44 replies to this topic

[Alapan]

No seriously ... this is a thread I have been meaning to start for a while, and feeling lethargic at work .. what better way to kill some time?

Recently, there was a poll by Pitpass.com on what the man on the street wants from F1 - and then there are the numerous threads on how to make F1 better - from removing tyre changes, refueling, aero changes. And then we have Max, introducing 10 year engine freezes and engines that run for 4 races, not to mention that they must also be environmentally friendly (without development, since there is an engine freeze).

I think the fundamental question to answering how to make the sport more exciting, is to first really answer what we expect from the sport. Improving over taking by changing aero has a place - but do we really want a spec series? And seriously, how can we logically expect over taking if the fastest cars in the field start from the front and the slowest cars start from the back? That is the same as giving the 100m Olympic sprint winner a head start over second place and so on and then claiming amazement that there was no overtaking!

I don't think anyone here on this forum wants a spec series for F1. I think next year's A1 GP season with Ferrari F2007 based car will give us that. So what do we want?

Personally, I think F1 as the pinnacle of single seater racing technology.

Under those terms what should the bounds be? Clearly, money is a factor. But I don't think we should impose a cap on spending - it is not really easy to police (for example, Mercedes or Fiat could put people on their payroll directly and cost the team less).

My ideal situation - little or no regulation on aero, tyres and engines. There should be simple regulations like - maximum mass of the car with driver, maximum length etc. But nothing more - no wings cannot be this high, or movable floor or mass damper restrictions. This is what technology is about. The same for electronics - Renault had a great launch control system, maybe someone has better traction control.

What should be controlled is the total fuel (over a race season, and per race) that can be used by a team - and it must be at most 95% (value can be changed as years progress) of what was consumed the previous season. So, if you develop a bigger engine that goes blindingly fast, you consume more fuel, and ultimately end up not completing races. This forces the development of more efficient engines - helping the green credentials of the sport, and also contributes something useful back to real cars.

As for excitement, keep it the same as it is now, but introduce another knockout stage. Award points for qualifying and then do a reverse grid start. The old reasons on why reverse grid starts are bad (too many slow cars, danger to safety) is not as much of a concern with modern cars. And without too many aero rules, slower cars can take the approach of having defensive aero configurations (that slow down overtaking) while faster cars will have aero configurations that help them to overtake.

[ensign14]

I'd have F1 to see who the best car/driver combination is. So give each team a budget of £50m or £100m or whatever (something sufficiently low) and tell them to do what they like with it. If you can do a 12 wheel drive 27 litre turbine then do it.

Only thing is that everything in the car must be controlled mechanically by driver, to avoid radio controlled stuff.

Then I'd make sportscars the "money no object" formula. But they must be road-legal and be able to carry a fat bastard passenger. Think it fair to base it on French road rules cos they have Le Mans. Before any 24 hour race the racecars must drive for an hour on and around the roads of Le Mans with a fat chap in the passenger seat. And the gendarmes have the right to stop and inspect if necessary.

Finally you'd have touring cars, same as above but there must be 5,000 identical ones. And the FIA picks out from the assembly line which ones can be raced.

Or something like that.

[noikeee]

A sport made of open-wheel cars with wings, with the best drivers in the world and the most professional teams in the world, where they race each other for the world championship. That's it. Hi-tech technology is only a secondary goal to me.

I don't necessarily want loads of overtaking happening, I want to watch a race and feel overtaking is possible! I want to feel like something could happen, not that the result is 99% decided since the start. My analogy to athletics would be: in a 10000-metres race, an athlete is fast but makes bad starts, and during the entire race an invisible barrier slows him down to the speed of the slower athletes that made better starts, and are therefore ahead of him. Would anyone watch that sort of 10000-metres races?

I just feel it's wrong to see races like Hungaroring, where Hamilton led a faster Raikkonen all race, and didn't even need to make much of an effort to defend position. Is this what you want to watch?

Reversed grids isn't the answer neither. In athletics, some athletes make a couple of good laps then start getting tired and cannot keep up any more. This already sometimes happens in current F1, and would happen more often if we banned refuelling or tyre changes - the performance of cars would variate more. We'd have more occasions where the cars that would be ahead would naturally lose their pace, it wouldn't be something as artificial mandated as reversed grids.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Alapan

Personally, I think F1 as the pinnacle of single seater racing technology.

That's nothing more than an advertising slogan.

[Atreiu]

Business masked as fun?
I'm even okay with it, but the business has become too big while it isn't as fun as it was or could be.

[imaginesix]

Great topic, looooong overdue.

I will get my thoughts together and respond.

[uffen]

An F1 car should intimidate a driver because it is powerful (more power than grip) and the driver must control the actions of the car through the throttle, the gearshift, the brake pedal and the throttle. No electronic interference.
Similarly the circuits should intimidate the driver. Not from a safety/fear of death angle, but by being immensely challenging, how can I possibly manage it point of view. No "technical" circuits which is generally a driver's way of saying "boring but me and the engineers can find a good compromise set up."

An F1 car should be the fastest, most powerful open wheel, single seater in a series of like race cars (F3, GP2 etc.).

The peak-of-technology thing is a dead end.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by ensign14
But they must be road-legal and be able to carry a fat bastard passenger.

Ooo yes please. I can already see my new career developing before my eyes.

[robnyc]

I read somewhere that F1 cars are the easiest race cars to drive.

[Atreiu]

Originally posted by robnyc
I read somewhere that F1 cars are the easiest race cars to drive.

Me too, at the Playstation Bulletin Board.
;)

[Jackman]

Originally posted by Alapan
I don't think anyone here on this forum wants a spec series for F1. I think next year's A1 GP season with Ferrari F2007 based car will give us that. So what do we want?

I have no problem with a spec series: racing has always been about the drivers for 98% percent of the people watching, and I'd love to know who is actually the best driver in the field rather than the one in the team with the most money. I don't want A1GP because they are drivers who are trying to move up to F3: I want the best guys, the ones who have been through the motorsport ladder and proven themselves to be good, and I want them to have a chance to prove themselves against the best.

People talk a lot of crap about spec series, but at least you get a better sense of how good a driver is: as much as people claim that Alonso, Raikkonen and Hamilton are probably the best drivers around there's no definitive proof of it, and if they were racing for Toro Rosso or Force India there's no way they'd be winning races or championships. There will always be better teams and worse teams, but at least in a spec series the driver can make up some of the difference.

I remember Flavio stating that he doesn't understand why F1 has to spend €350 million to put two cars on a grid when GP2 can spend 1/100th of that and do the same thing (albeit a couple of seconds slower), and I find it hard to disagree with him: there seems to be an insane amount of wasted money washing the circuits, and no real justification for it that I can see.

[robnyc]

Originally posted by Jackman
I have no problem with a spec series: racing has always been about the drivers for 98% percent of the people watching, and I'd love to know who is actually the best driver in the field rather than the one in the team with the most money. I don't want A1GP because they are drivers who are trying to move up to F3: I want the best guys, the ones who have been through the motorsport ladder and proven themselves to be good, and I want them to have a chance to prove themselves against the best.

People talk a lot of crap about spec series, but at least you get a better sense of how good a driver is: as much as people claim that Alonso, Raikkonen and Hamilton are probably the best drivers around there's no definitive proof of it, and if they were racing for Toro Rosso or Force India there's no way they'd be winning races or championships. There will always be better teams and worse teams, but at least in a spec series the driver can make up some of the difference.

I remember Flavio stating that he doesn't understand why F1 has to spend €350 million to put two cars on a grid when GP2 can spend 1/100th of that and do the same thing (albeit a couple of seconds slower), and I find it hard to disagree with him: there seems to be an insane amount of wasted money washing the circuits, and no real justification for it that I can see.

I second that..

[noikeee]

Thirded.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Jackman
I remember Flavio stating that he doesn't understand why F1 has to spend €350 million to put two cars on a grid when GP2 can spend 1/100th of that and do the same thing (albeit a couple of seconds slower), and I find it hard to disagree with him: there seems to be an insane amount of wasted money washing the circuits, and no real justification for it that I can see.

Especially given SAguri's performance with a 2003 Arrows. It had lost maybe 3 seconds in 3 years?

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by Jackman
There will always be better teams and worse teams, but at least in a spec series the driver can make up some of the difference.

Yeah I remember a certain F1 rookie who did pretty well in those too ;)

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Jackman
I have no problem with a spec series:

That doesn't answer the question. What is the ethos of F1 in your mind? You need to define what you want F1 to be ideally, and then from there we can go about arguing about rules and so on, spec or not.

[Alapan]

Originally posted by imaginesix
That doesn't answer the question. What is the ethos of F1 in your mind? You need to define what you want F1 to be ideally, and then from there we can go about arguing about rules and so on, spec or not.

Exactly

The problem with bring back slicks, ban refueling, point scoring changes, and what not is that every one is really talking past each other. Having spec series as F1 - fine ... then why should it be different to A1GP or GP2? What will set it apart?

[Spunout]

Originally posted by Alapan
Personally, I think F1 as the pinnacle of single seater racing technology.

That´s the F1 we´ve had since mid-90s or so. People used to think F1 as the pinnacle of single seater racing. This claim that "F1 has always been about technology and nothing but technology" is nothing more than rubbish started by the PR guys of car manufacturers and believed by newer fans.

Whether F1 actually IS the pinnacle of (single seater) racing technology...I am not so sure.

My ideal situation - little or no regulation on aero, tyres and engines. There should be simple regulations like - maximum mass of the car with driver, maximum length etc. But nothing more - no wings cannot be this high, or movable floor or mass damper restrictions. This is what technology is about. The same for electronics - Renault had a great launch control system, maybe someone has better traction control.

IMO your F1 would make racing and racers obsolete. No passing. No blunders. No excitement. "Races" would be decided beforehand, by engineers. TC, LC, ABS, ESP and all the other gizmos you can imagine would reduce the importance of drivers to minimum. Renault had great launch control? That´s nice. What do I know about Renault launch control. Nothing. What do you know about Renault launch control? Nothing. It´s all hidden and so secret that nobody outside of that locked room at Renault HQ knows anything about their LC (as otherwise all the teams would have equally good LC). We know it´s "better" because everybody says it´s "better". How can this stuff be interesting, even for tech-minded fans?

I my ideal situation we would reduce aero by no less than 50%, ban every single driving aid and compensate by freeing up engine/chassis/suspension regs. No more refuelling. And last but not least: no artificial "reverse grid" rules.

Better racing, and more technological ideas we could see, hear and even understand.

What should be controlled is the total fuel (over a race season, and per race) that can be used by a team - and it must be at most 95% (value can be changed as years progress) of what was consumed the previous season. So, if you develop a bigger engine that goes blindingly fast, you consume more fuel, and ultimately end up not completing races. This forces the development of more efficient engines - helping the green credentials of the sport, and also contributes something useful back to real cars.

I like this suggestion.

[robnyc]

Originally posted by Alapan

then why should it be different to A1GP or GP2? What will set it apart?

the drivers.. duhh

[imaginesix]

What about them will set it apart?

[robnyc]

Originally posted by imaginesix
What about them will set it apart?

you tell me .. ?
who do you rather see.. Lewis Hamilton or Oliver Jarvis.
We are talking about the best open wheel drivers in the world racing in spec-series to ultimately determine who's the best driver in the world and not which is the best team/car.

[noikeee]

Hey, Jarvis is quite good.

[robnyc]

Originally posted by paranoik0
Hey, Jarvis is quite good.

Is he? I don't know - I just picked his name from the British Team list of drivers. I doubt he is as good as Hamilton

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by robnyc
you tell me .. ?
who do you rather see.. Lewis Hamilton or Oliver Jarvis.
We are talking about the best open wheel drivers in the world racing in spec-series to ultimately determine who's the best driver in the world and not which is the best team/car.

F1 didn't just come along and declare itself the world's premiere auto racing championship, it had to develop and earn that title. So if that is the only distinguishing factor for F1 for you that's fine, but the question remains what is the nature and character of the series that allows it to maintain that title, and therefore attract the best drivers? For example, a global presence might be important. Cars that are challenging to drive. Money maybe?

You tell us.

[djd]

I had a similar idea, before putting forward lots of fixes, there needs to be some understanding of what F1 is.

I think F1 is a brand made up of a number of different elements, during its history the relative strength of any individual element has changed, e.g. safety seems to be important to the brand at the moment. For any single viewer they watch F1 for a sub-set of these elements, thus require different experience and may enjoy F1 at one period while other viewers are not enjoying it.

Some of the brand elements are (in no particular order)

Speed: (though I would guess for most of its history F1 cars have not been the faster race cars)

Safety: No-one wants to watch a series where drivers frequently die or are seriously injured

Danger: Too safe & it becomes less interesting. Kubica's crash was a combination of Danger & Safety and it got people talking about F1

Skillful Drivers: Driver aids & current rules seem to make this not a strong element of the brand at the moment, but why are drivers being paid so highly, is it just to satisfy Glamor & High-costs?

Glamor: Monte-Carlo, rich drivers, playboy drivers (James Hunt), celebrities in the pit lane

History: (not much in vogue at the moment) Old tracks, the ability to connect drivers from one era to another (e.g. Alonso->Schumacher->Senna->Prost->Piquet->Lauda->Hunt->...)

Technology/Innovation: Seems to be out of vogue at the moment, it's strange that Nascar (low technology on the cars) has better presentation technology than F1 (hi-def, better on-screen info).

High costs: Folks in the pub like to talk about the steering wheel that costs many thousand of pounds

On-track action: Not in vogue, teamwork & strategy are in.

Teamwork: Changing tyres in 5 seconds impresses folks, team strategy etc.

Technology transfer to roadcars: The turbo boom in road cars in the mid-late 80s was due to F1

Worldwide: A true world-wide series

When I see anyone say we need slicks back, I have a mental image of Beavis & Butthead saying Slicks - huh -huh, I personally don't see the connection with improving the brand, or it's rarely pointed out.

So I think one has to define the brand's elements, then rate the brand on how it is performing for each element, and then start to propose changes that improve the elements that have a failing grade, and see how those changes would affect all the elements. E.g. removing driver aids boosts Skilled Drivers but reduces the Technology element.

[Slowinfastout]

For some reason I'd like the big manufacturers involvement to be completely different.

I'd like the engine-tranny package do be a bolt-on thing and by rule become useable on all the chassis of all the teams. Then, the teams would become strictly chassis-makers/mobile-adverts and be forced to use each package at least once.

You can do the same with tires, brakes, electronics? etc...

Would be fun and would really be an engineering showcase.. and I fail to see how it could further ruin the action on the track.

Obviously because of Ferrari thats simply impossible.

[giacomo]

Modern Formula One is an entertainment business financed by advertising.

[Welsh]

Originally posted by robnyc
I read somewhere that F1 cars are the easiest race cars to drive.

If that was the case - how come there are no Women F1 drivers and and disabled F1 drivers?

[Risil]

Originally posted by Welsh
If that was the case - how come there are no Women F1 drivers and and disabled F1 drivers?

Archie Scott Brown?

And that was when they were 'difficult' to drive.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Yeah I remember a certain F1 rookie who did pretty well in those too ;)

Heikki?

[giacomo]

Originally posted by robnyc
I read somewhere that F1 cars are the easiest race cars to drive.

I never read that F1 cars are "the easiest race cars to drive".

But I read several interviews with guys like Kubica or Kovalainen where they said things along the line that F1 cars are relatively easy to drive because they are underpowered in relation to their downforce. Thus the great show of recent newbies like Hamilton or Vettel.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by imaginesix
That doesn't answer the question. What is the ethos of F1 in your mind? You need to define what you want F1 to be ideally, and then from there we can go about arguing about rules and so on, spec or not.

In my mind F1 is an entertainment programme loosely based on motor racing, although it could be much more. What F1 needs is some racing: every race this year was won from the front row except 2 by Kimi from 3rd on the grid, and qualifying shouldn't really be the race, but unfortunately the cars aren't built to take the dirty air of the car in front too well.

Look at GP2: the cars are designed Didier Perrin and Dallara, and because all the field has them they are able to build cars that engender exciting racing, as the aero package can handle dirty air and wheel to wheel racing, and as a result that's what you get. They have a 3 year lifetime on the cars, with an updated aero package every year, the costs are kept down to a reasonable level, and everyone gets out there and races hard. And no one watching ever thinks 'I wish this was the absolute pinnacle of technology', because the racing is so good.

So if you're asking me what I'd do if I ruled F1, I think you could do far worse than bring Perrin and Dallara in and tell them to make me a big GP2 car: they are already hard to drive on the limit, so I'd turn the wick up on the engine to make it more powerful, I'd want the car to be bigger so there's more space on the side of the cars, keep the slicks and no traction control, get rid of the silly looking wings and widgets sprouting up again, and retain the ability to run nose to tail without too much hinderance. And then I'd present that chassis to the teams and tell them to meet their new car.

If the manufacturers kick up a stink (and really, it's just advertising these days anyway for most of them at board level) they could manufacture the engine/gearbox, which needs to fit into the chassis and engine size and characteristics, so that they could effectively bolt into any chassis for customer cars. Engine reliability to remain in place by the requirement to last for x number of races.

On the money side I'd leave at least something in the pot for the track owners so they can afford to properly advertise the events and get more people in, which looks much better on TV, and split the track, signage, TV and paddock club revenues evenly between the teams, regardless of where they finish, after being in the series for 2 years.

And then let them race.

[Phucaigh]

F1 is about who can spent the most money for the least return, who can spend the least money for the best return, who can play the Bond role the best and it ain't McLaren or Renault, who can be hyped the most by media for the biggest financial return, who can generate the most news to keep interest alive, F1 is about no overtaking, it is about driving not racing, it is about strategy, it is about a lack of a good strategy, it is about putting a good spin on losing, a good spin on why they won, it is about passion, it is about picking up a hefty paycheck when the driver under performs, it is about talent and the lack of talent.
F1 is about big money.

A spec series with the best drivers would make the world drivers championship more competitive, give more leeway in engine development with the emphasis being on green technology, make the aero and related areas standard so they can concentrate on what is relevant like green technology which can be used for road cars.

[msvr07]

I was kinda disgusted by the new series on BBC world on F1, "formula for success". it's like this massive elitist selfcongratulary programme where most of the narration is bragging about how much money and prestige there is... I turned it off pretty fast after "formula 1 is a multi billion business where the race on sunday is more or less just there to keep up the image that f1 is a sport" or something like that.

[MikeTekRacing]

Originally posted by Alapan


I think the fundamental question to answering how to make the sport more exciting, is to first really answer what we expect from the sport. Improving over taking by changing aero has a place - but do we really want a spec series? And seriously, how can we logically expect over taking if the fastest cars in the field start from the front and the slowest cars start from the back? That is the same as giving the 100m Olympic sprint winner a head start over second place and so on and then claiming amazement that there was no overtaking!

this is kind of silly, sorry
nobody complained there was no overtaking when the fast car in front was pulling away.
everybody is complaining that if you end up (from various reasons) behind a slow car, you are ruined.
sorry, your example means nothing, that is not the point.

[LoudHoward]

http://www.frikipedi...php/Formula_One

The process of spilling champagne or sparkling wine.

This can either be intentional in celebration, or by mistake if you open bottles of Cava like a gomer. Friki 'once' did this, and managed to turn the tragic spillage of booze into a celebration by yelling "Formula ONE!" to make it appear deliberate.

[noikeee]

[AFCA]

I just post this here...Answering to the thread title, a big part of F1 is all about money.

In his book Business Through Sport, marketingexpert Simon Rines reveals that football has the biggest share of the European sponsorbudget (38%), motorsport comes second with 32%.

€ 1,55 billion / $ 2,3 billon / £ 1,11 billion is the equivalent of this 32%, with F1 obviously making up the lion' share. Being promoted in a sport with such a global image is second to none for companies from all over the world.

F1 distincts itselfs from other sports also because of the fact that VIP guests can come and visit every GP they want. ''It's like giving businesspeople a ticket for the football worldfinal 17 times a year.''

Carmanufacturers make up 21% of all the sponsors in F1, 12% are suppliers and IT-companies, the fuel companies involved in the sport have an 11% share. The rest of the percentage is made up by various companies.

Now that all but one tabaccao company have left the sport, banks and insurance companies have become a lot more important (having an 8% share in the overall percentage of sponsors). ING, RBS, Allianz and Credit Suisse play a big sponsor role in F1.

All in all (so in general) the European sponsormarket spends € 7,785 billion / $ 11,56 billion / £ 5,59 billion (annually), of which € 6,695 billion / $ 9,94 billion / £ 4,81 billion directly go to sport.

Europe's biggest sponsormarket is Germany with a turnover of € 2,6 billion / $ 3,86 billion / £ 1,87 billion.

In terms of sponsordeals football and F1 (both the most popular sports in the world anyway) are in a league of their own. Sports like tennis, cycling and for instance athletics come at a long distance.

[Enkei]

It's the ultimate marketing tool

[David M. Kane]

Apparently it a "sport" where the average team spends $150M on engines; and the organizers could give a rat ass about the specs of the product since the Corporate types are simply there to sip Champagne and to be seen.

It is quickly becoming NASCAR for snobs, cookie cutter stuff lacking in imagination and long on fluff, pretty feathers and shining sprinkles.

BORING!

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Jackman

I remember Flavio stating that he doesn't understand why F1 has to spend €350 million to put two cars on a grid when GP2 can spend 1/100th of that and do the same thing (albeit a couple of seconds slower), and I find it hard to disagree with him: there seems to be an insane amount of wasted money washing the circuits, and no real justification for it that I can see.

Lol at Flavio again.

The amount of costs mirrors the amount of revenues that flow into the series through exposure and sponsors, as simple as that. If GP2 would generate the same amount of revenue as F1, the team budgets in GP2 would be on exactly the same level as in F1. Money means success, more success means more money and up up and away the budgets go until the ultimate limit (total series income) is reached. Just market economy at work.

[wonk123]

Originally posted by Alapan
What should be controlled is the total fuel (over a race season, and per race) that can be used by a team - and it must be at most 95% (value can be changed as years progress) of what was consumed the previous season. So, if you develop a bigger engine that goes blindingly fast, you consume more fuel, and ultimately end up not completing races. This forces the development of more efficient engines - helping the green credentials of the sport, and also contributes something useful back to real cars.

Maybe we can bring Back Alain Prost as well

I don't have the answers, but even though this sounds like a great idea in theory, I remember the racing in the 80's where fuel tanks were made smaller every year, and prost would cruise around waiting for people to run out of fuel on the last lap. Maybe I am being melodramatic, but the problem is that there are people working on this that are supposed to be smart, but never get it right.

Looking forword to seeing what effect the changes suggested by the overtaking committe has

[Sakae]

F1 attractivness rests on it unique aurora of "something special". Once it becomes something else, ordinary, it will die, me thinks. Purnell should take his degree from MIT, and return it. People do not show up at the race to see KERS; if they are anything like me, they show up to see Schumacher to beat the crap out of rest of them. Take it away, and what is left?

[Wellington]

In my perception F1 has slowly slipped to the point where it takes itself for granted. Its drivers are supposed to be the best. Compared to what? Hillclimbers, tin top drivers, dirt track drivers, stock car drivers? Its cars are supposed to be the most advanced, and in a sense the most desirable. Again compared to what? LMPs, off-roaders, soap-boxes? I guess everyone has his own favourite series and his own favourite drivers, and personaly I am not impressed by the way F1, its cars and drivers are "sold" to me. At most, all of them are the best only since the previous year.

I think that during the classic years, what made F1 a reference was how hard it must have been to master, making its best drivers probably simply the best in their trade. Cross series performances were a bit more common then, with drivers having a go at F1, rallye, Le Mans, Indy, and I must forget many other series, during the same year. That gave a lot of credit to drivers who wore the F1 label. Today such comparisons seem very rare. F1 drivers do (can?) not impose themselves in a more global racing hall of fame and the Race of Champions is quite irrelevant. Villeneuve in Nascar is a nice example. Even though you could feel a deep respect for his past achievements from the ESPN staff, his being a former F1 champion impressed noone around. Montoya enjoyed much more coverage, thanks to the media-hype all year long.

I think F1 needs to get back to its roots. It must be the most challenging open-wheel series where the car is a tool for the driver and not the other way round. As such, it must put the emphasis on the guy behind the wheel. Master a F1 car and you may master about anything with 4 wheels and an engine, which is not true anymore. Where do the craftsmen of old fit in this picture? That is the hard part for me to figure out. What I see is that what was a mechanics-driven series has become an electronics-driven one, and I do not really like that. I cannot say about aerodynamics though... I love the mechanical side of racing, the choice of materials, the design, etc... I do not enjoy the electronic side, it is not visible, it is not particularly quantifyable in terms of performance, it is just a black box free of any regulation (softwares hidden in softwares, etc...). And its immediate applications ease the challenge of the drivers, so that is a big no for me.

I want to see the car as a tool designed for the driver. It may be the fastest car in its category but that is not really important as long as it requires skill and dedication to be tamed. It must be allowed to stall, to miss gears, to wear during a race. It must evolve in a grey zone, not just in a "ultra-performing" vs "utter crap" binary mode. I am not sure if current drivers can compensate for a weakness in their car during a race. The car must require the driver's attention, he must feel when something is going wrong, he must understand why and be able to deal with. That's why I would like to see no re-fueling or tyre-change stops. A driver must develop his race intelligence, not just hotlap stint after stint.

Technical regulations are an oxymoron. If you allow progress, then you simply cannot stop its marching on. It would be better to avoid the "contrary to the spirit of the sport" rulings. Some things are easy to deal with, like the tyres, others are more fuzzy like aerodynamics. I am a supporter of the idea that if you cannot control something you should better forbid it. I would then forbid electronics altogether, except any safety device that would be provided in a sealed package from a third party. I would forbid any for of aero device (wings, of all sorts) protruding from the body of the car. I would leave total freedom of design for the shape of the car itself as long as a standard figure for frontal area (or any other good coefficient) is abided by. The engines have been beefed in the past in order to make the series more exciting. Now they are downsized... Well, just pick a size and stick with it. Have the throttle depend on a cable, make all the thing more depending on mechanisms, not on a power surge or shutout.

[V8 Fireworks]

Well F1 is the highest profile and therefore most popular motorsport. This can often be horrifying but profile seems to sell: refer Kylie Minogue or Fall Out Boy