planetf1.com

Completely radical ideas that would lead to more interesting racing. Ideas that would never get approved but would be fun to watch.

I have one. Scrap qualifying. Get rid of it. Reverse order the results of the last race. Won the last race? Start 20th on the grid. Finished last? Start first. Apply massive grid penalties for causing incidents that take your car out of the race.

Would at least make race day more interesting.

Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Nah they need to go, I dont want to see a repeat of '05 where certain cars work on certain tracks.

Rockie wrote:

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Nah they need to go, I dont want to see a repeat of '05 where certain cars work on certain tracks.

You cannot have the current tyre philosophy with multiple suppliers. No-one's going to want a tyre that handicaps them more than the opposition, so if things were opened up tyres would automatically be better and less sensitive all round.

Rockie wrote:

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Nah they need to go, I dont want to see a repeat of '05 where certain cars work on certain tracks.

The problem with pirelli is that everyone is stuck with them due to their monopoly, and the solution would be give another provider a monopoly?

Budget cap and gravel traps would solve 90% of the problems on their own.

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Nah they need to go, I dont want to see a repeat of '05 where certain cars work on certain tracks.

The problem with pirelli is that everyone is stuck with them due to their monopoly, and the solution would be give another provider a monopoly?

The problem is the requirement to make tyres that fall apart in order to spice up the show. This is why Michelin weren't interested in supplying

mikeyg123 wrote:Budget cap and gravel traps would solve 90% of the problems on their own.

Neither would address the problem of teams trying to spend half each weekend getting the tyres to work.

Agree they would help to a certain extent, but not to the level you do!

What I was thinking earlier today is a mix of the quali we have today and reverse championship position. So if you're e.g. 5th in the championship and qualify 3rd, your starting position is (20-5+3)/2= 9th. This would also mean that the highest the championship leader can get is 10th.
In case of duplicate aggregates, quali is dominant.

Its a giant mess right now. And its clear the things FIA thinks will result in better overtaking, less complex aero are not working. They thought it will make things easier if they simplified front wings. Look whats happening this year. We now have more complex barge boards, veins and slots and winglets in the floor.
This is retarded restrictive thinking. They need to really get rid of these things.

Single element wings, both front and back. Flat floors, single element bargeboards, no veins, no slots, no winglets of any kind on the car anywhere. Teams will be free to design rest of the body work as they seem fit.
Only 2 tyre compounds at each race. 8 softer compounts, 8 harder compounds. Let teams use them as they wish over weekend. No compulsion of using both tyre compounds in race.
Remove fuel flow limits. Just fixed fuel for the race. Get rid of MGH-H. Keep simple MGU-K. This will reduce the cost of engines greatly and thus we can increase number of engines allowed per season.
Increase battery capacity or ICE engine capacity to compensate. We can have 2L Turbo V6 + MGU-K.
No penalty for gearbox changes.
Remove restrictions on cambers and tyre pressure. If teams want to play with that, let em.

These changes will move the focus on mechanical grip, chassis performance and engine performance while bringing costs down. With no vortex generating things on cars, the cars behind will be allowed to follow closely. Yes, it will make cars slower initially as people come to terms with improving their mechanical grip, but cars will still be fast enough and with improved show.

Aero will still be important as focus will shift on how to get the bodywork to work aerodynamically for the simpler wings but it wont be able to leave as much turbulent air behind the car as current cars do.

Any other smartypants regulations FIA tries, will be countered by teams by finding loopholes. That has been history. Instead of having intricate regulations, they need simplified one like i mentioned. No lots, no veins, no winglets. No means no, not in any form. PERIOD.

-Give the manifacturers no say or vote in the regulations.
-While making up the regulations: if there's a choice between simple and complicted: choose simple.
-Only free to air.
-A total economic collapse; no money to be made from F1. Multinationals and oligarchs lose their interest and Garagistas take over again.

Frenk Biber wrote:Give the manifacturers no say or vote in the regulations. While making up the regulations: if there's a choice between simple and complicted: choose simple.

That's so simple its brilliant, and a very radical idea indeed.

Covalent wrote:What I was thinking earlier today is a mix of the quali we have today and reverse championship position. So if you're e.g. 5th in the championship and qualify 3rd, your starting position is (20-5+3)/2= 9th. This would also mean that the highest the championship leader can get is 10th.
In case of duplicate aggregates, quali is dominant.

What would the 20th look like in comparison?

Make the cars lighter
Make the cars noisier
Completely change the tyre charade


Do what MotoGP has done so teams without wins/podiums get concessions to speed up development

F1 is in its biggest crisis since beginning. The current technological breakthroughs make the fair racing impossible. The team with biggest budget, attracting best engineers, would have best technology and best car. It sucks.

I am afraid that the only solution to make the grid more even is to have some number of standardized parts. Very unpopular but i see no other remedy for racing itself.

Altair wrote:Completely radical ideas that would lead to more interesting racing. Ideas that would never get approved but would be fun to watch.

I have one. Scrap qualifying. Get rid of it. Reverse order the results of the last race. Won the last race? Start 20th on the grid. Finished last? Start first. Apply massive grid penalties for causing incidents that take your car out of the race.

Would at least make race day more interesting.

This would actually work only if you apply it for the first 10 places. Who would fight for 11th or 17th place, that brings no points, yet makes you start from lower position? The drivers would slow so much to get 20th, or retire the car first in case that the points are not achievable. But in general, not bad an idea, only for first 10.

I'd like to see 2 shorter races on race day, once you get past lap 5 all the excitement is gone. You get all the start drama and one crash or DNF doesn't ruin your prospects.

Tie one hand of the entire Merc team including drivers behind their backs.
On a serious note teams should not have a say in the rules. I am sure the FIA have good enough ideas to fix F1, they just need a back bone.

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Nah they need to go, I dont want to see a repeat of '05 where certain cars work on certain tracks.

The problem with pirelli is that everyone is stuck with them due to their monopoly, and the solution would be give another provider a monopoly?

The problem with some posters is that they blame Pirelli for bad tyres and a monopoly on the tyres, when they seem oblivious to the fact that FOM only wanted 1 tyre manufacturer, wanted tyres that specifically don't last and that no other tyre manufacturer wanted the contract under the specifications FOM wanted. As hard as it is for some people to comprehend, they have had the contract for this length of time because they are providing EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN ASKED OF THEM!!!!

You can't give a monopoly to someone and Pirelli don't have a monopoly as it is. All they have is the co tract to provide tyres to f1.

If you want to blame the tyres, blame the specification FOM requested of the manufacture, not the manufacturer themselves.

Altair wrote:

Covalent wrote:What I was thinking earlier today is a mix of the quali we have today and reverse championship position. So if you're e.g. 5th in the championship and qualify 3rd, your starting position is (20-5+3)/2= 9th. This would also mean that the highest the championship leader can get is 10th.
In case of duplicate aggregates, quali is dominant.

What would the 20th look like in comparison?

You mean a person in 20th position in the championship? If he qualifies e.g. 15th then the grid position is (20-20+15)/2=7.5 so 7th or 8th depending on the details.

minchy wrote:

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Altair wrote:

Rockie wrote:Getting PIRELLI out of F1 will be a start!

No need to get them out, just let anyone provide tires

Nah they need to go, I dont want to see a repeat of '05 where certain cars work on certain tracks.

The problem with pirelli is that everyone is stuck with them due to their monopoly, and the solution would be give another provider a monopoly?

The problem with some posters is that they blame Pirelli for bad tyres and a monopoly on the tyres, when they seem oblivious to the fact that FOM only wanted 1 tyre manufacturer, wanted tyres that specifically don't last and that no other tyre manufacturer wanted the contract under the specifications FOM wanted. As hard as it is for some people to comprehend, they have had the contract for this length of time because they are providing EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN ASKED OF THEM!!!!

You can't give a monopoly to someone and Pirelli don't have a monopoly as it is. All they have is the co tract to provide tyres to f1.

If you want to blame the tyres, blame the specification FOM requested of the manufacture, not the manufacturer themselves.

I hear this a lot, but I can't agree, not cmpletely.

Yes, the FIA wanted tyres that wouldn't last a race distance. But I've never seen anything that proves they requested tyres that were so thermally sensitive and difficult to keep within their correct operating window, or ones that teams struggled to understand properly or which needed such a disproportionate amount of management. That's all on Pirelli. They've made garbage tyres for years and as far as I'm concerned they've helped ruin F1.

free practice friday as usual. quali sat morning for sun race. sprint race sat afternoon reverse grid from championship standings ( reverse quali in australia) with say max 15 points on offer for positions 1-15 to give incentive to the faster cars to race properly from back of grid.

Zoue wrote:

minchy wrote:The problem with some posters is that they blame Pirelli for bad tyres and a monopoly on the tyres, when they seem oblivious to the fact that FOM only wanted 1 tyre manufacturer, wanted tyres that specifically don't last and that no other tyre manufacturer wanted the contract under the specifications FOM wanted. As hard as it is for some people to comprehend, they have had the contract for this length of time because they are providing EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN ASKED OF THEM!!!!

You can't give a monopoly to someone and Pirelli don't have a monopoly as it is. All they have is the co tract to provide tyres to f1.

If you want to blame the tyres, blame the specification FOM requested of the manufacture, not the manufacturer themselves.

I hear this a lot, but I can't agree, not cmpletely.

Yes, the FIA wanted tyres that wouldn't last a race distance. But I've never seen anything that proves they requested tyres that were so thermally sensitive and difficult to keep within their correct operating window, or ones that teams struggled to understand properly or which needed such a disproportionate amount of management. That's all on Pirelli. They've made garbage tyres for years and as far as I'm concerned they've helped ruin F1.

I don't know for certain, but have a suspicion that the only way for them to make tyres with high wear but remain safe (ignoring that Silverstone where they kept blowing when the teams ignored Pirelli's safety instructions), is to have compounds with a very specific operating window. Otherwise, they'll either blow up or last the entire race.

There really are very few options as far as tyres are concerned:

- really hard wearing, quality tyres which could potentially last the entire race causing a lights to flag procession which lots of people would call boring.
- hard wearing tyres with a mandatory stop (like the Bridgestone era), but people complained that was artificially affecting the racing.
- fast wearing tyres like we have now to force the teams to pit during the race regardless of using 2 compound regulations.
- have multiple tyre manufactures so the teams get the beat tyres they can. Which would lead to another tyre dominates era leaving some teams unable to win regardless of anything else.

I do think that in the years I've been watching f1, the Bridgestone era was best for tyres. Using 2 compounds per weekend and forcing teams to use both during the race at some point. But I'm still not going to hold it against Pirelli as to how the tyres are atm.

Make the cars more aero simple!

Aero does little for the sport, and the 1 second gain a team gets throwing £50m at it a season, could easily be recouped by making the cars 1.8L.

Regarding the main discussion of the thread, it all depends what people want.

If you just want more overtaking, more wheel to wheel racing and the field being more evenly matched, the only way to change this is to fully restrict the entire series into a spec series. As soon as you give teams any creative design control, one team will always find an advantage over the others. If you look at any open wheel race series which always has close racing, they are always spec series.

If you want to see the fastest track cars (not including ovals) on the planet, you will not get either close racing or lots of overtaking. None of the thing's f1 has tried to do to artificially 'improve' the racing have worked. Fans often look back and say how the racing was better in past era's, but going right back to the 50's and 60's, there was still innovation the giving teams a massive performance advantage over their competitors. The wheel to wheel racing was a lot closer in the past, but the cars were also a lot slower (over a lap) and not as dependant on aero for cornering.

minchy wrote:Regarding the main discussion of the thread, it all depends what people want.

If you just want more overtaking, more wheel to wheel racing and the field being more evenly matched, the only way to change this is to fully restrict the entire series into a spec series. As soon as you give teams any creative design control, one team will always find an advantage over the others. If you look at any open wheel race series which always has close racing, they are always spec series.

If you want to see the fastest track cars (not including ovals) on the planet, you will not get either close racing or lots of overtaking. None of the thing's f1 has tried to do to artificially 'improve' the racing have worked. Fans often look back and say how the racing was better in past era's, but going right back to the 50's and 60's, there was still innovation the giving teams a massive performance advantage over their competitors. The wheel to wheel racing was a lot closer in the past, but the cars were also a lot slower (over a lap) and not as dependant on aero for cornering.

The thing is, we could already build cars humans couldn't physically drive due to the forces. F1 already reels it in - a lot -from what is possible.

It doesn't need to be a spec series, but much simpler (or rather tighter) aero regs would enhance the series. Compensate for this with other means to ensure lap times stay F1

Lt. Drebin wrote:F1 is in its biggest crisis since beginning. The current technological breakthroughs make the fair racing impossible. The team with biggest budget, attracting best engineers, would have best technology and best car. It sucks.

I am afraid that the only solution to make the grid more even is to have some number of standardized parts. Very unpopular but i see no other remedy for racing itself.

Altair wrote:Completely radical ideas that would lead to more interesting racing. Ideas that would never get approved but would be fun to watch.

I have one. Scrap qualifying. Get rid of it. Reverse order the results of the last race. Won the last race? Start 20th on the grid. Finished last? Start first. Apply massive grid penalties for causing incidents that take your car out of the race.

Would at least make race day more interesting.

This would actually work only if you apply it for the first 10 places. Who would fight for 11th or 17th place, that brings no points, yet makes you start from lower position? The drivers would slow so much to get 20th, or retire the car first in case that the points are not achievable. But in general, not bad an idea, only for first 10.

Good point. Qualification for the first 10 spots for the cars that didn't get into the points from the previous race?

Man it would suck if a Ferrari or Mercedes DNF and was amongst the qualification car.

Allow customer cars. Let privateer teams be able to decide to buy a Mercedes chassis and, Red Bull gearbox if they wish.
Restrict the number of teams each engine manufacturer can supply to 2. To do this, you would need to make huge changes to the regs to entice more suppliers in first. I want to see more engines on the grid dammit!

Here's another radical idea.... Get rid of blue flags!

It'll make the fight for the lead a little more interesting and with DRS, if someone can't lap a car, there really is something wrong.

minchy wrote:Here's another radical idea.... Get rid of blue flags!

It'll make the fight for the lead a little more interesting and with DRS, if someone can't lap a car, there really is something wrong.

the main complaint about this era is how hard it is to overtake.

But this can also be a strength. Putting the fastest cars in the back(reverse order grid) and getting rid of the blue flag will make it so that the best cars will need to be able to fight the best of the rest as opposed to sinply taking off from them. The best of the rest have the advantage of being in vehicles that are hard to pass and can use that to their advantage and provide some fight to the top cars.

On a circuit like Monaco that will no doubt lead to some surprise podiums, maybe even surprise race wins.

So of course it will never happen, but it would be a sight to see

Covalent wrote:

Altair wrote:

Covalent wrote:What I was thinking earlier today is a mix of the quali we have today and reverse championship position. So if you're e.g. 5th in the championship and qualify 3rd, your starting position is (20-5+3)/2= 9th. This would also mean that the highest the championship leader can get is 10th.
In case of duplicate aggregates, quali is dominant.

What would the 20th look like in comparison?

You mean a person in 20th position in the championship? If he qualifies e.g. 15th then the grid position is (20-20+15)/2=7.5 so 7th or 8th depending on the details.

Today's grid:

	WDC	quali	result
Grosjean	18	7	4.5
Kvyat	16	9	6.5
Ricciardo	13	10	8.5
Albon	15	12	8.5
Magnussen	10	8	9
Gasly	7	6	9.5
Bottas	1	1	10
Hamilton	2	2	10
Vettel	3	3	10
Verstappen	4	4	10
Leclerc	5	5	10
Russell	19	19	10
Kubica	20	20	10
Sainz	12	13	10.5
Giovinazzi	17	18	10.5
Norris	9	11	11
Stroll	14	17	11.5
Hulkenberg	11	16	12.5
Räikkönen	8	14	13
Perez	6	15	14.5

Looking at the grid it seems drivers who have underperformed and now get a decent quali result (Grosjean, Kvyat) gain massively while drivers who have overperformed previously and now get a poorer quali result (Räikkönen, Perez) lose out massively. So by no means a perfect system...

minchy wrote:Here's another radical idea.... Get rid of blue flags!

It'll make the fight for the lead a little more interesting and with DRS, if someone can't lap a car, there really is something wrong.

I would suggest changing your idea into 'returning the blue flag rule to what it used to mean'. Because getting rid of the current blue flag rule isn't radical, it's simply perfect common sense.

I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

There are a lot of good ideas in the attached:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/joha ... s/4374192/

Zoue wrote:I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

There are a lot of good ideas in the attached:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/joha ... s/4374192/

As much as I agree with most of this, all of Johansson's ideas revolve around standardising everything to save cost and thus save F1. Standard front wing, standard brakes, tub, electronics, etc. I agree with what you mention above, but that article leaves a bad taste to me overall.

After you guys have made all these changes to F1 then maybe I watch something else?

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

There are a lot of good ideas in the attached:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/joha ... s/4374192/

As much as I agree with most of this, all of Johansson's ideas revolve around standardising everything to save cost and thus save F1. Standard front wing, standard brakes, tub, electronics, etc. I agree with what you mention above, but that article leaves a bad taste to me overall.

Yes I agree with you that standardisation also makes me uncomfortable. However the economics of the argument make sense and I also agree with the principle that the majority don't really care about e.g. what brakes are fitted to the cars. We already have a standard ECU and there's a tender out for gearboxes so it's not like the concept is completely alien. I'm willing to swallow my objections if it means F1 can move away from the current model, which I strongly dislike and which I think is ultimately broken beyond repair.


While SJ does advocate standardising a number of behind-the-scenes items, he's also a strong proponent of deregulation which I'm in gavour of. Examples are engineswhere he suggests giving people a free reign (with maximum limits on e.g. fuel or weight) which would result in more innovation as teams try to explore different avenues for success. The FIA's obsession with regulating everything down to the nuts and bolts has seen costs spiralling and the advantage being firmly cemented with the manufacturers on an unprecedented level as they throw resources at eking out small gains here and there. And this will continue to be the case. SJ's not the only one who has said deregulation makes sense and e.g. Lauda and Prost have both put their hats in the ring in support of this.



There's also a degree of hypocrisy in the rules where we're told that it's essential we make F1 more road relevant when it comes to engines but they spend tens of millions on making ever more complex front wings which have absolutely no application beyond the race track. I'm pretty comfortable that we're not going to see F1-style front wings on any road car in my lifetime, which just shows that road relevance is simply a smokescreen to justify the manufacturers' enormous R&D budgets. In fact, there's a strong argument against making it road relevant as mayber then the manufacturers won't be allowed to spend such astronomical figures by their respective boards and it might even things out a bit for the other teams.


edit: I'm trying to put paragraph spacers in to prevent a wall of text but some witchcraft is preventing me from doing so. Honest!

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

There are a lot of good ideas in the attached:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/joha ... s/4374192/

As much as I agree with most of this, all of Johansson's ideas revolve around standardising everything to save cost and thus save F1. Standard front wing, standard brakes, tub, electronics, etc. I agree with what you mention above, but that article leaves a bad taste to me overall.

Yes I agree with you that standardisation also makes me uncomfortable. However the economics of the argument make sense and I also agree with the principle that the majority don't really care about e.g. what brakes are fitted to the cars. We already have a standard ECU and there's a tender out for gearboxes so it's not like the concept is completely alien. I'm willing to swallow my objections if it means F1 can move away from the current model, which I strongly dislike and which I think is ultimately broken beyond repair.


While SJ does advocate standardising a number of behind-the-scenes items, he's also a strong proponent of deregulation which I'm in gavour of. Examples are engineswhere he suggests giving people a free reign (with maximum limits on e.g. fuel or weight) which would result in more innovation as teams try to explore different avenues for success. The FIA's obsession with regulating everything down to the nuts and bolts has seen costs spiralling and the advantage being firmly cemented with the manufacturers on an unprecedented level as they throw resources at eking out small gains here and there. And this will continue to be the case. SJ's not the only one who has said deregulation makes sense and e.g. Lauda and Prost have both put their hats in the ring in support of this.



There's also a degree of hypocrisy in the rules where we're told that it's essential we make F1 more road relevant when it comes to engines but they spend tens of millions on making ever more complex front wings which have absolutely no application beyond the race track. I'm pretty comfortable that we're not going to see F1-style front wings on any road car in my lifetime, which just shows that road relevance is simply a smokescreen to justify the manufacturers' enormous R&D budgets. In fact, there's a strong argument against making it road relevant as mayber then the manufacturers won't be allowed to spend such astronomical figures by their respective boards and it might even things out a bit for the other teams.


edit: I'm trying to put paragraph spacers in to prevent a wall of text but some witchcraft is preventing me from doing so. Honest!

Oh I agree with you, but just seeing everything with a note "standardised item" next to it kind of makes me think that it will be going the spec series way. And the costs need to be kept down, but equally this is F1, I expect it to be extravagant and more expensive than the Indy example in the article. Maybe not as extreme, but I'd be happy with it.

The opening of the rules with tolerances is the one thing I fully agree on. And I would be even open to push radical changes, as in not a standard size of engine and number of cylinders, just that the system needs to be hybrid and set some parameters. Let them figure out what engine and how big they want it to be! Let them engineer!

As for the spaces, they look fine in the quoting reply!

Zoue wrote:I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

There are a lot of good ideas in the attached:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/joha ... s/4374192/

This thread isn't tongue in cheek.

Its born out of desperation. F1 needs some radical changes now to bring more interesting Sundays. No amount of tinkering is going to help the sport, at this point its either a complete rewrite of the rules or a massive change.

Altair wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:F1 is in its biggest crisis since beginning. The current technological breakthroughs make the fair racing impossible. The team with biggest budget, attracting best engineers, would have best technology and best car. It sucks.

I am afraid that the only solution to make the grid more even is to have some number of standardized parts. Very unpopular but i see no other remedy for racing itself.

Altair wrote:Completely radical ideas that would lead to more interesting racing. Ideas that would never get approved but would be fun to watch.

I have one. Scrap qualifying. Get rid of it. Reverse order the results of the last race. Won the last race? Start 20th on the grid. Finished last? Start first. Apply massive grid penalties for causing incidents that take your car out of the race.

Would at least make race day more interesting.

This would actually work only if you apply it for the first 10 places. Who would fight for 11th or 17th place, that brings no points, yet makes you start from lower position? The drivers would slow so much to get 20th, or retire the car first in case that the points are not achievable. But in general, not bad an idea, only for first 10.

Good point. Qualification for the first 10 spots for the cars that didn't get into the points from the previous race?

Man it would suck if a Ferrari or Mercedes DNF and was amongst the qualification car.

Exactly, Altair, exactly.
Man, this F1 sucks big time.

Altair wrote:

Zoue wrote:I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

There are a lot of good ideas in the attached:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/joha ... s/4374192/

This thread isn't tongue in cheek.

Its born out of desperation. F1 needs some radical changes now to bring more interesting Sundays. No amount of tinkering is going to help the sport, at this point its either a complete rewrite of the rules or a massive change.

Well I took Ideas that would never get approved but would be fun to watch as being tongue-in-cheek.


I agree with the idea that F1 needs a rewrite. I don't think I could ever get onboard with the idea that what F1 really needs is more gimmicks