Having been a motorsport fan for years thought I would add my thoughts on F1. I am actually not a particular driver fan but a car fan (Ferrari I have to admit) and think that any of the top 10 drivers in the best cars would give a simliar result but I do think Hamilton is a great talent and wish him luck on Sunday.
I used enjoy sports car racing when the big names were involved and can remember with awe the sight of Pedro Rodriguez in a Porsche 917 at the BOAC 500 in the pouring rain at Brands
As to the future of F1 I hope that next year better `racing ` results from the changes.F1 should be the pinnacle of motor sport and although costs must be saved standard engines would devalue the class totally,what I want to see is the best technology from the different teams winning races. I also think that the `Bernie`show must be improved.I to a certain amount agree with Luca di Montezemelo who had a point when saying Singapore was just a circus.Cars must overtake, obviously safety is paramount but some circuits with their tarmac run off areas intstead of gravel traps and the like allow liberties to be taken.
Sure some parts could be universal, suspension items maybe even the tub but the parts that differenciate the teams must be left to their skills etc. Lets hope that next year the teams will be even closer and RACING will result. Sorry to ramble on
Mick

This would be my vision for the future

- Fixed engine capacity of 3 litres for a normally aspirated engine, or 1.5 litres for a turbocharged engine. Layout of engine is open. Engine manufacturers must be able to, on demand, supply engines to a customer for less than $5 million for a season.

- Wider track cars with the only limitations being those imposed on safety grounds. The car must be wind tunnel tested in controlled conditions and must have a downforce coefficient less than a prescribed value between 30 and 250 mph.

It cuts development costs by restricting the aero development. Also, the little winglets are undesirable as they will tip the car over the maximum Cd with a drag increase as well. Engine development costs are reduced as a supplier has to supply teams for a certain amount, thus the development will have to have an increasingly restrained budget.

I like the sound of that. I always thought the fixed configuration of either V10 or V8 removed one aspect of the season as different engine configurations were better for different types of circuit so mixed it up a bit.

Forgot to add that if the aero guys can't work on gaining extra downforce, they will be working on reducing drag instead, which will help make the cars more efficient and satisfy the green brigade.

Just had another thought as well. If the F1 guys spend lots of time trying to reduce drag, there will inevitibly be more technology passed on to road cars, so Max will get his wish come true.

I really wonder, how many lives does F1 still have now? ....

It's running out ....

F1 needs a back to basics approach, but remain an open formula, which is why it should adopt my idea

gets bought by NASCAR..

I don't think engine equivalency rules really work. In any rational world, a 1.5 turbo engine will blow away a 3 liter n/a engine. And that would open the floodgates of whining by the manufacturers who opted for a n/a engine.

IMO there wasn't much wrong with the old CART rules. Turbo engines, robust cars, limited ground effect and lots of close racing.....

OK, if I could edit my post I'd be getting rid of the engine equivalency thing! However, I think the rest of my post is valid.

Until they started being able to take Nazareth and places flat, that is. Bearing in mind that motor racing must always put on a show, to ensure the bills get paid, technical regulations have to be a moving target. It's just a shame that most rule changes aren't thought through as well or as thoroughly as the 2009 aero regs. And that includes the changes to CART's rules made for 1996 and 1998.

And looking at old Indycar racing, it's surprising exactly how much of the close racing was generated by a mixture of caution periods and oval racing (or Cleveland). Things that many F1 fans would be, uh, reticent to adopt. If you watch a yellow-free run at Portland or Mid-Ohio or somewhere, even during Indy's 'glory days', I don't think they compare too badly with your average '90s F1 race.

... and will be branded EUROCAR, so that American fans understand what it's all about.

The dumb FOTA-ideas such as the sin bin and all that stuff seem to be pointing in that direction.
But, kudos, even NASCAR doesn't have push to pass!

Well, I'd LOVE to see the big manufacturers (and for historical reasons and even beyond that I do not count Ferrari as one) going back to sports cars. Closed prototypes like the Porsche 917 up to the 962 are the best vehicles I know. I hope Le Mans will go back into that direction and attract lots of manufacturers. Porsche and Ferrari competing in LMP1 would be awesome, but I don't think either will (I do not see Audi nor Toyota as extremely classical competitors).

Once we have a working sportscar world championship I don't care anymore about F1

But, heck, Mosley's been promising us withdrawal by Honda, Toyota and Renault for so long.... If we have manufacturers and the pinnacle of motorsports (technical-wise) in a sportscar-prototype championship, combining the 24h of Le Mans, 12h of Sebring and the european classics into one series, this can only be good for F1, helping it to find its roots. Garage teams, technical innovation that is completely USELESS for road cars (but some ground effect on a Golf would certainly be cool ), but just rocks from an engineers perspective.

All that with less money, less business and less BS.

Come on, let's get this done!

I tend to agree a true World Sports Car Championship would be great but doubt the manufactureres would invest in that and the F1 circus/showcase.

Of course they wouldn't. World Sports Car Championship is their natural showcase. They'd leave F1 and that would rescue F1.

Part of me wants to agree with this, but what about Ferrari? What about the current infrastructure?

If BMW leaves F1, do you think they will not keep all the stuff at Hinwil? ..so the team that replaces BMW has to find somewhere else to build thier cars, and has to be within 107% of Ferrari performance?

Copy-paste that situation for all the other teams/manufacturers?

IMHO its too late to 'rescue' F1...

Agreed. If the comparisons are close, then manufacturers have to spend millions developing BOTH engines just to see which one they can get to be the best.
And in the end, one of them will turn out to be better, so all the money that anyone has spend developing the "wrong" one is wasted since they all have to get onto the "right" engine bandwagon.

Sure, rulemakers can tweak the equivalency formula once or twice a year, but then half the grid (and fans here) will bitch and complain that their team is being cheated against by Max.

I think its just got to be one engine type, one that the manufacters have an interest in because it somehow relates to road car engine technology and just isnt a curious technological dead end.
Probably similar to what we have now, really.
So dont change it.

I watched ALMS at Laguna Seca at the weekend. A fantastic mix of cars and sounds, very fast cars and interesting to look at... plus some really aggressive driving without penalitys being handed out every time and racing on the track for once..

I have to say my eyes have been opened and I hope that all the manufacturers leave F1 and compete in this amazing series... huge potential there.

I believe that Renault and Toyota are in talks regarding sports cars at the moment. With renault likely to enter under their Nissan badge.

if all the manufactures leave I can picture Ron, Frank and EJ all racing against each other for the f1 title in segways..

This is pretty much the case anyway. (Cd is drag, not downforce, btw). You said there was a downforce limit, but if drag is unregulated, the teams would continue to spend gobs of money on wind tunnel work to reduce drag.

Downforce is very easily obtained, to have lots of downforce with minimal drag is the goal already, so budget wouldn't change, though reliance on mechanical grip would increase, so that would be a benefit for racing.

I know that Cd is drag and yet for some reason wrote it, which is all the more embarrassing given that I studied aerodynamics

I did indeed mean downforce coefficient, -CL.

Right! Literally "Coefficient of lift." But since they came up with the formulae when developing airplanes, they use "l" to describe downforce I suppose. I like the engine variety in your proposal as well.

Here's my proposal:

Standard 3.4 liter V-8s: Using a 3.4L V-8 would allow F1 engines to be compatible with 2011 LMP1 LeMans engines, not to mention ALMS, Formula-N, SuperGT, and IRL. This would dramatically reduce engine development costs for manufacturers as well as allow them to enter their F1 engines in LeMans, IRL, etc and vis-versa. Also, it could entice manufacturers like VW/Audi/Porsche, Nissan, and Peugeot to enter F1 being that they have developed or are developing 3.4L V-8s for other racing venues.

Another added benefit is that these engines are originally designed with endurance racing in mind, running 24 hours straight in race conditions, hence these engines should be reliable for many race weekends. It might be possible to require engines to last 4 or 5 races or more thus further reducing costs.

This will also allow makers to keep their brand identity and visibility to the sport as well as reduce costs without moving to a standard engine. FIA should work with other motorsports governing bodies to insure compatible standards being that these manufactures are involved with other motorsports.

Power cap: Having horse-power capped along with revs would be a huge cost savings, instead of the FIA having to make dramatic engine changes every time they want to slow the cars down due to 'safety'(like V-12 to V-10 to V-8, engine freezes, etc) , it would be a lot easier and a lot cheaper to reduce the maximum engine output to desired levels. This would give F1 a lot more consistency, manufacturers won't have to design a new engine every few years and don't have to continually pump money into engine development just to get a little bit more power while reducing reliability.

Also, the real difference in engine performance would be between engine reliability and fuel efficiency (as well as KERS).

Standard components : as suggested by the FIA, there are many components that add nothing to the spectacle, standardizing components like suspension, brakes, and other 'invisible' components would be ideal without hurting brand identity of the teams. Bespoke parts can be incredibly expensive, and these parts are usually hidden behind bodywork and are rarely discussed.

Ground-effects: This would be ideal if teams are using 'standard-tubs' and have a power-cap in place. If the 'tubs' are standard the FIA can make sure that ground-effects and aerodynamics don't play too much of a role in the performance of the vehicle and serve little competitive advantage between teams. By having ground-effects in place, the car would be able to go much faster with less power, in conjunction with the power-cap the FIA would be able to reduce the maximum allowable power to around LMP1 levels without reducing the overall performance of the vehicles. The less power if produces, and closer it is to LeMans(if they use the engine), the lower the cost and better the reliability will be.

Visual differences: Teams should be allowed to change the appearances of their vehicles between drivers. This would allow easier acquisition of sponsors for some teams, and promote individual differences between drivers. This would likely help in terms of the nationality of the driver along with getting sponsorship from their country of origin. For instance, Alonso's car could have more Spanish sponsorship, or Nakajima a Japanese sponsor, and have a different title sponsor from their teammate.

Aside from that, even if they go with standard tubs, aerodynamic parts in the front and rear should have reasonable free reign to be modified and give visual differences between teams.

Consistent long-term regulations: This is ultimately the FIA's biggest problem, they need long-term regulations that even they can't touch once they set it. If they are serious about reducing costs they need consistency and outlook instead of fiddling with the regulations a short-period out before they are suppose to take place.

You do realise that a 1.5L Turbo would be well in excess of 1500hp these days.