How would *you* make F1 better?.......

Yes it's a complex game where little changes could cause unforeseen problems. My non-profit suggestion would be a massive change and would have to be carefully planned and part of a 5 year plan.

And yes one thing to have ideas, another to get all to agree!
Pete

 

Production based engine blocks and valve train. should speed up technology transfer. Unlimited tires in practice/qualifying.

Getting rid of wind tunnels would backfire massively. The teams would spend all that money and time that they currently spend on tunnels on computing power and simulations, but would spend more in the short term trying to get the data to correlate as cfd isn't as accurate as a tunnel yet. They'd put massive resources to closing that gap and it'd still be an aero race at the end of the day.

 

Bring back unlimited testing, regulate areo to an extent, allow different engine configurations aswell as "power adders" and control it all by fuel.

 

don't we already have that ?

Sorry, you were taking the mickey obviously

 

great idea but how do you fill the 4 days at the GP ?

A lot of people turn up for qualifying

 

oh I beg to differ sir, imagine the carnage on alternate weekends, a great spectacle for the unwashed

 

Hmmmm..... Still pondering Pete's comments.

What many of the other suggestions lack however is an explanation of how it's all gonna be paid for. [Somebody else's problem? ]

Believe me, as much as we may whine, they're not going back to unlimited testing for example. Running 2 (sometimes 3!) dedicated test teams was crazy.

"Open" engines, only limit being fuel flow; Same problem IMO - Where's the money gonna come from?

"Free" tires; I couldn't even hazard a guess at what Pirelli are currently spending, but double it (at least) if they bring all 4 compounds.

Etc.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Different engine configs allowed with unlimited redlines. Max 3.4 L for NA or 1.8L for turbo (with efforts made to reign them in enough to give the NAs a very good chance). Keep a reasonably small limit for the number of engines per car per season to prevent Qualifying Engines. Radical valvetrain and engine management technology allowed. ECU to be developed or purchased by each team.

Bring back refueling.

Very generous (not unlimited) testing.

Looser (but not unlimited) aero regulations.

BERNIE RETIRES TO HIS MANSIONS/CASTLES.

 

Gets interesting when Toro becomes team no. 6.

 

As for the money in F-1 that is not a worry ... TV revenue and advertizing will take car of all that.


F-1 should be about how fast racing can be... the best cars, the best drivers and the best teams.

 

Didn't it work for Super Aguri ? I thought they started with an elderly Arrows then had use of a few CPO Hondas.....

Anything to fill the field works for me. Maybe a return to one car teams, might make it easier for the minnows and assist in returning to a 26 car grid.

One more item, make the car numbers VISIBLE.

All age jokes on the last one will be tolerated but unwelcome...

 

Either add an extra practice session, or mandate that Thursday is for non-team drivers to test.

What would be interesting about no-Q is that no one would ever really be sure who was fast and who was not. Teams may sandbag a bit in the practice sessions. With qualifying now I assume all teams always try to go as fast as possible to get past the knockout rounds. Round 3, if they run at all, is 100%.

With the reversed grid idea you would see drivers scoring points less frequently and back-to-back wins would be very unusual. You would never see one driver or team walk away with the championship. I suppose you could see team game the rules though. Imagine a guy like Massa is in 13th with a few laps to go and no chance of points with 20 cars still running. I'm fairly sure you would start to see mysterious "electrical failures" on the last lap so he would finish 20th and be on the second row instead of the fifth. I guess the only way to dissuade that is to pay points past 10th place.

 

Stable, predictable cars are boring:

- Smaller tire width and diameter, for less stability, as well as more durable compounds less prone to immediate destruction from slipping or brake lockup events.

- Peakier engines, for less stability: 1-2L Single turbo, two or more years in production street car block, unusual configurations welcomed e.g. rotary. Teams may use blocks manufactured by anyone, no rev limit, no boost limit.

- Smaller chassis, for less stability: At least 6" narrower track, 18" shorter wheelbase, maybe more.

- Cleaner aero, for less stability, and less turbulence. Enforce a democratically designed, partially adjustable, very simple and minimal front and rear wing package, leaving only the fuselage and ground effects to team influence.

- No stability control, traction control, ABS, etc.

- Brake balance, ride height, throttle curve, wing angle, or any advantage-giving car setup may only be changed while the car is stopped, or during a global yellow flag.


Also,
Familiarity is boring, right? Reverse track direction for entire GP based on coin toss immediately prior to pre-practice testing session. Wait, that would require modification to existing tracks. Just kidding.

Safety is boring, right? Hold occasional bonus testing sessions, or even points events such as time trials/hillclimbs/rallys, on closed and somewhat safetied public streets. Wait, that's way too exciting. I mean dangerous.

At least keep a few weekends open for a lottery of tracks not previously used for F1...

 

+1 on the old Arrows initially.

Dunno about any certification on the PO Honda's though.

However, IIRC, they had to let 'em do that to keep the grid full enough (18-20 cars?) Bernie needed 'em hence the rules got "relaxed" for a few years. When it filled again Sir Frank (IIRC) eventually protested and they were forced to do their own car.

Interesting idea. Not sure it makes sense these days though. If you're gonna run one car the incremental for two has gotta be "minimal" (At least in F1 terms.) You're also making a rod for your own back with just one car; "Is it the car that sucks or the jockey" becomes unanswerable.

Wouldn't dare!

I've taken to using the T-bar camera color as the clue; The lower numbered car is always red. [I'm now certain someone will post a pic proving me wrong of course! ]

Cheers,
Ian

 

Reverse grid is a recipe for carnage but I am a great believer in it , that and NO wings !

Here's an idea for F1 :

1. box, 3m(length)x2m(wide)x750mm(height)
2. fit ANY body or suspension you like inside those dimensions
3. engine 3 litres no exotic materials and any number of cylinders
4. No wings
5. Slick tyres ANY width but they must fit INSIDE the box
6. no limit on the amount of fuel (this should help Ferrari )
7. Reverse grid to mach finishing positions from last race
8. telemetry to be funnelled directly to race control for analysis of tanking (penalties apply)

 

Remove Bernie Ecclestone

 

God is working on it.

But I'm not sure he has enough seniority.

 

Very good!

I'm intrigued though - How would removing Bernie improve F1?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Lewis isn't 40 yet. Didn't he have a problem with a red light?

 

I dunno though - Seems to me there's plenty of younger guys out there who could use an eye test if crashing into people is the criteria.

Cheers,
Ian

 

You had to bring colour into it!

 

That was not him, he was involved in the pile up that that light jumper caused.

 

That's not what Kimi told me.