8 replies to this topic

[etoipi]

I have just read Lewis Hamilton's comments about F1 decision making and the thread "Hamilton the voice of reason".  I have been thinking about posting this for a while but now seems opportune.

 

My suggested framework for F1 decision making is as follows.  I consider it a starting point but it is probably better than what currently exists.

 

Decisions need to

1. Promote competition in a race - broadly this means wheel to wheel racing
2. Promote competition across a season - teams are able to improve across the season and (possibly) catch those who have done a better job initially
3. Be affordable  - this probably relates more to the non-works teams
4. Relevant to the automotive industry
5. Promote the "show"    (I am not sure what I mean by this one)

Applying this framework to recent decisions/suggestions, hybrid power probably gets a tick, going 5 seconds a lap faster does not, freezing engine spec does not.

 

This is my suggested starting point for an F1 decision making framework

[Marklar]

It just needs common sense.

[RedBaron]

5. Promote the "show"    (I am not sure what I mean by this one)

 

So your framework is basically as useless as the existing one.

[MastaKink]

Don't let the teams have a say on the rules. They only look after their own interests first and foremost. Understandably of course.

[Vettelari]

I would allow teams that have not won 1 race out of the last 20 to be allowed unlimited testing and development until they win a race. Then normal restrictions apply. This would also apply to any new manufacturers. I believe this would help teams like Renault, RBR, and McLaren to catch up, which in turn will make the show a lot better. Plus this rule will encourage Ford, VW, BMW, and Toyota to give it another go, which is something else that is needed in today's Formula. Moto GP has the right idea with their "concessions" set up.

[Wuzak]

I believe the rules making process should go back to what it was before the original Concord Agreement.

 

ie the FIA makes the rules.

 

It has worked for formulating Grand Prix racing rules since 1920 something.

 

There would be no strategy group. No F1 commission and no World Motorsport Council. Just a new (actually, old) body - FISA (also once called CSA).

 

FISA would sit, as before, below the FIA to oversee the motorsport activities. Its head would be appointed by the FIA, with a board of independent rulemakers. They would be free to consult with people/teams/companies as required.

 

The rules making process needs to be transparent and done in a timely fashion. The 2017 rules, for example, would need to have been finalised by September/October of last year. Not February this year with final sign off in late April!

 

I'd suggest that Ross Brawn would be a good guy to head, or at least be part of, the rules committee for F1. He has been away from teams for a few years, but his experience in competition is still relatively fresh, not decades old.

[pdac]

All very well, but how do you change it? Surely you're asking people who have a vote to vote to remove it. Exactly who is going to do that? I think, basically, F1 is stuck with what it has and will never get better and will only get worse.

[Frank Tuesday]

The first thing they have to decide is whether they want it to adhere to fair, sporting principles, or if they want a "show".  Until they can decide on this most fundamental question, they will never make any meaningful decisions.  They'll just waffle back and forth with no clear path of what they want F1 to be.  

[Wingcommander]

FIA should make the rules. Doesn't sound very good does it, but I think it's still better than having the teams (who only care about themselves) or the promoter (who only cares about money) mess with the sport.