedes fitting somewhere in between. The way those two paths led to battles for position was the most interesting thing about the season (and probably led to the Silverstone actual PR-disaster and near real-disaster).

 

I don't know how you pay for it all. But allowing more freedom to design engines seems to have brought money from Honda and a renewed commitment from Renault, who were on the verge of quitting. I don't know how you get anyone else to pay for F1 right now. Sadly every tyre company must now see top-level motorsport as an invitation to widely-known and loved sportsman to slag off your products. And that didn't start with Pirelli.

Well maybe the fun and games with the new engines energy recovery systems next year will produce something along those lines.

Well maybe the fun and games with the new engines energy recovery systems next year will produce something along those lines.

That's the main reason I'll be getting up to watch Australia live.

 

If I could change the rules, I'd change something like:

- Teams should get more money than what Bernie gets. Let's say something like 75% the teams and 25% Bernie. Because teams are running “the show”; they travel 4 continents and spend billions of dollars (combined) and countless hours to build/develop the cars.

- Change the way money is distributed. Imagine we have 1.3 billion dollars; it can be distributed like 200/180/165/145/125/110/95/85/75/65/55 million dollars from 1st to the last team. This way even the last team would get 55 million dollars.

 

These two are simply essential. I find all the talk about budget caps utterly perverse as long as Bernie and his CVC cronies can milk over £500 million in one year from F1 http://plus.autospor...iggest-scandal/ Money that is not used to strenghten the series - instead even more money is thrown to those who are already wealthy enough (Ferrari, Red Bull). 

I'd say: steal from the rich (and certainly the CVC 'leisure class' rich) and distribute it among the (OK, relatively....) poor. That is simply the only sustainable future for F1. And with the "lower teams" getting a better deal, you can relax the regulations a bit more as well.

And don't talk about reverse grids - just read what people feel about those kind of contrived ideas in other series. In F1 the best should win, and the challenge is to give as much teams and drivers as possible the opportunity to be the best - without taking the challenge away for new ideas . That can only be possible in formula that is financially sound and healthy. Which is not the case at the moment, and Max (99 years.....), Bernie and CVC are responsible for that.

If they sorted out the revenue I bet you wouldn't need a lot of the other stuff. The grid would get a lot closer on its own.

These two are simply essential. I find all the talk about budget caps utterly perverse as long as Bernie and his CVC cronies can milk over £500 million in one year from F1 http://plus.autospor...iggest-scandal/ Money that is not used to strenghten the series - instead even more money is thrown to those who are already wealthy enough (Ferrari, Red Bull).
I'd say: steal from the rich (and certainly the CVC 'leisure class' rich) and distribute it among the (OK, relatively....) poor. That is simply the only sustainable future for F1. And with the "lower teams" getting a better deal, you can relax the regulations a bit more as well.

- Remove “safe and huge run-off areas”. With constant decrease of grid’s quality they have to introduce these stupid huge areas. In the past we didn't have these huge run-off/High Grip Tarmac areas and nobody died since Senna’s death.

It boggles the mind that someone would promote to remove safety features for it's own sake in order to make F1 more dangerous..  Especially right after Schumacher freak skiing accident which showed how little it takes to cause big damage and that striving to eliminate all unnecessary risks is the only way to go.

Besides, removing the new safety run offs will mean cars crashed in the barrier or beached on the gravel with inevitable safety cars and what's the sport in seeing fair advantages lost and F1 cars trundling around for laps and laps.

The new run-offs also mean more cars will continue the race and provide more racing than the slimmer fields without.

If they sorted out the revenue I bet you wouldn't need a lot of the other stuff. The grid would get a lot closer on its own.

This 

 nobody died since Senna’s death.

 

Well, in 2000/2001 two marshalls died in (non-) run-off areas.

I agree with your opinions, basically.

 

I'd like to see a reversed grid, cost caps, and fewer races. 

That's easy - watch less.

 

So Marussia earn the same as Red Bull for coming last?

Sure absolutely;they need the dosh more - no?...And where would  the Red Bulls of this world be without the tail-end Charlies -  the likes of Marrussia, Caterham et all? 

 

No one mentioned "race on ovals" which I think is a shame. 15 years ago the same poll would definitely have had a couple of responses along those lines and fundamentally race tracks which consist only of two Pouhon/Peraltada-like corners are as attractive a prospect as ever. If Abu Dhabi put the money up it would happen.

 

I like that. I've been saying since Bahrain appeared that they should have taken advantage of having all that empty space and made a really fast desert track. Something like the Tripoli Grand Prix from the 1930s.

Ok, about run-off areas.

We agree the point is to punish but not hurt. Since there is real time GPS on all the cars (evidenced by the yellow flag signs on your tv), they should link this to the ECU, and give anyone who leaves the track for say 3 seconds or more a limited amount of power for the next full lap. That should get their attention.

That's easy - watch less.

 

Considering the success of NASCAR, I'm surprised they didn't suggest more races!

Edited by noikeee, 06 January 2014 - 13:46.

 

My Formula 1:

 

...

 

Agree with most everything you wrote.  I would add one thing.  Guarantee traditional events' place on the calendar.  Maybe events that happen 50 times for a Nation, or 35 at a single track, should be offered more protection against Bernie looking for money elsewhere.  Currently those events would be:  Italy(Monza), Monaco(Monte Carlo), Great Britain(Silverstone), Belgium (Spa), Germany (Hockenheim), USA, France, Spain.  Montreal would be added to the list in 2015, Sao Paulo in 2018, Hungary in 2021, Suzuka and Osterreichring/A1/RedBullRing in 2024.    

I do have to say, no matter how many times the Hungarian Grand Prix takes place, I will never see it as a classic event.   

Edited by Frank Tuesday, 06 January 2014 - 14:42.

I don't understand the rationale of freezing regulations for an arbitrary number of years. You're not adding anything, and run the risk of freezing in poor regulations or stopping a good idea from being implemented.

I don't understand the rationale of freezing regulations for an arbitrary number of years. You're not adding anything, and run the risk of freezing in poor regulations or stopping a good idea from being implemented.

A non-starter. Every team's first car would produce downforce beyond the limit of the human body.

Here's a radical idea: limit downforce. Downforce can easily be measured in a wind tunnel; all the FIA would have to do is procure one. We'd have to work out a way of making sure this could be enforced at scrutineering, mind, and that the aero characterisitics could not be slyly changed by the competitors to provide more downforce than permitted during the event. But if a way could be found to do that, it would force aero development down the path of trying to get the maximum permitted amount of downforce for the lowest possible amount of drag, which should please the environmentaloids as low donforce, low drag is excellent for fuel economy.

Low downforce cars that are extremely fast in a straight line would be a real handful for the drivers and should produce good racing and manageable cornering speeds.

In tech regs terms, you prevent constant arms races to whatever new shiny tech you come up with every year, so costs don't spiral out of control (although this becomes much less of a concern with a budget cap). Also as the regulations mature the field gets bunched up together

I really do not think that is correct. The technical regulations have been broadly stable for the past few years, ignoring what are really small alterations, and we still have vast amounts being spent to extract any possible advantage. We have quite clearly seen Red Bull if anything extend their advantage, and under the previous regulations Ferrari and McLaren remained ahead of the field until the rules changed.

What exactly would you do to address things like double diffusers? In your frozen environment a development that is allowed by the regulations, but not good the sport, would have to stay legal for years until the next period.

In the sporting regs, the rationale is exactly to prevent "good ideas" thrown in immediately. For the past 10 or 15 years or so we've had the FIA, Bernie and the teams running like headless chickens, chopping and changing regulations all the freaking time before even considering what could be the unintended consequences. Remember the countless qualifying formats? (we've even had one when it was optimal for the cars to spend as much time on track driving as slow as possible, because of the rate of fuel burning or something silly like that). How many times have they changed the safety car? The tyres? Mandatory pitstops, forbidden pitstops? Points systems? Practice sessions, third drivers, testing? This is all incredibly confusing for the casual fans, it's all change change change. They need to stop and sit and carefully consider a rule change for a long time, not write it in the rule book as soon as they think it up, and deal with the consequences later with an opposite rule.
 
I want F1 to mildly resemble an actual sport, like football. There the rules are simple: one ball, two goals, 11 players aside, offside, let's go. And it's been like this for 100 years. Everyone understands the sport and knows what the sport should be like, because it doesn't change every year, there's only very slight revamps of the rules every 5 years or so. Now look at this thread, everyone has a completely different idea of what F1 should be like, and we're all hardcore F1 fans who should know what the sport is about! We've been through so many different mini-eras of F1 that it's as if we've been through watching many mildly related different sports. That is wrong. That is why I want the sporting regs stable.

Do you really think it has been confusing for casual fans? Many of them won't even watch qualifying, let alone care if they have to set a time with race fuel or not, and things like safety car rules or tyre compound usage are utterly trivial. We don't really need to worry about change confusing fans, when much of what is being changed only matters to us - the people who care enough to follow regulation changes intently. Even if the rules do change enough to start confusing people, i.e the qualifying format changing, occasionally the only way you can arrive to the right conclusion is by trying each idea out. Under your system, we would be stuck with that 2005 aggregate system no one was happy with, instead of taking the sensible option of removing it and coming up with the current knock-out format.

I suggest also taking a look at the sporting regulations. Out of the 46 articles, at least 20 of them have nothing to do with the actual racing. If the FIA wishes to change licence requirements, media obligations, event insurance, garage allocation, or any of the unseen rules and paperwork that are essential to the running of the sport, is it also obligated to wait for five years?

Football is intended to be a simple, easy to play sport, which motorsport has never been. But even then, to describe the rules as "one ball, two goals, 11 players aside" is rather simplistic. It's like saying F1 is just "build a car, set a time, race for 300km". The basic rules of football may have remained the same, but things like World Cup qualification or the structure of various leagues have changed over time. Someone who watched a race in 1950 and 2013 would identify it as the same sport - you still build a car, qualify it, and race for the set distance, with F1 being set apart from other categories in using single-seater, open wheel cars. 

If you have an idea that is workable and would improve the sport, waiting to implement it achieves nothing. The fact that some rules are poorly thought through, or have unintended consequences, is a separate issue and could easily still exist in your world.

For subscribers, Autosport have been debating the pros and cons of Reversed Grids for F1 some more.
  
It has attracted a response:

@nico_rosberg·17m
Hell no!! @autosport: AUTOSPORT+ Should F1 use reversed grids? http://ow.ly/2CVB1T "

What exactly would you do to address things like double diffusers?

Listen to a senior technical director when he says "Look guys, there's a loophole here I could drive a world championship winning truck through", maybe?

With the revenues F1 makes they should be able to afford a proper legislative council. Rule 1: Engineers and designers are elected by the peers for a fixed period. Rule 2: Said representatives are not allowed to work within F1 for the duration of their term. Rule 3: Discussions should be published on the FIA's website, as they would make fascinating reading for fans and budding racing engineers.

This wouldn't be perfect and the opportunity for political gains and conflicts-of-interests would still be considerable (like in all democracies), but it would at least professionalize the rulemaking process. To my mind the bigger problem than interference from Ferrari, Red Bull etc is that there's not enough time devoted to crafting the rules.

Edited by Risil, 14 January 2014 - 16:02.

I have an idea (in all modesty) that should have made the Autosport list: negative points. With which I mean: a winner of a race gets 1 points, the number 2 gets two points, the number 3 three and soforth. The car that crashed in the first corner and finishes last on the last gests 24 points. And the end of the year, the driver with the least points wins the WC...


This is a much better idea than the double points system in a couple of races. Because every result - even a very bad one - counts in the championship. Because it delivers you too many points.

Brings up the same problems. Over-rewards consistency, doesn't adequately reward wins, etc.

Brings up the same problems. Over-rewards consistency, doesn't adequately reward wins, etc.

Ever since the abolition of the 10-6 system people always complain about point systems "overrewarding consistecy", so I don't think we will ever get to a consensus on what a good point system is. Not to mention that people hate "medals idea", which would be the ultimate valuing method of a win.

And 10-6-system itself? In my view rewards winning too much (second place gets only 60% of winner's points), rewards only too few competitors (top 6) and is simply outdated for modern motor racing.

And 10-6-system itself? In my view rewards winning too much (second place gets only 60% of winner's points), rewards only too few competitors (top 6) and is simply outdated for modern motor racing.

Listen to a senior technical director when he says "Look guys, there's a loophole here I could drive a world championship winning truck through", maybe?

 

With the revenues F1 makes they should be able to afford a proper legislative council. Rule 1: Engineers and designers are elected by the peers for a fixed period. Rule 2: Said representatives are not allowed to work within F1 for the duration of their term. Rule 3: Discussions should be published on the FIA's website, as they would make fascinating reading for fans and budding racing engineers.

 

This wouldn't be perfect and the opportunity for political gains and conflicts-of-interests would still be considerable (like in all democracies), but it would at least professionalize the rulemaking process. To my mind the bigger problem than interference from Ferrari, Red Bull etc is that there's not enough time devoted to crafting the rules.

There may indeed be better ways of creating the rules. But that does not really have anything to do with my point that a rules freeze would prevent bad regulations or unwanted loopholes (that will always exist in some form) from being written out.

Remember that was brought in to replace the "best of" system, the abolition of which would automatically reduce the emphasis on winning. An increase to 10 points was IMO a very good way of addressing that issue.

And how can you reward winning TOO much - surely winning is the whole object of the exercise?

Well, a win being worth 50 points and second place earning 10 would reward winning too much. A championship should always award consistency.

 

 

- refuelling? Maybe.

Agree. In order to prevent drivers running on economic runs for sake of finishing races, refuelling should be reintroduced. This will encourage some aggressive strategies (more pit stops) as we seen before.

Reversed grid is absolutely stupid idea unless there's lot of points given in qualifying and time must match within the time limit 105% of quickest time. About ten years ago when qualifying was two parts with one flying hot lap I saw driver deliberately driving slow or doing other stupidies on track just to guarantee better position for final qualifying (was it threat of raining for last qualifying?).

There's old google links of it http://www.telegraph...ilverstone.html

People who even suggest things like reversed grid for F1 should go and shoot themselves into head.

There's two things I want to change in F1 and most important is to lose all bias toward Ferrari by FIA, jury, veto-rights and such. Yes, you've been oldest kid playing for longest time in sandbox but it doesn't give you any rights to add own bargeboard tolerances of +/- 5 mm or other similar priviledges. People who are not Ferrari fans would respect them more if they would be as equal than others.

And the another thing I would change is tied on previous, but involves some other teams too. Money sharing. I don't like current concorde agreement where 3 or 4 biggest teams has made so good deals (because veto and whining superior attitude) grants lot of money as rewards to themselves even if they would perform absolutely rubbish. I read from somewhere McLaren would have got better reward money if left behind Caterham than Lotus F1 claiming from 3rd position in constructors championship.

Democracy is not thing F1 follows much.

Perhaps it would be a good compromise to have some "prestige" events in the season, though.  I imagine Bernie would be eager to set up a system whereby interested circuit owners could pay a "small" fee to have their events elevated to such a status.  The question is, how would these events become more prestigious?  You'd have to make them somehow more important within the championship than the "standard" races, but I could never see the sport stooping so low as to actually introduce a rule which would give some races an advantage through using the Sporting Regulations in this way.  No, it'll never happen!

I wonder if it would be feasible to have such "prestige races" run for 3 hours instead of the usual 1,5 hours. After all, Indy 500 and the few other 500 miles races also enjoy a special status within the American racing scene, while they do not give more points than the other races of the respective series. Yet they enjoy a higher prestige.

To give double points to a race like all the others, even if at the end of the season, is total rubbish though.

I wonder if it would be feasible to have such "prestige races" run for 3 hours instead of the usual 1,5 hours. After all, Indy 500 and the few other 500 miles races also enjoy a special status within the American racing scene, while they do not give more points than the other races of the respective series. Yet they enjoy a higher prestige.

 

To give double points to a race like all the others, even if at the end of the season, is total rubbish though.

Concerning reverse grid, only 10 races and stopping F1 from using fossil fuels: this is made up by Autosport only to create a stir in the pre-season. Nothing different than Daily Mail or Bild do, usual journo tactics.

Hey look, it worked: we have this thread and are discussing it, although it is BS. The writer knows himself that only 10 races a season would destroy the financial basis of F1, which is already shaky, even more.

By the way, the discussion here has brought up some more valuable points than the original article.

Edited by aditya-now, 15 January 2014 - 09:50.

I really do not think that is correct. The technical regulations have been broadly stable for the past few years, ignoring what are really small alterations, and we still have vast amounts being spent to extract any possible advantage. We have quite clearly seen Red Bull if anything extend their advantage, and under the previous regulations Ferrari and McLaren remained ahead of the field until the rules changed.

 

What exactly would you do to address things like double diffusers? In your frozen environment a development that is allowed by the regulations, but not good the sport, would have to stay legal for years until the next period.

 

 

Do you really think it has been confusing for casual fans? Many of them won't even watch qualifying, let alone care if they have to set a time with race fuel or not, and things like safety car rules or tyre compound usage are utterly trivial. We don't really need to worry about change confusing fans, when much of what is being changed only matters to us - the people who care enough to follow regulation changes intently. Even if the rules do change enough to start confusing people, i.e the qualifying format changing, occasionally the only way you can arrive to the right conclusion is by trying each idea out. Under your system, we would be stuck with that 2005 aggregate system no one was happy with, instead of taking the sensible option of removing it and coming up with the current knock-out format.

 

I suggest also taking a look at the sporting regulations. Out of the 46 articles, at least 20 of them have nothing to do with the actual racing. If the FIA wishes to change licence requirements, media obligations, event insurance, garage allocation, or any of the unseen rules and paperwork that are essential to the running of the sport, is it also obligated to wait for five years?

 

Football is intended to be a simple, easy to play sport, which motorsport has never been. But even then, to describe the rules as "one ball, two goals, 11 players aside" is rather simplistic. It's like saying F1 is just "build a car, set a time, race for 300km". The basic rules of football may have remained the same, but things like World Cup qualification or the structure of various leagues have changed over time. Someone who watched a race in 1950 and 2013 would identify it as the same sport - you still build a car, qualify it, and race for the set distance, with F1 being set apart from other categories in using single-seater, open wheel cars. 

 

If you have an idea that is workable and would improve the sport, waiting to implement it achieves nothing. The fact that some rules are poorly thought through, or have unintended consequences, is a separate issue and could easily still exist in your world.

Something like the double diffusers could be handled in 3 different ways: either allowed to remain in the sport because it is allowed by the rules (did it hurt the races that much?), banned at the very beginning and clarified it can't be used like these loopholes tended to be handled in the past (Brabham fan car etc), or filled under my clause of "extraordinary circumstances" and changed at the end of the season anyway despite the regulations being stable.

To clarify, I didn't mean I want a lock of the rules set in stone with no possible changes whatsoever. If it's a good idea, everyone agrees to it, it doesn't go against the spirit/traditions of F1, and it's been well thought, well sure put it in. What I meant was some kind of letter of intent by all participants that we're gonna try to keep things stable unless there's a bloody good reason to change. That would do wonders, I hate this mentality that we need to tweak and chop and mess with F1 to infinity absolutely all the time, F1 needs to snap out of that a bit in my opinion. If we're stuck with bad rules for a couple years so be it, it's better than going through 20 iterations of semi-bad rules until we find the sweet spot, which leads car development in 20 different costly directions, and the races play out a completely different way every season. My ideal scenario would be for them to adapt all the rules I want (which are all great awesome perfect flawless  ) then lock them in, anyway. 

I think it's the mentality to chop and change is because of the team principals involved, they're constantly doing that to be competitive within their own teams so apply that to the sport - maximize performance by exploiting all possible areas of development. Nice if you want to get 5 tenths per lap more out of your car, not nice if you want to have a solid sport. It's as F1 is the exact opposite of football, I know we're talking about an incredibly different sport here which is a lot more complex, but I often criticise FIFA/UEFA for not changing enough, for example bringing in video refereeing. Football remains a strong identity with very well settled tradition, but sometimes lacks a bit of forward thinking that could enhance things, F1 is the opposite. If football were run like F1, and it had a problem of overtaking like F1 had and dealt in the way F1 did - in a season you'd have all results ending like 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0, the next year it's all 10-11 9-10 8-7 13-12. As the rules changes the races play out completely different from year to year. It's as if it's a different sport, no consistency whatsoever, I don't like that.

Edited by noikeee, 15 January 2014 - 09:54.

And how can you reward winning TOO much - surely winning is the whole object of the exercise?

I think second place getting about 70-75% of winner's points sounds about a sensible proposition to me.

If we are talking about winning a single event, like olympic games competition, then yes, winning means "winning it all".

However, if we have a long season, which consists of many small competitions, the situation somewhat changes. In a season-long competition performances through the field have to be adequately valued, because the ultimate objective is different - winning a season "is everything", not so much winning a single race.

If we look at any sports competition, winners never get such a huge advantage over second place (10-6). We can even look at other motorsports. NASCAR, Indy Racing, Touring cars, anything, where we have a "season series". Winning is important, but winner's points percentage over the next guys is relatively small there.

I don't see, why F1 winning has to be "overinflated". Winning is important in any kind of competition, it's not like in F1 it is "more important than anywhere else". But for balance also the whole competition through the field has to remain relevant.

I think the reverse grid aspect of Suzuka 2005 is overrated. Having a 'green' track that the cars aren't setup for also contributes. It injects chaos/disparity that you don't get in a normal weekend.

I think you have a point. Unique circumstances made Suzuka 2005 special. In contrast we have had other races, where favourites start from the back, get nowhere and the race isn't remotely that interesting. Let's look at the Suzuka of two years before, 2003. Two potential favourites of Michael and Ralf Schumacher started from low down the field and didn't get anywhere in the race.

Brings up the same problems. Over-rewards consistency, doesn't adequately reward wins, etc.

It's even worse, they'd be **** scared of finishing 20th in a race because it'd take forever to recover from that. So nobody would take any risks, ever.

If we look at any sports competition, winners never get such a huge advantage over second place (10-6).

- 1 - Standardize the cockpit in all cars suitable up to a 6'3" driver who weighs 80kg so that the Centre of Gravity and the Polar moment of inertia and the aero dynamics are the same for each driver

- 2 - Have interchangeable steering wheels that work in any car

- 3 - Have interchangeable drivers seats (the balasted ones that equalize C of G, Polar moment, weight and keep the aero the same)

- 4 - Have a system where the drivers drive different cars all the time (lots of options for that one)

- 5 - Reward drivers through prize money not sponsorship ie no team pays a driver a cent (a driver can have his own sponsorship but that is nothing to do with F1 or any team)

- 6 - Separate the team championship from the driver's championship

Such a system would:

Remove the contractual issues with drivers via potentially an open market

Remove the Pay Driver issues (and driver manager's commissions)

Remove the huge cost inhibitions surrounding drivers and their placement in F1

Allow teams to enter more than two cars (which F1 needs)

Allow a Real WDC - the best driver would win the championship IMO -

Remove the 2nd driver tactical stuff from F1

Allow a Real Team championship too

Remove the boredom from processional F1

Establish who is the best overtaking and qualifier

Create real comparisons between the cars because drivers would tell us all

Remove the secrecy from F1 because the drivers would find out the differences between all the cars

- 1 - Standardize the cockpit in all cars suitable up to a 6'3" driver who weighs 80kg so that the Centre of Gravity and the Polar moment of inertia and the aero dynamics are the same for each driver

This is the best one. F1 is way too much of a jockey sport as it is and the best driver in the world could be an openside for a rugby club somewhere who was kept getting told that he would always be too tall for F1 so there was no point in karting...