95 replies to this topic

[Atreiu]

Have you guys read the front page article?

http://plus.autospor...hange-about-f1/

 

I found it very amusing, even if some suggestions didn't excite me at all.

The ideas I liked the most were Reversed Grids, Halving the Calendar (I'd rather limit it to 16GPs, but some other smaller number could work) and Opening Entry Rules.

 

Giving the FIA complete rule making power seemed so naive I could not get it. I do not trust them to be able to write a full rule book without loopholes and which also promotes equality and remains challenging and interesting enough for manufacturers to invest their billions. Banning Fossil Fuels is great, but Formula E exists for that, not F1.

 

 

 

What do you guys think of the piece, what one change would you suggest?

Edited by Atreiu, 03 January 2014 - 15:32.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The series/league should make the rulebook. The teams can have input/suggestions/etc to clear up loophole issues. 

 

The bits I like were, in order

-Better distribution of prize money(I want an equal share for teams)

-Some kind of limit on upgrades. Like X times  year, or only after so many races, or whatever. 

[cokeb]

I agree with your opinions, basically.

 

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

[Tenmantaylor]

The series/league should make the rulebook. The teams can have input/suggestions/etc to clear up loophole issues. 

 

The bits I like were, in order

-Better distribution of prize money(I want an equal share for teams)

-Some kind of limit on upgrades. Like X times  year, or only after so many races, or whatever. 

 

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

[GhostR]

Open up entry possibilities so the sport isn't reliant on full teams running two cars each. Maybe something like:

 

Allow single-car teams to run with a customer chassis. As a nod towards forcing such a team to do some 'creative' work independent of the parent team, perhaps mandate that the chassis can't run the same engine as used by the team they buy from (so they'd need to modify the chassis to take a different engine and have enough resource and know-how to get it done effectively). Only one such customer team allowed per full manufacturer.

[Ross Stonefeld]

In money earned by the entire grid? Yep. The teams have individual incomes, it's called sponsorship.

[Gilles4Ever]

I would say better distribution as in purely performance based. Winner gets most and loser gets least. 

[ebeneezer2]

I don't like reversed grids based on championship order (as suggested by the article), it would result in lots of devalued wins. The current system of starting cars in qualifying order may cause boring races but at least the drivers with the advantage earned that advantage.The other suggestion of two races in a weekend, one with a random grid, the other with the same grid but reversed, it's pretty radical but that at least would be fair.

[FerrariV12]

Was an interesting to piece to read, my own personal opinions:

 

Completely Agree:

-Make revenue shares fair. I'd go so far as to split the payout evenly, whether you're Ferrari or Marussia you get the same, the bigger teams will continue to do better in terms of sponsorship etc.)

-Open up entry rules.

 

Sort of agree:

-Halve the calendar. I'd reduce it to around 16 (rather than 10), providing the classic races weren't part of the cull.

-End back-to-back races. See above, I'd want a reduced calendar still spread from March to late Autumn so back to backs would naturally be at least reduced)

-Young driver test mini-races. Meh, what harm could it do? Might be a bit of fun and be good for gaining experience, provided whatever results there were fell completely outside the actual championship.

 

Unsure:

-Give the FIA complete rule making power. I am in favour of a single body with no vested interests setting the rules and then saying "come and play", but then again, it's the FIA.

-Slash costs hugely. In an ideal world we'd have a budget cap with more technical freedom to do whatever the hell you want within that budget, but can it be successfully implemented and policed? My main concern with this is that in the past decades "cutting costs" seems to have become a synonym for "make the rules even more proscribed and restrictive".

-Ban in-session data. I see the point being made, and I'd probably support it as part of a trade off allowing teams more freedom in the actual design of the cars but left largely in the hands of the drivers to get them through the race, but I generally don't like seeing technology get banned unless there's a very very good reason.

-Give teams more control. More revenues? Absolutely. Control? Not sure, definitely not over the techincal rules, commercially? Just give them their fair slice of the pie and be done with it.

 

Sort-of disagree:

-Ban fossil fuels. Not yet. But if it was at all feasible to allow other fuels in some sort of scientifically based (rather than BoP) energy equivalency formula I'd be all for it, although I would hazard a guess under any such formula petrol would be the way to go anyway, and for that reason it's a no for me on balance.

-Ban semi-automatic gearboxes. I see the attraction, but on balance no. If anything, the CVT should never have been banned at source.

-Create an 'F1 draft'. Who draws this shortlist up? Or would it be based purely on feeder series final standings. And which feeder series, and weighted how? Or would there be wildcards and who decides those? Too many questions for me on this one.

 

Completely Disagree:

-Reverse championship order grids. If the 100 metres was contested within a two lane corridor, then the fairest way probably would be to give Usain Bolt or whoever was quickest in the heats "pole". In fact going on with the Olympics analogy, in swimming the fastest qualifiers get the favourable middle lanes for the final, and in 200-800 metre races the fastest qualifier gets the favourable gentler curve to run in. It's supposed to be motor racing, not motor-overtaking, and like any sport should be a meritocracy. If we can build 22 lane circuits then by all means line them up like they do for the 100 metres but till then, what we've got is the best we can do.

-Understudies for qualifying. Nope, again the sport should be a meritocracy and the driver (along with his team obviously) should be responsible for his starting position.

-Restrict in-season upgrades. Part of the fun of some seasons is seeing the likes of McLaren in 2009 come up with a sh*tbox but then through hard and clever work claw their way back into contention throughout the season. This just makes it more likely that the competitive order will remain more or less static through the season. OK give Caterham more updates or whatever, but "handicap" systems just don't interest me at all. Set the rules, make the financial situation between the teams more balanced (see above) and may the best team win.

-Random/reverse grids. As above, don't like anything other than a meritocratical way of setting the grid. And in this proposal, with the way the points are (quite correctly) weighted giving more value for a win, if I was a front runner I'd rather draw 1st/22nd and take the second race hit, than 12th/13th and be looking to aim for minor points in both hour-long races.

Edited by FerrariV12, 03 January 2014 - 16:30.

[redreni]

I don't insist on equal distribution of income, but the sport needs decent sized grids, ideally made up of competitive machinery, so I believe it is in the top teams' interests to ensure the smaller teams have the resources to survive and, ideally, to do a bit better than merely survive. That either means giving them a bit more money than, perhaps, they deserve, or else alternatively, giving the low budget teams performance breaks (in a less extreme form of the ("two-tier") idea Max Mosley floated when he wanted to make it look as if his proposed budget cap wasn't going to be mandatory) so that teams spending the bare minimum get to work to a slightly friendlier set of technical regulations, and can thereby make their cars more competitive without having to spend any extra money.

 

I wouldn't cut the calendar down as much as Autosport is suggesting - that would cause financial problems. I would insist on F1 returning to the places where it has a following: Western Europe, Japan, China, Australia, Canada, USA, Brasil - I would cut down the flyaways to a much lower level than at present.

 

I thoroughly agree with handing rulemaking back to the FIA, though. That's what it's for. It's the governing body. Its role is to be impartial. Any system where the rules are made up by the teams with the biggest budgets is going to produce regulations that favour those teams. It also lends itself to car manufacturers making up regulations that force racing car development to follow trends in the design and manufacture of mass-market road cars, which is wrong on a number of levels. Whatever happened to technological innovation by racecar constructors being applied in road cars? And why on earth would I, as a motor racing fan, be the least bit interested in ultra-low-capacity turbo engines? No other sport allows the competitors to make the rules up, and they certainly don't propose governance mechanisms that allow certain selected competitors to make the rules up without reference to the others, so yes, give the whole lot back to the FIA and let them undo some of the car manufacturers' mess.

[tkulla]

I would like more money going to the teams - the ridiculous 100 year rights deal that gives Bernie and CVC half the income from the sport makes no sense and should be overturned by the courts. The teams should get 75% of the profits, with that additional 25% being distributed evenly amongst the teams and the original 50% by performance during the previous season. This would make smaller teams more attractive to manufacturers and other buyers when it's possible to compete AND make money. And the special deals need to go away for the "heritage" teams.

All teams should be required to field a satellite team in GP2, WSR3.5 or Indycar (cost wise it's not much different than the first two) to develop young drivers and engineers.

On the racing front I agree with the idea of no data streaming during sessions, including the race. The driver should be responsible for feeling when the tyres are going, not some temperature sensor. I hate the way REs are instructing drivers these days during races. Data could still be logged by a black box and analyzed after each session.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I forgot about the data thing, I'm totally pro that.

 

I think that's one of the reasons people don't like Pirelli era racing but seemed to love the 80s. Back then it was more art than science. Now you have so much information, and live, that it's drive-to-numbers in some cases. 

[Risil]

I'm up for banning fossil fuels. It's got a better chance of bringing in new investment than banning tobacco advertising did. Perhaps the biggest problem is for any mass-consumer brand to be associated with an excessive and exclusive brand like F1 in these austerity times. At lower price brackets, posh beverages and watches can sell to the superyacht brigade but I don't see F1 offering the sort of value to mass market companies that NASCAR does, let alone ball sports and athletics.

 

Revenue sharing might be difficult. If all teams get equal amounts there's no (business) incentive to improve. Obviously the top teams want to win and winning attracts sponsorship, but the team that finishes 9th isn't going to be much more attractive than the team that finishes 11th. The traditional punitive system of excluding the 11th-placed team downwards from sharing most of the sport's revenues would cause severe competitive problems as more prize money flows to the top 10. England's Premier League has 'parachute payments' allowing relegated teams a fraction of the top-flight gravy train income as they're slogging through the Football League and I think something similar would be required to prevent one bad season from becoming a poverty trap.

Promotion/relegation has obvious advantages but while there's no relevant series for an excluded F1 team to compete in it's an obvious non-starter. Caterham have a small and not very powerful technical team but they'd still be totally wasted in any series barring the WEC. The commercial and technical changes to top level motorsport that forced the likes of F3000 into spec-series-dom have closed that opportunity.

 

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 want to see customer cars back. Super Aguri and Sebastian Vettel's Toro Rosso added a lot to F1 in 2007-8 and unfortunately they were killed by politics and not performance. Teams like Williams trade off their ability to compete at the highest level but they're not really competing if they're only on the grid because Mclaren, Red Bull and Ferrari are artificially restricted to two cars.

[Risil]

I forgot about the data thing, I'm totally pro that.

 

I think that's one of the reasons people don't like Pirelli era racing but seemed to love the 80s. Back then it was more art than science. Now you have so much information, and live, that it's drive-to-numbers in some cases. 

 

I wonder if it just feels like that because F1 has been essentially refining the same formula since 1994. Every decade before that you saw sweeping technological change (mid-engined cars, monocoque chassis, F1-for-everyone DFVs, ground effects, turbocharging, composites, radial tyres, "active" cars, Neweydynamics). Mclaren had KERS ready to go by the late 90s but it was squashed by the powers that be. Seems plausible that unrestricted, it could've messed with designers' heads as much as any of those previous developments.

[ollebompa]

Reverse grids is as bad as double points IMO. Distorts the competition.

[VoltagE]

I would use reverse WDC order for a race that would replace the saturday qualy session as the way to determine the sunday start order.

This way you are not punishing the WDC contenders too much, and we would get two close and exciting races.

The first race of the season could use the fastest lap times from friday as the start order for the "qualy race".

[Fastcake]

On the subject of prize money for the teams, my standing proposal is to split the teams portion of the revenue in half with one part is divided equally between the teams, the other awarded based upon their position in the constructors championship. I'll keep the distribution fairly close however; something like 1.5X to the top placed team, X to the last. Enough to provide an incentive, but not to give the front too much of an advantage. They can attract more sponsorship money after all.

 

Reversed grids is a poor idea, as is reducing the number of races. All it does is reduce the potential income for the sport, and make it less accessible for the fans.

 

Giving the FIA complete rule making power seemed so naive I could not get it. I do not trust them to be able to write a full rule book without loopholes and which also promotes equality and remains challenging and interesting enough for manufacturers to invest their billions. Banning Fossil Fuels is great, but Formula E exists for that, not F1.

 

Do you trust the teams? You can attribute most bad decisions of the past few years to them. Even clearing up the rules to prevent the hideous noses being talked about were apparently blocked by them. The FIA may make errors, but at least they don't have the self-interest of the teams.

[midgrid]

Reversed grids is a poor idea, as is reducing the number of races. All it does is reduce the potential income for the sport, and make it less accessible for the fans.

 

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!

[JHSingo]

Reversed grids? Hahaha, no.

 

What I don't get about motorsport is why the organisers are constantly trying to punish those who do well. So you can perform badly and end up on pole position? Maybe in the BTCC it's okay, because that's about entertainment and action constantly, and not proper racing. But in what is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport? No, we have enough artificial gimmicks with DRS, degradable tyres and double points as it is.

[Atreiu]

I trust the teams even less, Fastcake. And I don't think there should ever be any one person in charge.

 

 

Reverse grids is as bad as double points IMO. Distorts the competition.

 

 

Yes and no. It's still the same rule book for everyone and winning remains an equal reward for all who compete. And since there isn't enough room for 20 cars side by side at the grid...

[Fastcake]

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!

 

Heh, I had a comment on the tip of my tongue before I read the rest of your post.

 

I trust the teams even less, Fastcake. And I don't think there should ever be any one person in charge.

 

But someone has to be in charge of the rules, and it's hardly right for the competitors to set their own rules. Let them consult, but full control should remain with the governing body.

[HoldenRT]

I don't understand why anyone would want less races?  Is it a cynical thing where they say F1 is boring, therefore they'd like to be bored only 15 times a year, rather than 20?  Basketball has 3-4 games per week.  Most ball sports have one per week.

 

As it is, motorsport and F1 seem to be one of the ones that has the biggest wait between events.  The only advantage I can see is that you'd appreciate each race more since you'd have to wait longer, but that's sort of like saying.. I'd like to eat food only once every 2 days, so I appreciate it more.  Not very ideal.

 

A better distribution of money for all of the teams seems like an easy one.  Because the more successful teams are already going to get more money due to sponsorship.  They also deserve extra rewards for winning, but maybe less than they have now.

 

Some of the others, it's hard to say because what looks good on paper can sometimes be bad in practice.  I don't think that current F1 is that bad, except for the excessive conservation/endurance aspect and the move away from sprinting, but there's not much hope of getting that overturned.

 

Less team management/input and more driver input would be nice.  More like bike racing instead of the team micro managing, every engine setting, every corner speed and every lap time, and which lap to come into the pits.  It's good for teams and for #1 drivers but it's very choreographed.

[ollebompa]

My list,

 

Loosen up technical rules: The new engine rules basically design the them for the manufacturer, i'ts going to be hard to draw the kinds of BMW, VW ect. with super restrictive rules. Let them compete for real and it'll be some intrest, some useful developmet also i believe.

 

Overall loosen the rules to bring the chance of more development paths which means, even with a smaller budget teams can go in to their unique design path with huge rewards.

 

Away with the gimmicks: DRS, degrading tyres, all of it is/was panic decisions thats not needed. Every race can't be a classic that just cheapens it. And also away with all these leave a car width, inside driver has the line junk. So he closed the door? Try again.

 

Go where the fans are: Due to the nature of F1 it'll never be the biggest sport in every nation all over the world, so go where the fans are. 16 GP's i enough, but guess what, they'll be all sold out.

 

Bring F1 marketing/broadcasting to te 21st century: Why the FOM don't have a Youtube channel posting polelaps, highlights, classics and more is beyond me?  

 

Edit: As an example, why does the battery-pack have a regulated minimum weight when heavy batteries is a problem in the electric car industri? I bet if you let F1 manufactures go bananas with this their would be some innovations i'm sure. 

Edited by ollebompa, 03 January 2014 - 22:17.

[ollebompa]

I trust the teams even less, Fastcake. And I don't think there should ever be any one person in charge.

 

 

 

 

Yes and no. It's still the same rule book for everyone and winning remains an equal reward for all who compete. And since there isn't enough room for 20 cars side by side at the grid.i..

 

 

 

I disagree. I think it punishes excellence, witch is IMO the exact opposite of what F1 is about.

[Tarzaan]

- 20 races/year - but circuits should dropp if no spectators

 

- no engine rules - only limited amount of fuel/race - but same type/spec of engine/supplier. Limited prize of the engine+ecu combo.

 

- limited number of staff in the pit

 

- no live telemetry

 

- radio contact only from the driver to the pit. Only the race direction allow to talk with the drivers (yellow flag, red flag information, overtaking warnings, etc.)

 

- spare cars allowed

 

- warm up in sundays, no parc ferme rule

 

- free tyre strategy (soft tyres in qualy)

 

- 10 test days before the first race (with 2 cars/team) + 2 or 3 test days after european races if no race next weak on the tracks wher the actual GPs hold (it means 4x3 or 5x3 test days)

 

- less full asphalt run-off area, and automatic stop&go penalty if a driver leave the track (like Groesjean get in Hungary) and not let pass the drivers within 1sec or drop at least one sec immediately.

 

- 10-6-4-3-2-1 point system.

 

- unlimites KERS (time, power, etc)

 

- no DRS or limited usage (for example 100 sec in a race - but anytime when the driver want).

 

- no city circuits - only Monaco (just because the history)

 

- refuelling? Maybe.

Edited by Tarzaan, 03 January 2014 - 21:59.

[sennafan24]

- Budget Cap

 

- Maybe a few less races, I say between 16-20 is acceptable which is more or less what we have now

 

- Away with the double points rule for the last race

 

- Less "gimmicks", like said above I could do without DRS

 

- Tyres less of a factor, I want to see guys push lap after lap

 

- Cater to all driving styles, for example in regards to above, let the bombers go on a 2 stop, and the tyre whisperers go on a 1 stop. Make tyres that allow this.

[ollebompa]

 

- unlimites KERS (time, power, etc)

 

 

 

[chumma]

I guess im the only one who actually liked single lap shootout style qualifying 2003/4/5 style?

[Afterburner]

My ideal design regs involve set maximum car and tyre dimensions (length, width, height), a set minimum/maximum weight, a maximum power output of 1000HP, and extremely stringent crash tests. For the most part, aero regs would be unrestrictive save for a rule mandating a percentage of non-turbulent airflow around the back of a car for a set distance (evaluated through FIA wind-tunnel tests), to allow cars to follow each other through corners. Apart from this, designs are pretty much free-form--bendy wings, movable aero, you name it. I'll let the legal boffins figure out how to implement a cost-cap if necessary, but I would do my best to maintain the integrity of free-form design within the sport.

My ideal admendments to the current sporting regs allow for no more than two changes of direction between areas of the track designated as 'corners'. Corner starting and ending points will be visually marked and a change of direction will be defined as when streaming telemetry or visuals show that a driver's steering angle has crossed over the y-axis. No DRS or other gimmicks. Points are given to every driver who finishes on the lead lap--considerable weight is given to podium positions. Potentially, I'd abolish points completely and score the championship based on best average finishing position. Qualifying maintains its current format (maybe Q3 becomes a single-lap shoot-out), races would be made longer (250 mi / 400 km). The number of parts available to the teams each weekend would be restricted. No pit-stop restrictions.

The prize money distributed to drivers and teams would be done so almost solely through points scored, with a small bonus for the top five finishers (teams and drivers) in each race and the championship.

That's just off the top of my head, no elaboration. There are so many things wrong with Formula One right now, but I could go on all day about that and sound like a total pessimist. Quite frankly I'm not looking forward to F1 this year anywhere near as much as I have in previous years.

Edited by Afterburner, 03 January 2014 - 22:42.

[Fastcake]

I guess im the only one who actually liked single lap shootout style qualifying 2003/4/5 style?

 

It's extremely unfair, especially in the wet, as the track conditions change between qualifiers.

[midgrid]

I guess im the only one who actually liked single lap shootout style qualifying 2003/4/5 style?

 

I liked it, but I do prefer the current tripartite system.  Although any system that results in F1 cars doing flying laps on the limit is good enough for me.

[Afterburner]

It's extremely unfair, especially in the wet, as the track conditions change between qualifiers.

Solution: mod Q3 into single lap and allow drivers to choose to run or decline to run in the order of their Q2 times from fastest to slowest--the last driver doesn't get a choice and is forced to run. Problem solved.

EDIT: To elaborate, at the start of the session and during another driver's lap, the drivers who haven't set a time are asked whether or not they want to go out next and set their one lap time. This way, you can (somewhat) pick when you want to run for optimum track conditions.

Edited by Afterburner, 03 January 2014 - 23:03.

[Skinnyguy]

I guess im the only one who actually liked single lap shootout style qualifying 2003/4/5 style?

 

It was very pretty for TV purposes, but way too unfair with changing weather and track conditions.

[HammyHamiltonFan]

NO DOUBLE POINTS! that's the first thing on my list!

 

tyres that work as well.

 

smaller, lighter cars so they can actually overtake without DRS!

 

limits on in season development in some areas as well I think would be good.

[Risil]

It's extremely unfair, especially in the wet, as the track conditions change between qualifiers.

Incredibly enough when World Superbike adopted a single-lap qualifying system in 1997(?) they inserted a clause saying that if the session was affected by rain, they'd do a one-hour timed qualifying instead.

 

Sometimes F1's rulemaking is embarrassingly poor and the way they botched single-lap qualifying is a prime example.

Edited by Risil, 03 January 2014 - 23:15.

[Fastcake]

Solution: mod Q3 into single lap and allow drivers to choose to run or decline to run in the order of their Q2 times from fastest to slowest--the last driver doesn't get a choice and is forced to run. Problem solved.

EDIT: To elaborate, at the start of the session and during another driver's lap, the drivers who haven't set a time are asked whether or not they want to go out next and set their one lap time. This way, you can (somewhat) pick when you want to run for optimum track conditions.

 

That doesn't solve the problem of changing track conditions, it just brings slightly more choice if you're lucky enough to be first on the list. At the moment you have the freedom to set a time at any point during the qualifying session and I wouldn't like to see that changed.

[Mauseri]

It was very pretty for TV purposes, but way too unfair with changing weather and track conditions.

 

It was interesting to watch, and the at times random grids produced some memoreble races. Better and less artificial than reversed grid. Also the fact that you have ony 1 qualifying lap, added an increased uncertainty element. Driver spinning off etc. It was good. For the weather change I think they could develope a weather handicap correction, or remove laps from those drivers who made their laps in different conditions and give another run. The only problem I had with that format was that they qualified with race fuels...

Edited by Mauseri, 03 January 2014 - 23:16.

[tkulla]

I guess im the only one who actually liked single lap shootout style qualifying 2003/4/5 style?

 

I'm a big fan too. I really enjoyed seeing every single hot lap - I learned a lot about each driver. The current system amounts to watching one lap and then seeing the others take the last corner and hit the straight, which tells me nothing.

 

The pressure of getting it done in that one lap forced drivers to make risk assessments - going all out could result a mistake that could send them backwards in to the pack, or it could result in a pole in a car that wasn't necessarily the fastest.

Edited by tkulla, 03 January 2014 - 23:19.

[Afterburner]

That doesn't solve the problem of changing track conditions, it just brings slightly more choice if you're lucky enough to be first on the list. At the moment you have the freedom to set a time at any point during the qualifying session and I wouldn't like to see that changed.

Fair enough, but you get to be first on the list by going fastest in Q2--with the right to refuse to run based on Q2 times, there's a compromise between choosing your track conditions and preserving the single-lap format. If you don't want to get stuck in the rain, go faster in Q2.

I liked single-lap, so I wouldn't mind seeing this, but Q3 as-is isn't too bad.

[CSquared]

I haven't read the article, I'm just going off FerrariV12's ( ) summary:

 

-Make revenue shares fair. I don't know the details, but more money to the teams and a more even distribution among teams, yes.

-Open up entry rules. I'm no expert on the financial side, but I wonder if this would hurt the value of some of the smaller teams. 

-Halve the calendar. I see no point to this, and what if some great races are cut to keep crap ones? We should be looking to get the French Grand Prix back, not cut even more classics from the calendar. I don't understand why fans want to see less racing, not to mention the damage/lost revenue to the tracks and cities.

-End back-to-back races. I see no point to this, either. Back-to-back races are fantastic if you're making a long trip to see a race. Stay a few more days, add another leg, see another city and another race. 

-Young driver test mini-races. Sure, why not? Have some kind of mini-prize for the teams like garage position?

-Give the FIA complete rule making power. No, thanks. They've shown no ability to do this competently.

-Slash costs hugely. The trick is to slash costs and budgets without resulting in a slash or a limit on headcount. We need to make it easier for the small teams to compete and survive without resulting in a lot of people in F1 losing their jobs or in damaging the industries/economies related to F1 and racing.

-Ban in-session data. A good idea, I like it. It's not stone-age but it puts things back in the hands of the drivers.

-Give teams more control. Yes.

-Ban fossil fuels. We're not ready for this yet. Encouraging energy recovery and limiting fuel use is enough.

-Ban semi-automatic gearboxes. Absolutely not. H-boxes been gone from F1 for almost 25 years now. Leave that primitive technology dead. Let's not go back to hand-powered fuel pumps, either.

-Create an 'F1 draft'. I don't see the point.

-Understudies for qualifying. I don't know what this is.

-Restrict in-season upgrades. No, thanks. Removes some of the interest and will be just as likely to hurt the smaller teams as it will be to help them.

-Reverse championship order grids. No. Almost every race of any type anywhere in the world has some form of qualifying. It's part of the sport. I think the current shootout format is quite good.

-Random/reverse grids. See previous.

[Velocifer]

Reverse grids is as bad as double points IMO. Distorts the competition.

Absolutely, it's appaling.

 

But giving FIA complete rule making power is 10 times worse than that..

 

Shocking to see the ideas coming out of respectable outlets and even F1 lately.. 

[Frank Tuesday]

-Make revenue shares fair.  Yes.  I think there should be, at most, a small reward for better championship position. Last place gets $70M, and $2M for each position increase in the contructors.

-Open up entry rules.  Yes, but that complicates the revenue sharing. 

-Halve the calendar.  Not half, but I have no problem with fewer races. 

-End back-to-back races.  If it makes sense logistically, why not back-to-back?

-Young driver test mini-races.  Only if they get rid of Qualifying.

-Give the FIA complete rule making power. Yes, but the rule-making procedure must be completely transparent. 

-Slash costs hugely.  If you can show me a way that will work....

-Ban in-session data.  No.

-Give teams more control.  No.  The inmates shouldn't run the asylum.

-Ban fossil fuels.  Not yet, but I think they need to rethink energy supply.  Specify a maximum energy input, say 4.5GJ, in any form (which has been proven safe).    Why not 55micrograms of U238 instead of 103kg of gasoline?  Then allow them to capture and reuse as much energy as they want. 

-Ban semi-automatic gearboxes.  Yes.  I think they should go farther in that anything on the car that is variable must be directly controlled by the driver. 

-Create an 'F1 draft'.  No comment.

-Reverse championship order grids.  No.  If they want a "fair" way, why not have a grid draft at the beginning of the year.  Drivers go in order of previous championship year.  When it is your turn, you can pick any spot on any grid that hasn't been chosen.  It's your turn, do you choose P3 at Monaco or P1 at Hungaroring?

-Understudies for qualifying.  No

-Restrict in-season upgrades.  No

-Random/reverse grids  No.

[tifosiMac]

Not keen on reversed grids at all as there would be no point having qualifying. Definitely agree with reducing the calendar to 16 races. Lately the season feels far too long.

[MrAerodynamicist]

My ideal design regs involve set maximum car and tyre dimensions (length, width, height), a set minimum/maximum weight, a maximum power output of 1000HP, and extremely stringent crash tests. For the most part, aero regs would be unrestrictive save for a rule mandating a percentage of non-turbulent airflow around the back of a car for a set distance (evaluated through FIA wind-tunnel tests), to allow cars to follow each other through corners. Apart from this, designs are pretty much free-form--bendy wings, movable aero, you name it.

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

[Nemo1965]

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.

[ArnageWRC]

Reversed grids? Hahaha, no.
 
What I don't get about motorsport is why the organisers are constantly trying to punish those who do well. So you can perform badly and end up on pole position? Maybe in the BTCC it's okay, because that's about entertainment and action constantly, and not proper racing. But in what is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport? No, we have enough artificial gimmicks with DRS, degradable tyres and double points as it is.

Same here. The worlds No1 sport is ( football) popular because it's simple, and easy to understand. When a top team dominates - Tough!!! The opposition don't get any breaks to catch up. Deal with it. I don't expect to see different size goalposts, or 11 v 8 to even it up.

In national 'entertainment' series it's okay - but for any World Championship: NO!!!

[VoltagE]

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.

I got curious about this and made some calculations on 2012 using this system for the 4 top WDC contenders.

This shows that either Alonso would have been the champion or the same order as it was, but everyone (Top 3) in equal points.

Of course the year would not have been what it was

 

Even if *not classified you only get the points of the position you are shown in the statistics [Wikipedia]. Actual WDC points in braces.
Vettel:        2    11    5    1    6    4    4    21*    3    5    4    2    22    1    1    1    1    3    2    6    =    105    (281)
Alonso:        5    1    9    7    2    3    5    1    2    1    5    22*    3    3    23*    3    2    2    3    2    =    104   (278)
Kimi:        7    5    14    2    3    9    8    2    5    3    2    3    5    6    6    5    7    1    6    10    =    109   (207)
Hamilton:    3    3    3    8    8    5    1    19    8    24*    1    23*    1    24*    5    10    4    21*    1    20*    =    192   (190)

Non classification (Didn't complete atleast 90% of the race distance) means 25 points.
Vettel:        2    11    5    1    6    4    4    25    3    5    4    2    22    1    1    1    1    3    2    6    =    109
Alonso:        5    1    9    7    2    3    5    1    2    1    5    25    3    3    25    3    2    2    3    2    =    109
Kimi:        7    5    14    2    3    9    8    2    5    3    2    3    5    6    6    5    7    1    6    10    =    109
Hamilton:    3    3    3    8    8    5    1    19    8    25    1    25    1    25    5    10    4    25    1    25    =    205
 

Edit for too early post as there we missing info.

Edited by VoltagE, 04 January 2014 - 10:24.

[SonJR]

Some I agree with, such as:

Opening up entry rules, making revenue shares fair, cutting the calendar (but not halving, sixteen sounds right), slashing costs (like Ross Brawn said: "It won't affect the show if teams run at only half their budgets), ban in-session data and restrict in-season upgrades (really no reason for all the dinkering, just let the drivers deal!).

 

As for some others, I find random/reverse/championship-based grids rather artificial and I think giving either the FIA or teams absolute control is a bad call, although a stronger, more influential FIA - particularly as far as cost regulations are concerned - would be good. A draft on the other end, is nonsense. Teams should get to pick whatever drivers they want and if you divide the pie more evenly, pay drivers will likely not disappear, but take up less of the grid.

[billm99uk]

smaller, lighter cars so they can actually overtake without DRS!

Size and weight don't cause the lack of overtaking. It's the dependence on aerodynamic downforce. Unless you're going to turn them into bikes that isn't going to change.

[sheepgobba]

Ban Adrian Newey.