Saving F1 - the new approach?

[Cam]

Having a Purist vs Spectacle debate is great, however maybe it's time we try and invent some ideas to keep F1 viable, satisfy both the purist and the spectacle and ensure that the racing is king, not control items. There's a lot of very smart people in this forum, let's try getting them to put their hand up.

Here's a couple of rough ideas that to start. Happy to get some feedback and happy to see others ideas too.

Spectacle
A boring race is one that's predictable or one that doesn't make sense - in both instances, people turn off. Having a race whereby one team needs to stop for tyres and fuel as they're sprinting, while the other never stops as they have efficiency would always bring the race results down to the long game and keep strategy well involved. We don't need wheel to wheel to be finger nail biting nervous of a result. Now I know that speed isn't everything, but look at this:
Top Gear Power Laps Times
Ariel Atom V8 - 1.15.1
McLarenMP4-12C - 1.16.2
Two very different cars at different costs with different approaches. It's not always about money, it's the best use of it and the idea.

Bring Back the manufacturers
nothing more to add here.

Engines run to an 'efficiency ratio'
This would allow, diesel, ethanol, V10, rotary, anything really where-by the engine is allowed to participate if it meets the Efficiency Ratio. This would see some very different approaches and innovations. Imagine a hybrid car winning. Awesome.

Any body shape is possible as long it remains within maximum set dimensions.
This would see many different shapes and sizes on the grid - not the clones we see now. Maybe small and nimble, maybe large and efficient?

Perhaps more points are awarded per race, for example:
race winner, most efficient, fastest lap time etc. This would give more to race for and would encourage different approaches.

Tech
Any tech must be directly relatable to domestic and commercial applications. If we can use it on a domestic road, you can use it on the race track. This will keep the tech in check to some extent and ensure it's relatable. Maybe the manufacturers have to show a concept car with the same tech in it to validate any wins?

Budget.
This is hard, but i still think keeping it open to some extent. We want to see innovation and development and perhaps if it directly relatable then teams won't go off investing millions in something that won't directly help a domestic car (i.e. fan car). Maybe a equal split of cash to all the teams, regardless of final results - maybe the silver wear is enough. Remember, if manufacturers are back, they'll sell more cars and make money. So teams won't need to whinge all day. There needs to be a new approach to this and maybe think outside the box on how it could best work. Definitely put the purse in the hands of the teams, not a man.

Cheaters
Banned for 5 years and posted on the the wall of shame. Brands will have much more to loose than a couple of thousand if they're caught and it would take a very, very considered approach to go down that road. Everything is risk managed. Is damaging a brand worth it?

Any more ideas? Now I know people can poke holes in the ideas, I'm happy for feedback, but I'd really love to see other ideas and keep constructive. What would you do to save F1 and make it better?

[Caito]

I accept your idea, but don't call it F1.

Make another category, I like F1 as it is, although not 100%. With all your changes it wouldn't be F1, it would be just something else. You can't kill the essence of F1 it's what a lot of fans want to see.

[jon-mullen]

What if we had, like, an F1 biathlon, where the drivers have to get out of their cars after every lap and shoot a target? Only, to satisfy the technology requirements, the target has to be IN SPACE. Pros: gets weapons manufacturers in the sport. Cons: gets weapons manufacturers in the sport.

Or a TRIathlon, where they do a LeMans start, do the race, then the three drivers on the podium have to swim through a pool of champagne? Pros: bring back advanced swimsuit technology that has been banned in other competitions. Cons: they'd have to use much cheaper champagne.

Or what if the cars had Rock-em-Sock-em robots mounted to the front wings to facilitate passing? Pros: Maldonado and Hamilton finally have an outlet. Cons: copyright infringement?

Or, maybe you could stop carrying this ridiculous conversation on in two threads, realize that Formula One has always had a... FORMULA... and that's it's the most-watched single sporting event in the world. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with F1. Sometimes the regulators goof and involve some silly gimmicks, but ask the drivers and what do they say? It's the same for everyone. There are plenty of reasons why F1 is so close this year and none of them have to do with the cars being spec cars or the race being a lottery. Please, give up the harebrained ideas to save something that doesn't need saving.

PS If your rules do ever force Renault to build a Clio EBD*, I will be first on the waiting list.

* edit: EBD, not EDB

[Cam]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with F1.

Saving F1 is more than just the rules. Up and down the pit lane people are wondering if F1 will be viable in years to come. So this is a legitimate thread and something is fundamentally wrong with F1 - no-one can afford it. If you decide to only pull certain aspects from posts and disregard the actual context, then that's your prerogative, however it's unfair.

Many tracks are struggling to find the cash to stay in F1 win some looking to alternate. For example:

Ecclestone said that if a deal with Melbourne cannot be negotiated for beyond 2015, the series would be more likely to exit Australia than to shift to another state. "The race itself, from our point of view, is probably the least viable of all the races we have," he said.

Also: F1's 'customer engine' teams are worried that the price of power is set to skyrocket.

Also: Formula 1 teams are to meet the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone in Monaco on Monday to embark on a fresh push to bring costs down in the sport.

I was hoping that this thread could suggest ideas to ensure F1 is around for many years to come. Ideas are just that, they do not need to become a reality.

Maybe this tread isn't for you if you believe:

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with F1.

Or maybe you could offer some suggestions on how the teams can save money?

[jon-mullen]

Um, ok... The impression I get from your first post is the same old wet dream post that comes up here once every three months about loosening the formula, viz.

This would allow, diesel, ethanol, V10, rotary, anything really where-by the engine is allowed to participate if it meets the Efficiency Ratio.

Any body shape is possible as long it remains within maximum set dimensions.

and then some gimmicks...

Perhaps more points are awarded per race, for example:
race winner, most efficient, fastest lap time etc. This would give more to race for and would encourage different approaches.

and then on the topic of budget you say

Budget.
This is hard, but i still think keeping it open to some extent.

Remember, if manufacturers are back, they'll sell more cars and make money. So teams won't need to whinge all day.

So I don't know what you thought you posted, but it wasn't about financial conservatism.

[Cam]

So I don't know what you thought you posted, but it wasn't about financial conservatism.

Well, my suggestions cover a range of topics, financial is included. In fact many of those ideas could have a direct cost savings benefit, as well as other aspects.

Saving F1 is a very broad topic - intentionally. The hope was to spark conversation and ideas on a range of subjects, including finances. Perhaps more engines would draw more crowds - more crowds, more earnings, helps F1 etc. I guess lines could be drawn between many ideas and the results they could have. I didn't think a detailed justification was required for every idea, I guess I could do better in my posts next time.

The topics are contentious and will bring out passionate opinions, however I trust most will keep an open mind and look to add solutions, rather than continually picking posts apart. It's neither constructive or helpful.

I truly wish for F1 to be a success and although it will never be what I want, I don't want it to die. If rule changes or fundamental changes are required to save it, perhaps it is worth discussing. Sometimes it's better to remove a limb to save the human - so to speak. It's an uncomfortable topic, but one that has merit and can benefit from fans, like yourself.

What would you suggest to try and reduce costs?

[scuderiafan]

This is exactly what I want.

[Robbobnob]

The one change to keep f1 alive is keeping the cars that they run relevant to the cars that we drive.

Instead of being so prescriptive in the rules where as the only way to gain an advantage is to throw money at the development, they need to be open and flexible.

Of course safety is paramount and all the rules introduced to increase driver safety should remain. However technology such as under-body aero or dynamically tuned cars are all areas in which directly apply to the car market today. Yes they may have been banned on the premise that they were poorly understood concepts in their infancy, but with the advancement in understanding and simulation capabilities, these are technologies that can be properly implemented.

In this day and age with the inevitable increase in fuel costs as the population grows and global economies rise and fall, fuel costs will always be a major factor in transportation. Instead of prescribing the teams to a power-train, give them a limit in the energy they can use. "you are allowed 'X' amount of kJ per race" will inspire genius and also increase efficiency in the sport.

I believe that if the rules are changed in this direction, teams will no longer struggle for funding, as technology partners will invest in the research the teams are doing so they can apply them to their own products.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day these are my own personal beliefs and views. Whilst they may seem logical and coherent to myself, you may disagree. It is your own God given right to have your own opinion, it is what makes life so special.
Also i do not claim to have individually conceived any or all of these ideas, nor do i believe i owe anybody else credit for these ideas, because at the end of the day they are just thoughts and do not represent any tangible entity.

[Mysticf1]

Spectacle and entertainment are the only things that will keep F1 alive...engineering relevance and innovation are nice but they don't put people in front of the TV or in the grand stands. Unfortunately fans of the F1technical kind are a minority, nothing would please me more to see the likes of qualifying engines/tires and a more open rule set...but these things cost big bucks with little added value to the mainstream fan. Even relevance to road cars is just a token gesture to keep the manufacturers happy...if the viewing figures are high they will still be in the sport for the exposure. Look at Redbull, its a giant marketing exercise for them.

Each team being a constructor is what stands F1 apart from other series, outright performance as well...but both pale in comparison to the spectacle...keep the racing entertaining and F1 will be fine.

As an aside, constant attempts to "improve F1" seem to me a sign of lack of confidence in its own brand...F1 is a huge sport with a rich history and a strong image...people watch it because its F1. The best of the best at war on the race track.

[Kiril Varbanov]

I am one of the largest supporters of the engineering freedom, but sadly, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Many teams are complaining about the lack of money, and this limits the R&D. Some may speculate that this would force the engineers to be creative, and that's partly true, but on the other hand we have strict regulations.

My long time pain was and still is "Track design" - again, something that can't be changed easily. I simply can't accept that one would build a track with no overtaking in mind, at all.

P.S. Obviously, I'm from the purists alliance

[Websta]

In this day and age with the inevitable increase in fuel costs as the population grows and global economies rise and fall, fuel costs will always be a major factor in transportation. Instead of prescribing the teams to a power-train, give them a limit in the energy they can use. "you are allowed 'X' amount of kJ per race" will inspire genius and also increase efficiency in the sport.

I like that idea a lot.

At the moment, F1 is as popular as ever. They don't need to change anything for quite some time. These threads remind me of a comment I saw on YouTube where someone said that "FIFA should get rid of the offside rules in Soccer to make it more exciting!"

[Cam]

In this day and age with the inevitable increase in fuel costs as the population grows and global economies rise and fall, fuel costs will always be a major factor in transportation. Instead of prescribing the teams to a power-train, give them a limit in the energy they can use. "you are allowed 'X' amount of kJ per race" will inspire genius and also increase efficiency in the sport.

I like that idea a lot.

Me too. Great idea.

Maybe we take the F1 approach to racing to the finances. It's not about making one big step, but finding lots of small gains in many areas?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I would have more powerful recuperative technologies.

And it's implementation would be entirely up to the driver. No 6 second burst per lap here.
Instead the KERS would be not only be more powerful(100kw plus), but a driver should have 5 or 10 minutes worth to be used at anytime he chooses.

[Cam]

I would have more powerful recuperative technologies.

And it's implementation would be entirely up to the driver. No 6 second burst per lap here.
Instead the KERS would be not only be more powerful(100kw plus), but a driver should have 5 or 10 minutes worth to be used at anytime he chooses.

Yep, great idea. That would open up the strategy in a huge way. So simple. I'm sure the development could cross over to the consumer market too.

We're on a roll. Any other thoughts?

[beelsebob]

I love the idea... But it has a fundamental flaw. With no restrictions like this, the cars would be lapping much much much faster than they do now. This would result in 1) really short races 2) far more deadly accidents 3) plausably drivers just not being able to keep up with the car in terms of fitness.

It probably would also ruin the spectacle, as downforce, and disturbance to the air would go so through the roof that it would cause you not to be able to follow anywhere near.