Future of F1

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114494

Many threads (horrible sounds, drop in audiences in Germany...) are going off topic because people want to discuss the core of the problem, what F1 should or shouldn't be. Discuss it here.

One thing I noticed while watching Le Mans: I really really miss gravel traps.  Having consequences for mistakes goes a long way in making racing interesting, and it adds some of that uncertainty factor that F1 is missing these days due to excellent reliability and huge paved run-offs.  I can't believe that paved zones are THAT much safer to warrant all that.  That's just one of the problems, but it really became evident to me (again) while watching last weekend.

One thing I noticed while watching Le Mans: I really really miss gravel traps.  Having consequences for mistakes goes a long way in making racing interesting, and it adds some of that uncertainty factor that F1 is missing these days due to excellent reliability and huge paved run-offs.  I can't believe that paved zones are THAT much safer to warrant all that.  That's just one of the problems, but it really became evident to me (again) while watching last weekend.

I agree completely. I don't like tarmac run-off areas and am very skeptic about it being safer. Just put big air fences at the end of the track to dissipate the energy or sand if you don't want cars to "surf" the gravel. I find new Paul Ricard hideous, btw.

It's a lot easier for a car to roll over in gravel than tarmac.

They need to get rid of the gimmicks, DRS being one of them. The lack of aids such as ABS and TC is good though.

Edited by MikeV1987, 18 June 2014 - 20:02.

One thing I noticed while watching Le Mans: I really really miss gravel traps.  Having consequences for mistakes goes a long way in making racing interesting, and it adds some of that uncertainty factor that F1 is missing these days due to excellent reliability and huge paved run-offs.  I can't believe that paved zones are THAT much safer to warrant all that.  That's just one of the problems, but it really became evident to me (again) while watching last weekend.

Lobby for the rule that running off beyond certain designated lines means DSQ rather than risk the safety of the drivers by re-introducing gravel - for example.

The idea is not to go backwards, sluffing off safety concerns based on the fact that we've been lucky these so many years.  Note that is not the case for all open wheel.  So it is good to keep safety in mind when trying to retrofit an old idea back into play.

Edited by bourbon, 18 June 2014 - 20:00.

I'm of the belief that there doesn't really need to be major changes to the racing product. This year, we've had good and not so good races, like we have ever year. I enjoyed Australia, Bahrain, Spain, Monaco and Canada, it was only Malaysia and China that were a bit quiet. But I don't think F1 needs to (or even can) make every single race exciting, without going against principles of F1. Sure, reversed grid races, success ballast, shorter races or whatever might make things more exciting, but I don't think any of those have a place in F1.

It's off track, and the way the sport is being run, that lets the side down. Whether it be lack of promotion for races, stupidly expensive race tickets, many countries now showing F1 on pay-to-view channels, lack of involvement with the web/social media, the unfair way prize money is distributed, etc, etc. That's what I'd focus on, more than any knee-jerk changes to the racing or regulations.

They have created an elite product and want to sell it to the masses and be popular. That's not going to work.

Have I got this all wrong?  It seems to me that the loudest voice from within the sport complaining that the current F1 is all wrong is coming from Ferrari.  Would they be making all this fuss if they'd got it right and they had twice as many points than anyone else?

I'm of the belief that there doesn't really need to be major changes to the racing product. This year, we've had good and not so good races, like we have ever year. I enjoyed Australia, Bahrain, Spain, Monaco and Canada, it was only Malaysia and China that were a bit quiet. But I don't think F1 needs to (or even can) make every single race exciting, without going against principles of F1. Sure, reversed grid races, success ballast, shorter races or whatever might make things more exciting, but I don't think any of those have a place in F1.

 

It's off track, and the way the sport is being run, that lets the side down. Whether it be lack of promotion for races, stupidly expensive race tickets, many countries now showing F1 on pay-to-view channels, lack of involvement with the web/social media, the unfair way prize money is distributed, etc, etc. That's what I'd focus on, more than any knee-jerk changes to the racing or regulations.

I agree. What happens on-track is great; in my opinion it is much better than the action we had in the refuelling era. The cars look a lot more difficult to drive as well, which is also a good thing.

I have quibbles with the end of gravel traps as well, but the big problem for me are the finances which threaten to squeeze smaller teams clean out of the sport and great circuits clean off the calendar. What we really need is a budget cap and enough prize money going round to enable every team to meet it. The money's there, it is just all disappearing into Bernie's wallet.

I agree. What happens on-track is great; in my opinion it is much better than the action we had in the refuelling era. The cars look a lot more difficult to drive as well, which is also a good thing.

 

I have quibbles with the end of gravel traps as well, but the big problem for me are the finances which threaten to squeeze smaller teams clean out of the sport and great circuits clean off the calendar. What we really need is a budget cap and enough prize money going round to enable every team to meet it. The money's there, it is just all disappearing into Bernie's wallet.

I'm with you on the budget caps, as far as I can see it's the only way to reduce costs without heavily restricting further what is already a very restrictive formula.

One way to reduce costs is to stop flying all over the world. I have no issue with F1 being Euro-centric (no, I'm not from Europe).

F1 acts like TV is all that matters so what does it matter where they race? The TV should show stands full of excited fans, not acres of bare land and empty grandstands.

And don't give me this "F1 is a global sport so it has to go everywhere" crap. It is a global sport because it is open to competitors from all over the globe (obviously there are practical limits). What other "world championship" requires players/participants to fly all over? Soccer (football) is held in one spot (Rio this year), the Olympics (world championship in all but name) are held in one place, the list goes on. Even the Chess World Championship is held in one spot. They don't require contenders to play a game in several different countries. It is meaningless.

There is nothing "Korean" about the Korean track that means the test of car and driver is possible only in Korea (feel free to substitute any country here). Any track, any corner, anywhere, can be duplicated anywhere else given three things: permission, money and space.

As always the key is money. Somebody suggested F1 should embrace an NBA-like business model. Any economist here? I think there are too many middle men in the F1 business.

A great many (but not all) of the rule changes since 2002 have been in the interests of 'spicing up the show'. These have generally not worked, and acted to degrade Formula 1:

- Single Shot Qualifying, with race fuel loads

- Reducing the points benefit of a win

- Forcing drivers to use two different compounds of tyres

- Manufacturing tyres with a deliberately poor life in the name of entertainment

- Introducing DRS and easy passing rather than dealing with the fundamental issue that cars cannot follow each other without massive loss of downforce

- Double Points to artificially keep the championship alive

In addition we have seen the car and engine design side become utterly rigid:

- Very little flexibility in car design

- Engine Homologation to save on cost

For me, this has severely hurt Formula 1's legitimacy as the pinnacle of motorsport. There are far too many uneasy questions of why it requires cheap gimmicks to boost the thrill factor and why there is such a willingness to restrict car and engine development. However, I don't think F1's leaders grasp this, they are simply focused on whatever the immediate hot topic is, today engine noise, and can't see the wood from the trees. I loathed Max Mosley as FIA president by 2008 but the more I think about it, the more I fear he was actually keeping a lot of this stuff at bay when he was in office.

For balance though we shouldn't think that all the changes have been bad some have been extremely positive:

1. Banning fuel stops has re-focused the teams and drivers on passing on the track and in the pit lane, whereas before it was too focused on strategy.

2. Banning driver aids in 2008 was extremely welcome news.

3. The new tracks, for all their flaws, do encourage overtaking. Even if no one is around to see it happen.

Edited by Incast, 18 June 2014 - 22:56.

Future of F1?

I like most of the changes made in recent years. No re-fueling, Slick Tyres, less aero. 

I don't like double points and I think DRS should be open to both sides. I think engines should have a more pronounced overboost function as well on the straights that cuts out before the corners to aid over taking - but available to all cars. F1 also needs more mechanical grip from bigger tyres. 

What I would really like to see from is a larger number of competitive teams. For instance this season I would rather that engine development was open so that Renault and Ferrari could try and catch Merc.

I would also like to see smaller privateers have the ability to buy a Safety Cell+engine combo (minus all aero) from big teams as a way to reduce costs. However FIA needs to mandate strong rules i.e. Customer engines+Safety cell must be the same spec as works engines, and all major development must also be available to customers. Also customer teams get the same amount of testing+wind tunnel time (even though they arn't building the whole car) to make up for natural disadvantage of being a customer.

The above changes, coupled with a more equal revenue share and LESS FREQUENT REGULATION CHANGES  - would do a lot to close the gap between the fastest and slowest cars on the grid. Strategy and Drivers would become more important - but it wouldn't come at the cost of being a spec series. 

Lastly I would l like to see another manufacturer on the grid. Imagine how fierce the competition would be with 5 manufacturers. 

Edited by aguri, 19 June 2014 - 00:27.

1. Make the engines louder relative to the commentators. They sound good in person, from what I've heard.

2. Get rid of Abu Double.

3. Only use DRS on circuits which demand them.

4. Scrap the penis noses, best way to do this is by increasing the mandatory front nose height.

5. Distribute the money more equally among teams.

There is nothing "Korean" about the Korean track that means the test of car and driver is possible only in Korea (feel free to substitute any country here). Any track, any corner, anywhere, can be duplicated anywhere else given three things: permission, money and space.

Koreans have a great car industry, why shouldn't they get to see the incredible spectacle Formula Renault 3.5+ DRS-assisted open wheel entertainment of F1? 

Bernie does not want to invite Japan's super formula to increase in strength, and for it to make F1 irrelevant in Asia pacific and likewise to invite Indycar to make F1 irrelevant in the Americas.... Bernie is not so welcoming. 

A great many (but not all) of the rule changes since 2002 have been in the interests of 'spicing up the show'. These have generally not worked, and acted to degrade Formula 1:

- Single Shot Qualifying, with race fuel loads

- Reducing the points benefit of a win

- Forcing drivers to use two different compounds of tyres

- Manufacturing tyres with a deliberately poor life in the name of entertainment

- Introducing DRS and easy passing rather than dealing with the fundamental issue that cars cannot follow each other without massive loss of downforce

- Double Points to artificially keep the championship alive

Unfortunately it is to the point where the regulations are so incredibly contrived and complicated, that the idea of simply going open wheel racing is a little lost.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 19 June 2014 - 06:41.

I'm of the belief that there doesn't really need to be major changes to the racing product. This year, we've had good and not so good races, like we have ever year. I enjoyed Australia, Bahrain, Spain, Monaco and Canada, it was only Malaysia and China that were a bit quiet. But I don't think F1 needs to (or even can) make every single race exciting, without going against principles of F1. Sure, reversed grid races, success ballast, shorter races or whatever might make things more exciting, but I don't think any of those have a place in F1.

 

It's off track, and the way the sport is being run, that lets the side down. Whether it be lack of promotion for races, stupidly expensive race tickets, many countries now showing F1 on pay-to-view channels, lack of involvement with the web/social media, the unfair way prize money is distributed, etc, etc. That's what I'd focus on, more than any knee-jerk changes to the racing or regulations.

Anybody thinking that making the races more exciting is going to fix problems with the audience numbers needs to look at Indycar - great product, nobody watches it.

Edited by billm99uk, 19 June 2014 - 12:57.

One way to reduce costs is to stop flying all over the world. I have no issue with F1 being Euro-centric (no, I'm not from Europe).
F1 acts like TV is all that matters so what does it matter where they race? The TV should show stands full of excited fans, not acres of bare land and empty grandstands.
 
And don't give me this "F1 is a global sport so it has to go everywhere" crap. It is a global sport because it is open to competitors from all over the globe (obviously there are practical limits). What other "world championship" requires players/participants to fly all over? Soccer (football) is held in one spot (Rio this year), the Olympics (world championship in all but name) are held in one place, the list goes on. Even the Chess World Championship is held in one spot. They don't require contenders to play a game in several different countries. It is meaningless.
 
There is nothing "Korean" about the Korean track that means the test of car and driver is possible only in Korea (feel free to substitute any country here). Any track, any corner, anywhere, can be duplicated anywhere else given three things: permission, money and space.

Less races would be a good start for securing F1's future. 

Anybody thinking that making the races more exciting is going to fix problems with the audience numbers needs to look at Indycar - great product, nobody watches it.

Yup, since they don't broadcast it anywhere. There is no legal way to watch it here.

And as much as we dislike DRS, do we really want to return to the point where a car that has a 1.5 second advantage simply cannot get past a slower car ahead for the whole race ? That was really ****, remember.

Anything but DRS. I think its current iteration is a fraud system. I'd have peace with a system you can use anywhere on track for 1000 seconds/race or something. Just like WSR did in 2012.

Less races would be a good start for securing F1's future. 

you surely meant:

Less races in "unfree countries" would be a good start for securing F1's future.

Check the freedom in the world index to see which counries are on the list.

you surely meant:

 

Less races in "unfree countries" would be a good start for securing F1's future.

 

Check the freedom in the world index to see which counries are on the list.

No, F1 supposedly isn't political and that should be the case, otherwise you will have decisions to make on which issues you ignore and which apply and for how long.  I just want to have 10 - 12 races or so on tracks that are well attended by the everyday fan.  What should be a pinnacle category has become to commonly run on too many circuits with the same characteristics.   It would also hopefully create opportunities for drivers to compete elsewhere along with the cost saving the current economic situation requires.

I am certain that almost every problem affecting Formula One today could be fixed by a more equal collection and distribution of revenue. Case in point, declining audience numbers. We all know that attending a race has become prohibitively expensive due to the fee the organisers have to pay to Bernie, and we all know F1 has been gradually moving to pay TV for the more lucrative rights deals. If there was a willingness to forgo some of the income so the sport can become more accessible, the viewing figures could very well be increasing again.

No, F1 supposedly isn't political and that should be the case, otherwise you will have decisions to make on which issues you ignore and which apply and for how long.  I just want to have 10 - 12 races or so on tracks that are well attended by the everyday fan.  What should be a pinnacle category has become to commonly run on too many circuits with the same characteristics.   It would also hopefully create opportunities for drivers to compete elsewhere along with the cost saving the current economic situation requires.

To an extent sport shouldn't get too political, but there are countries in the world that are so toxic no amount of platitudes from Jean Todt will be able to fix the damage. Sure, China has a host of human rights violations to it's name, but there's a billion people living there. And yes the middle-east is frankly ass-backwards, but it's stupidly wealthy and owns stakes in plenty of companies involved in the sport. A country like Azerbaijan though? It's not really important to anyone, and by some metrics is even worse than the likes of Bahrain or Russia. Is F1 really achieving anything by going there? Indeed, will all the sponsors be happy when their logos are up on the podium next to the President of Azerbaijan? To tie this in nicely with my first point, selling out to the biggest figure regardless of where it comes from is actively harming this sport.

Some days ago I re-watched a race from 2006...man, that was great stuff (Silverstone). That particular race was nothing special, but it was cool.

Those were great cars, it was intense (in that particular race Alonso vs. Kimi vs. Schumacher). Somehow current F1 has lost bits and pieces here and there since then, starting in 2009...weird regulations, slow-ugly cars DRS and now Truck engines.

Too much aero, too little mechanical grip, making F1 a closed franchise, doing anything to spice up the spectacle on behalf of the sport, paved run off, DRS, KERS, single tire manufacturer, funds distribution skewed way to much towards teams for who and what they are and were rather than results, taking inovation away from teams and insisting them to use common parts and locking them into fixed engine configurations.

But as can be seen already posted above, if we here can not agree on it being broken or not, the extent it is broken or not, the like and dislike of the rules implementation past 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or even 40 years then no wonder that no-one in any for of power within F1 can agree on anything.

F1 is what it is, F1 will remain being what it becomes, fans will come and go, some like me will stick around. F1 does not cater to or for me, they are looking for the fans passing through.

Wow what the hell are they doing there currently XD

Just give me time machine back to when i started f1, this is getting too silly. When is the madness gonna stop, they need to stop panicking and go back to 2000 regs apart from groove tires and safety stuff...

Sparks test now - Brings nothing sporting wise, a useless and futile attempt once again trying to make F1 less of a sport more a bland, staged entertainment enterprise.

Increase and artificially modulated noise test now (again) - Brings nothing sporting wise, a useless and futile attempt once again trying to make F1 less of a sport more a bland, staged entertainment enterprise.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114525

And the list goes on.

Those problem solving people really scare me. Remember 1998. Lack of overtaking: let's make the cars narrower. 

Still, a long way to go: social media is full of possibilities. 

http://voltmagonline...hrough-twitter/

Why not let the viewers be the stewards by voting the penalties on-line?   

There is one major problem in F1 and it began in the early 90s. The rules leave not enough room for innovation.

Without new areas to explore to make cars quicker, the smaller teams cannot catch up without spending massive amounts of money to gain a few tenths on something which is impossibly restricted.

Nobody can find any speed without massive development costs for a few tiny components.

With less restrictive rules a team at the back of the grid could come up with a great idea that gains them half a second at minimal cost

…. and that would also be more entertaining for the audience

Less restrictive, but still rules that force the cars to not get too much faster, due to safety. That's a pretty tricky balance. When you add all the tools they have to help themselves now, compared to just 20 years ago - well, it's almost impossible.

I am certain that almost every problem affecting Formula One today could be fixed by a more equal collection and distribution of revenue. Case in point, declining audience numbers. We all know that attending a race has become prohibitively expensive due to the fee the organisers have to pay to Bernie, and we all know F1 has been gradually moving to pay TV for the more lucrative rights deals. If there was a willingness to forgo some of the income so the sport can become more accessible, the viewing figures could very well be increasing again.

 

 

 

What is often missing in the discussion of prohibitive prices, is the question of the future generation of F1 enthusiasts. I'd wager most who saw their first race 45 years ago could tell similar stories of  that  experience. They could include access to a car for a group of youths, sharing of gas and expenses and a drive to a racing circuit. For legions of NA youths this involved a fall pilgrimage to Mosport and Watkins Glen.These venues were short on amenities, there weren't any, but they did offer an amazing close up perspectives of quality motor racing

I can't speak for Austin, but Montreal organizers are indifferent to this demographic, and actually discourage it. There are no camping or RV parking anywhere close to the circuit.

Currently that is no problem as the event sells out each year, what is to worry about? My impression is that the median age stat for the Canadian GP is well above 45. Some college students may have the funds, others go with their parents but I don't think the majority have the wherewithal to budget a 3 day GP week-end. Montreal is one of the more reasonably priced races on the calendar.

I believe that a real passion for motor racing comes from actual track time, certainly that is the experience of my contemporaries. I don't think a dedicated  base can be nurtured by simply watching TV, not in the long run. Many of the organizers and promoters of F1  are in a demographic where they don't need to worry about spectators 15 years down the road. I think somebody should be concerned, and not just assume the fan base will always be there.

Edited by D28, 20 June 2014 - 12:50.

What is often missing in the discussion of prohibitive prices, is the question of the future generation of F1 enthusiasts. I'd wager most who saw their first race 45 years ago could tell similar stories of  that  experience. They could include access to a car for a group of youths, sharing of gas and expenses and a drive to a racing circuit. For legions of NA youths this involved a fall pilgrimage to Mosport and Watkins Glen.These venues were short on amenities, there weren't any, but they did offer an amazing close up perspectives of quality motor racing

I can't speak for Austin, but Montreal organizers are indifferent to this demographic, and actually discourage it. There are no camping or RV parking anywhere close to the circuit.

Currently that is no problem as the event sells out each year, what is to worry about? My impression is that the median age stat for the Canadian GP is well above 45. Some college students may have the funds, others go with their parents but I don't think the majority have the wherewithal to budget a 3 day GP week-end. Montreal is one of the more reasonably priced races on the calendar.

I believe that a real passion for motor racing comes from actual track viewing, certainly that is the experience of my contemporaries. I don't think a dedicated  base can be nurtured by simply watching TV, not in the long run. Many of the organizers and promoters of F1  are in a demographic where they don't need to worry about spectators 15 years down the road. I think some somebody should be concerned, and not just assume the fan base will always be there.

Very true. I hitch hiked to my first race (Mosport) and roughed it at the circuit. I was hooked, though, because I heard and saw the cars live, and also up close. One could wander though the paddock and through the back of the garages. One could also wander around the whole track and see the racing from different places. I still have that first ticket and it was $12 for race day, which translates to $59 today. A grandstand in Montreal costs much, much more and I am stuck in that one place. Sure, no grandstand for $12 in 1974 but the view was better and the seating (on the ground) more comfortable.

TV won't cement a life-long love of the sport for many people. When something more "exciting" comes along those viewers leave.

Very true. I hitch hiked to my first race (Mosport) and roughed it at the circuit. I was hooked, though, because I heard and saw the cars live, and also up close. One could wander though the paddock and through the back of the garages. One could also wander around the whole track and see the racing from different places. I still have that first ticket and it was $12 for race day, which translates to $59 today. A grandstand in Montreal costs much, much more and I am stuck in that one place. Sure, no grandstand for $12 in 1974 but the view was better and the seating (on the ground) more comfortable.

 

TV won't cement a life-long love of the sport for many people. When something more "exciting" comes along those viewers leave.

 Ticket prices are up for 2015, $450, with Quebec and Federal tax that would be min $518, and I suspect a Montreal tax and maybe a handling charge, So let's say $Cdn  525. That is for a good seat at hairpin exit, but not the most expensive,

The point about garage access is true one had  a view of mechanics working on the cars on pre-race night.That alone was priceless. 

Unfortunately it is to the point where the regulations are so incredibly contrived and complicated, that the idea of simply going open wheel racing is a little lost.

 

Wow, V12, V10, V8 in that video..  That's F1....

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114525

 

And the list goes on.

Those problem solving people really scare me. Remember 1998. Lack of overtaking: let's make the cars narrower. 

 

Still, a long way to go: social media is full of possibilities. 

http://voltmagonline...hrough-twitter/

Why not let the viewers be the stewards by voting the penalties on-line?   

1998 also had grooved tire rule.... which was quite awful, but at least, the drivers could push easily...

All these changes to improve the spectacle is pointless.  In every sport, there will be matches which one team will dominate and matches which go neck to neck until the end.  It's simply part of sports in general.  Once the FIA, the teams, and Bernie realize that all these changes and the tightly regulated formula makes no difference to the quality of on-track action and effect the championship itself, then they would have to simply open up the rules, both sporting and technical, and allow the teams and drivers to figure it out themselves.

Unfortunately it is to the point where the regulations are so incredibly contrived and complicated, that the idea of simply going open wheel racing is a little lost.

 

Tacking on regulation after regulation to a skeleton that has no meat doesn't make it a tasty meal.

(no, I'm not sure what that means, either)

At this point what they race are only loosely like "cars".   Abominations born of corporate legalese.  Go to all of that effort to make sure everything about the car is perfectly regulated, meanwhile Rosberg gets a half second advantage by completely driving off the track and it's no big deal?

 The whole "designed by lawyers" aspect to everything these days is sort of what I want to escape from with CAR racing.  The whole arbitrary, accept the lowest denominator because it's the rule being applied to everything is so tedious. 

Tedious.  F1 has become very, very tedious.

 

TV won't cement a life-long love of the sport for many people. When something more "exciting" comes along those viewers leave.

A grandstand in Montreal costs much, much more and I am stuck in that one place. Sure, no grandstand for $12 in 1974 but the view was better and the seating (on the ground) more comfortable.

 Indy may not have been the best track, but....

... you could wander around and see things from any stand on friday and saturday.  That alone made it a great thing (which at the time I had no idea that this WASN'T the norm at other tracks.  Really...?  At Montreal I found that not only could I not look from other stands during practice/qualifying, I couldn't really see much at all from anywhere else, AND I wasn't even allowed to walk down to the Senna hairpin side the track (I didn't have the special 1%'er badge).  

And the pit walk.  *This costs F1 nothing*.  My coolest F1 experience is probably when the Super Aguri garage let me, an unworthy fan, touch - pickup - an actual F1 wheel/tire during a pit walk.  Amazing!  Cost F1 ZILCH.   

It is amazingly bizarre that solutions for "cost control" in F1 means doing things that *removes the sport from the spectator even more*, whether it is having less races, shorter races, or getting rid of friday.

This doesn't strike anyone else as absolutely insane?  Effectively, that is saying "it's not worth it to put on a show on those days because what we're showing doesn't have enough value". 

Maybe *the whole thing doesn't have any value anymore*, if that is the way to "cut costs".  It's like a Monty Python skit.  Lessen the experience for your audience???  Insane. 

The future of F1? This..

Just kiddin... Get rid of all the artificial stuff. And stop making ridiculous attemps to spice the show. I mean... Really... Loudspeakers for more noise, skidblocks for sparks, standing restarts, double points? Please!

I personally don't hate DRS (remember the Trulli trains?) , I think the racing is not any better or worse than before, but I could use some more speed (the laptimes are awfull) , less aero more mechanical grip, better distribution of prize money, budget cap, more engineering freedom and longer braking zones. That would help make it even better. 

Ohh... And stop whining about everything that's suppposed to be wrong would help a lot too. 

Remove pit to car radio.

Allow drivers to drive as fast as they can.

Reduce reliance on fancy aerodynamics.

Make F1 cars sound like F1 cars again.

Do those four things are the sport will be a bit more healthier than it is now. Getting close to this would be preferable: https://www.youtube....h?v=uMQgoOaqPnw

Edited by pRy, 20 June 2014 - 11:41.

A great many (but not all) of the rule changes since 2002 have been in the interests of 'spicing up the show'.

It seems to me that all the trouble started with that season and the desperation to stop it happening again. As you point out, it feels like not a season has gone by without some regulation being changed or introduced. Other sports don't go through so many changes, and if they do, it's usually to close up a loop hole.

Edited by Doughnut King, 20 June 2014 - 15:20.

I think F1 has an identity crisis, with so many competing interests it no longer knows what it wants to be...

Fans want it to be close, uncontrived racing from a grid of fully deserving drivers in more equal cars

Designers want for freedom to innovate, regulators want tighter rules to keep costs down

Manufacturers want it to be relevant to current volume road cars and their eco responsibilities, so they can justify the spend to their board

Sponsor want it to be high profile yet entertaining to keep TV viewers and thereby potential customers

TV companies want to to deliver an exciting 'product' to keep advertisers and viewing figs up

Some teams want it to be cheaper, others want to maintain their budget advantage and spend what they like

BE and CVC want it to make them even more money

Circuits want to try and break even or preferrably make some money on hosting

Can all of the above be satsified....?

Also F1 teams and CVC have just seen that somehow the ACO delivered a more entralling 24 hour race than most 60 lap GP's can manage.....

I think F1 has an identity crisis, with so many competing interests it no longer knows what it wants to be...

 

Fans want it to be close, uncontrived racing from a grid of fully deserving drivers in more equal cars - Will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Designers want for freedom to innovate, regulators want tighter rules to keep costs down - No higher degree of design freedom will be allowed in the foreseeable future.

Manufacturers want it to be relevant to current volume road cars and their eco responsibilities, so they can justify the spend to their board - No reason for this to be part of the equation, but is reason for a number of the ill's affecting F1.

Sponsor want it to be high profile yet entertaining to keep TV viewers and thereby potential customers - Sponsors are doing a truly poor job, almost no race sell out anymore and the TV audience is in free fall, sponsors should and have to an extent voted with their feet to the detriment of F1 at large.

TV companies want to to deliver an exciting 'product' to keep advertisers and viewing figs up - And are failing miserably with TV audience in freefall to the detriment of F1 at large.

Some teams want it to be cheaper, others want to maintain their budget advantage and spend what they like - Would be status quo compared to previous eraes of F1, the distribution have been tweaked to the detriment of F1 at large.

BE and CVC want it to make them even more money - Short term they will, long term they are doing what they can to force the FIA to cancel the championship replacing it with 'Super Formula' not a slave to CVC.

Circuits want to try and break even or preferrably make some money on hosting - Which is basically impossible with the fleecing done by CVC.

 

Can all of the above be satsified....? - No.

 

Also F1 teams and CVC have just seen that somehow the ACO delivered a more entralling 24 hour race than most 60 lap GP's can manage..... - Yes.

And despite all the gloom I will still follow.