How to make F1 more competitive

[modbaraban]

it would be nice to see 4 in line, V6, V8, V10 or V12, with or without turbo, depending on displacement... im thinking on the idea of some good cars for some circuits and some good cars for others...

That would be just awesome, but highly unlikely with the current FIA position.

[BreezyRacer]

Personally I don't think that F1 wil be a series where passing is routine. IMO it's already as competitive as hell. First, you are never going to have much wheel to wheel passing on a road course .. second, there is no slack in F1, meaning that EVERYTHING is so optimised .. the cars, the drivers (I think that 14 of the 22 drivers could drive the winning car to victory, not because it's easy but because they are all that good except maybe Ralph ), the teams, and the continual development culture. These are the reasons why we could easily guess the finish order of the next race and the next race ,etc. Not good for the fans ..

You want a more scrambled up series? Then change the rules in meaningful way every two years. That will keep teams recreating themselves and could lead to meaningful developments thru F1 R&D. As for the aero changes I say bring in some moveable aero devices so that the world can benifit from research in aero in a meaningful way and the racing can be more scrambled.

Throw in an endurance race with two driver teams maybe once or twice a year. A whole different concept emerges and scrambles things up.

Dare I say, maybe even throw in an oval race or two.

Make them drive on less grippy rear tires so more driver influence comes into play .. make them drive to conserve tires like they had to do in 05. IMO that was some pretty good racing. Very exciting as I remember it.

Of course all this is counter to where F1 has been headed and with Bernie's choice of only the most lucrative venues none of this is likely to happen, except less grippy rears and maybe an endurance race or two. IMO that would add a lot more variables, and thus more scrambled up results, thus making F1 more interesting.

[Ogami musashi]

Of course this is a personal view but i have no problem with F1 at all.

I mean F1 is simply a unique style of racing. There's no as much overtaking as some other series but other series does not have 1/10 of the strategy dynamics an F1 GP has.

Somewhere it is just as if people wanted Nascar type overtaking on a road track, at 250km/h in a corner with open wheels.

I think the only problem IMHO is the fact that overtaking is very difficult in corner, and to be more precise is increasignly difficult years after years all of it because of one thing: ride height of wings.

If wings were to be closer to the ground or extended after the car you wouldn't have all this problems.

Now having the overtaking dance of nascar race is of no interest to me.

F1 cars overtake mostly in pit stops? so what? it is up to everyone liking it or not but i find it from a racing point of view quite exciting to see a pilot that has to get the max of his car at a certain time to be able to pass the car that exits the pits.
Just imagine, you're suddenly asked to gain 0.1 per lap with a car at that time that has as much in common with the car at the start of the race than a nissan skyline with a BMW M3.

Of course only this kind of overtaking can be dull so some "standard" overtaking is great, and wait we have them.

I see F1 as extreme performance, extreme performance always means "small changes result in great differencies" and so an F1 race is to me a race where the pilot has constant variation of performance of his car, constant variations of track and traffic, and in all this mess he's asked to gain time or pass someone and of course manage his own race.

Many F1 races seem dull but F1 races can result in dramatic changes in positions and if you're a bit aware of strategies well i find it quite interesting in fact.


This is not more or less interesting than GP2, DTM or anything else..that's just quite different.

Now before, F1 was better? well i think that was quite different, less performant so differencies were far more visible.


I will quote martin brundle, that in one video tested both Michael Schumacher's 92' benetton and 2000 Ferrari cars.

He said "with the benetton i was just struggling controling the car, it required great skill, with the F2000 the car seemed to following my mind and i could concentrate more on pilotage in itself".

Now that's it to me, before F1 was more about mastering the car so you could say "this driver has guts", now the F1 is more about having the best performance in pilotage so you could say "this drivers knows how to drive!"...all in one this is different but certainly it is still about skillfull drivers that challenge others.

[SZ]

Ogami musashi, for the f1 freaks out there - of which i'm an addict - there might be something interesting in the pitstop overtaking comp we have now. for the rest of the world it doesn't cut it.

i wonder what it's like for the drivers. they graduate from earlier formula, from everything from kart to gp2, wheel to wheel, driving aggressive, fighting to defend. lewis hamilton didn't come to f1 a legend for being able to mimic his times in a mclaren simulator. the guy's known for being a nice guy outside the helmet and a complete shark within it. i want to see that, and racers don't lose the will to show it either.

i don't buy your categorising it as just "different". maybe the depth and combinations of driver and car capabilities out there - combined with what rules we have - aren't amenable for wheel to wheel action. yet schumacher was able to go last to 4th last brasilian GP - on the way displacing the bloke that's replaced him - that was well worth watching; why can't we have more of that?

overtaking isn't necessarily NASCAR, and what we have today isn't necessarily a bunch of races worth watching. for investors and teams they're satisfying if you're running red or silver cars this year, aside from that you're not having a great time.

if the racing is about skilful drivers being proficient in controlling highly dynamic models then ron should open up his simulator at paragon for us all to see and the drivers can take turns. would be lots cheaper than what's going at the moment. but that's not it, and we have max and co working overtime to draft rules to bring back competitiveness.

f1 is the peak of everything in motorsport, not least competition between drivers on track. and if the level of competition rises up and down the grid you'll get that.

so my wish list:

- single race engines again; preserving the engine after the second pit stop kills the racing. not least that changing engine regs kill the cost savings regardless.
- ban refuelling. pit to change tyres, sure, but drop all this "win the race in the pits" crap.
- let the teams have whatever RPM limit they want, but restrict fuel tank size. let engine development focus on efficiency. within this i like the idea of allowing the teams to run whatever engine configuration they want.
- ban max and co talking about restricting aerodynamic development. get real. the cars run too fast and this is the pinnacle. it's impossible to police.
- shift the focus from cutting costs in racing to shifting costs to elements slightly transferable to road use. the top teams will always spend more, accept it.
- legalise customer engines/chassis. weaker $ teams should be able to save on development, the top teams will never, ever buy chassis from other top teams.
- up the available mechanical grip. bring back slicks.
- limit testing. encourage it freely on fridays when fans otherwise turn up to watch not much.
- ban paying drivers.
- forget parc ferme, agree with prior comments.
- ban tc. without tc, with the aero grip currently available and even with slicks, no tc makes life difficult. if the '11 engine regs come in they'll be torqey bastards... harder to control.
- current tyre rules are ---. motogp runs a good example. currently the need to use both types in a race is a bit of a gimmick.

bah, my 2c.

hopefully we can stop lusting over the good old days and start talking up the good new ones.

[Ogami musashi]

your very last sentance makes a lot of sense for me.

That's one thing i love at F1, always changing, so new rules are not always bad, it makes each year different for the other.

As for the rest, i'll agree that more action on track is needed and okay drivers still want to compete, but i think they are fully aware of the nature of competition in F1.

In interviews they say it clearly that have to make a good start, having a good strategy, yet they want to pursue in F1, why do you think? somewhere this should be very interesting, and quite different.

But i understand this is not your point of view, well i think because F1 is changing everytime, there're 1 million of points of view don't you think?

As for my wish list the 2011 one is okay to me.

But let me commentate precisely yours:

- single race engines again; preserving the engine after the second pit stop kills the racing. not least that changing engine regs kill the cost savings regardless.

That's quite okay to me.

- ban refuelling. pit to change tyres, sure, but drop all this "win the race in the pits" crap.

Here i differ, for two points. First if you ban refuelling you ban most of the strategy affair in a F1 race, that same strategy that allowed ferrari to be back on track on the french GP because Hamilton did have a bad fuel strategy.

Also if you want to prevent "pass in the pit" allowing tyres changes will still do the same!

- let the teams have whatever RPM limit they want, but restrict fuel tank size. let engine development focus on efficiency. within this i like the idea of allowing the teams to run whatever engine configuration they want.

I'm with you there.

- ban max and co talking about restricting aerodynamic development. get real. the cars run too fast and this is the pinnacle. it's impossible to police.

From a race point of view, yes, i think trying to slow down F1 cars is non sense, and banning aeros performance won't allow to have the same speeds. hopefully this is not quite the goal of the future regulation despite a reduction on maximum downforce for 2009 then 2011.

- shift the focus from cutting costs in racing to shifting costs to elements slightly transferable to road use. the top teams will always spend more, accept it.

I agree there also with a slight revised form: Focus on road revelance so that were racing costs are high they are of any longer term use.

The "top teams spend more" is quite correct imho, we're in an ultra competitiveness world.

- legalise customer engines/chassis. weaker $ teams should be able to save on development, the top teams will never, ever buy chassis from other top teams.

Now, yes, Super aguri did it more or less legaly and it pays.

- up the available mechanical grip. bring back slicks.

Yes that's quite logical, cars are about tyres in contact to the ground.
F1 is a different car but still one, so both mechanical and aero grip should be increased(in efficiency at least).

- limit testing. encourage it freely on fridays when fans otherwise turn up to watch not much.

Yes for a spectacle goal, that would be good for sure.
I think in fact the trend for more mutual testing is good.
I mean all teams having tests at the same place, same day is quite good.

- ban paying drivers.

What do you mean?

- forget parc ferme, agree with prior comments.

Well i don't think parc ferme does a lot of dammage to racing.

- ban tc. without tc, with the aero grip currently available and even with slicks, no tc makes life difficult. if the '11 engine regs come in they'll be torqey bastards... harder to control.

Here i differ, as i said, modern F1 is easier to master, but allows for more performance where each small increment results in a driving technique ultra developped.
TC should be banned only if it prevent the drivers to use a driving technique like for example ABS would prevent drivers to do threshold braking.

By the way, next year at least, no TC.

- current tyre rules are ---. motogp runs a good example. currently the need to use both types in a race is a bit of a gimmick.

I don't like the tyres this years cause there's less grip wich make overtaking sometimes harder but the two types rule is interesting this year...to be changed soon i hope.

The one manufacturer rule is okay for now, but i hope it won't last too much.


I added my 2 cents to yours.

[SZ]

let's make it 4c then

lots of points of view, though i don't think any stakeholders in f1 want the pinnacle of motorsports to become a pitstop gp.

if you ban refuelling you ban most of the strategy affair in a F1 race, that same strategy that allowed ferrari to be back on track on the french GP because Hamilton did have a bad fuel strategy.

Also if you want to prevent "pass in the pit" allowing tyres changes will still do the same!

running an entire race with big differences in mass is challenge enough! but at least the strategies are played out largely on track, meaning you'd still have to pass someone to effect them. baning refuelling offers more advantages in the direction engine development takes regardless - the most important point.

the time taken to change a tyre set is pretty standardised, the difference in pit times is more dependent on fuel load IMHO.

i agree there also with a slight revised form: Focus on road revelance so that were racing costs are high they are of any longer term use.

agreed, though transferability needs to be reasonable, that's all. at the moment eco issues and road relevance is being talked up a lot but unless they're f1 drivers racing road cars there are limits!

ban paying drivers means that all drivers must have a salary. pay-as-you-go drivers only bring the sport into disrepute. have you ever seen a team that resorts to paying drivers be competitive? i'm suggesting this as a part of more wholesale changes - it's very true to say that without paid rides some very important drivers would never have been seen, but then again if minardi was allowed a customer car we might have seen more of alonso, fisichella, webber etc in their rookie years. keep the driver quality up, keep the quality of hardware more level. probably there are better ways to do this than what i'm suggesting, but isn't it a shame that hamilton's the only rookie sensation in recent memory? good on him - it's great for the sport - but sutil looks really promising too and vettel didn't do badly in his outing. rookies need a better shot and the sport needs to protect it's 24 seats for those that can reasonably make something of the opportunity.

parc ferme situation, e.g. as said, let quali be quali and the racing the racing.

TC should be banned only if it prevent the drivers to use a driving technique like for example ABS would prevent drivers to do threshold braking.

so separate the men from the boys and lets see who can keep it together, tc is great coming out of a corner, though this isn't necessarily refining the driving challenge!

there, 4c

[mep]

Bring back team order.

[Belatti]

I agree on most of SZ comments but customer chassis.

THIS IS NOT INDYCAR!!!!
Why should you spend effort, time and money and then give it away?

But heres what I think:
At least the rules are changing every year, so that we can see teams trying to adapt to the current ones, at least that entertains me!

Of course that is not good to define races in the pits or the other things that a lot of people complaints about... but at least, the winner is always the one that builds the best package arroud current rules.

Maybe, if they want to reduce costs, they could freeze aero devices development, wich is highly expensive (just let the teams do a couple of changes a year) because that kind of stuff never reaches road cars...

And its obvious that centering development in fuel efficiency is the correct thing to do... thats what we need nowadays with the problems we have got in the planet... I mean... make F1 useful to improve road cars efficiency:
-turbo
-energy recovery
-magnetic couplings for on/off devices like superchargers

AND ABOVE ALL THAT... AND JUST BECAUSE TC IS DEVELOPED ENOUGH FOR ROAD CARS... BAN IT FORM F1!!!!! (MAYBE USING CUSTOM ECUs)

BYE!

[SZ]

you can't freeze aero development. there's too big a disparity in the cars as their is in this area, you'd effectively be freezing the current state of competition. and you can't ban it; even though it's not road transferable the cars go too fast to not need it. aero testing is important in f1 for safety too, don't forget. the only way you can legitimately slow aero development is to have slower cars or limited development - the latter really does reduce things to a spec series.

ideally we'd never have customer chassis but the reality is that some teams operate with 5x the budget of others - let alone much less in the way of development facilities - and just can't afford the same level of development. if you can't make them more competitive with 1/5th the budget, then you'll only ever have 4, maybe 6 cars that can consistently fight for the top podium positions, in which case is doesn't matter if there's a grid 24 of cars. the lower teams will almost always be lower, they will always find it much harder to find sponsors, and they will drift in and out of the sport. which is not good for them, not good for the sport, not good for the fans, not good for f1.

and customer cars aren't really customer cars. look at motogp; honda supplies more bikes than any other manufacturer but there's only ever two factory honda bikes, they have their own spec, and they're consistently more competitive than the satellite teams. but the satellite teams aren't so far behind to be out of the race before they start, either. and it's not like honda gives the bikes away, either! they make a bit too.

in f1 it's not like satellite teams won't do their own development either. teams that have wind tunnels will want to use them etc. the depth of engineering in f1 is so complicated that if you gave some very competent engineers the best car on the grid it is still very unlikely they could have it winning a race two hours later. there's a lot that goes into setup, driver development, vehicle development, etc. these things are all interlinked and the pace of development that f1 does - and should - have ensures customer cars won't kill the sport or the top teams. f1 will never be an "easy win" even with customer chassis.

i don't think williams or kolles are wrong about being upset about it this year though! however it is done (if it is done), the rules need to be clear and in the spirit of not disadvantaging any team.

say hi to beautiful Argentina for me Belatti

[Tp]

i think we should decrease the size of the wings (monza spec wings) and also eliminate as much variation of aero devices.
eg all front wing must only have 2 profiles,
regulate more specific at the sidepod aero devices like size and shape of the side pod shield and the mid wing

make all the cars 1600 mm and 2.7m wheelbase and 4m long to improve follwing of the cars

create a zone at the rear of the car where air is clean (unturbulunt air) for the front wing of up coming car

In my opinion there are a few things that are preventing F1 cars overtaking as easily as they should.
-The two-race engine rule
-The points scoring system (looked at as an incentive)

But I think one of the big issues is with how the aerodynamics are regulated (i.e raised wings, less elements on wings, less dependent on ground effect for downforce etc..) You see, teams are more dependent on little winglets, appendages, wings that are very close to stalling to make up the downforce. All of which are sensitive when following another car, to a point where the car behind has to have 30% greater downforce level to overtake. Now how the hell can they achieve this figure when mostly everything is restricted??

[mx_tifoso]

I am sure that there are many solutions to increase overtaking in Formula 1, but as we can all agree on, I hope, is for the return of slick tires and 1 race per engine. That would be a great start for sure. Definately not a new concept, but an important one. With the 1 race per engine rule we wouldn't have such conservative racing after the first stints of a race. That might shake things up for sure.

If only the FIA (Max & Co) would take a glance everyonce in a while at this amazing forum.

[mrmr]

An idea from the NBA (National Basketball Association; our US professional league) is what they call the luxury tax. There is a common payroll cap set by the league, something like $60,000,000 per season. If your team goes over the limit you pay $1 additional per every $1 over the limit into a common pool that is split between all the teams that manage to stay under the limit. Something like the cap and spend market for CO2 emissions.

If the F1 teams agreed that a reasonable team could be funded for say 275 million euros. Then Toyota, Ferrari, McLaren, etc. would pony up double the euros for every one they choose to "overspend". And the minnow teams would reap the windfall.

Take all the FIA's nanny rules that they keep imposing and bin them: the team could decide creatively how and where they want to spend their own money knowing that there was a luxury tax to be paid and no teams would be left completely behind. Add maybe a fuel limit for each race and then let the teams go racing anyway they saw fit.

[mrmr]

Another idea might be to change the points system. Not sure if this would work, but perhaps we would use the current one for placing, but add some multipliier for the gap to the following car. There would be rewards for really beating the other drivers and no slowing down for the last half of the race to save engines. Crazy maybe? I wonder how the two drivers on the same team would react on the track to that incentive?

[mx_tifoso]

unwanted post

[mx_tifoso]

Another idea might be to change the points system. Not sure if this would work, but perhaps we would use the current one for placing, but add some multipliier for the gap to the following car. There would be rewards for really beating the other drivers and no slowing down for the last half of the race to save engines. Crazy maybe? I wonder how the two drivers on the same team would react on the track to that incentive?

A change to the points system has been tossed around quite a bit as well, buy what you have shared with us might be too drastic for this level of motor sport.

But IMO there should definately be a bigger reward to the winner. So that even if you just get podiums w/out wins you cant be winning the DC. Wins (and consistenct results throughout the season of course) should be rewarded with a championship, for both drivers and constructors.
I would be somewhat embarrassed to have won a championship from pure non-win podiums.

So in short, more incentive to win and not just get podium results.