What do you think should be done

[sasquatch]

I wish to open a new forum topic regarding rule changes to enhance F1.

My observations of the first race in Melbourne (from inside of turn 2) seem to be that it is the job the of the driver to make sure car gets home and to maintain tyres and engines.

So I would like to know what do you think should be done to change F1 from a parade back to a sport..

I had a few ideas that I thought might make it interesting.

1: Get rid of driver aids. This is the obvious. More chances for drivers to make mistakes will sort the men from the boys. Makes for more excitement when a driver stuffs a gear in corners or spins the tyres.

2: Go back to one tyre manufacturer. Make tyres that don’t last long but it give the choice of driving hard or making them last. Drivers are more likely to overtake if they have more mechanical grip. I think I read this idea in Race Car Engineer but it sounded good.

3: Remove blue flags. I think this improve things a lot.. Even if one team is dominate, they still have to fight through the back markers. There would be a lot more action on the track as the faster cars try to lap the field. It doesn’t seem fair for the lead drivers but it still means a lot more action. Also might spice up action off field with drivers bitching about each other. It seems that all the drivers are to clean cut to give the correct image for the manufactures and sponsors. Eddie Irvine and Jacques Villeneuve make things interesting wether you love or hate them.

4: Change the points system. I am not sure how but the current system rewards consistency and not guts. Maybe something in between the new and old like 12 points for the win.

5: Change testing rules. A lot of testing is for tyres but a control tyre would remove that factor. I think there should be a limited number of the test days. However, to help, more time should be allowed during a GP weekend. Track time on Thursday and Friday so the public get their monies worth. The team is there so why no test when everything is setup. Seems logical option to reduce costs and get testing on the tracks where they need it.

There are some thoughts. I welcome all feedback

[McLaurin]

I dont agree with the third point here. What if a minardi then hits and makes abandon a leading car? This would upset the big teams a lot. i think the blue flag has its reasons to be and should continue to exist

[sasquatch]

I feel that removing blue flags would make things more unpredictible. Minardi is still a racing team. Even if they don't have a competivie car, it would give them air time.

If a Minardi hit a faster car, that would be interesting. Might make some teams upset but the driver should be able to overtake such a slower car.

Minardi could make some money by have both cars driving side by side. Then Paul Stodard could do some revenue rasing from other teams to let them past.

[sharkie17]

My observations of the first race in Melbourne (from inside of turn 2) seem to be that it is the job the of the driver to make sure car gets home and to maintain tyres and engines.

really? i thought that was a job for the faery godmother.

[Lafora]

slicks, no aero, no carbon brakes.

or

increase downforce back to early 90s level w/ slicks.

increase field to 28

or

Do the 107% qualifying time and allow the top 5 teams to run a 3rd car in the race.

I'd rather see third cars than Minardi and Jordans to tell you the truth.

[West]

give minardi and jordan 100 mil a year more (somehow) without upsetting the other teams.

[West]

Do the 107% qualifying time and allow the top 5 teams to run a 3rd car in the race.

I'd rather see third cars than Minardi and Jordans to tell you the truth.

The top teams aren't willing to field a third car, since it costs extra and it won't be eligible for points.

[Lafora]

Do the 107% qualifying time and allow the top 5 teams to run a 3rd car in the race.

I'd rather see third cars than Minardi and Jordans to tell you the truth.

The top teams aren't willing to field a third car, since it costs extra and it won't be eligible for points.

That's easily fixed

Just change the goddamn rules so that they do count for points. Or hell, allow privateer teams to BUY factory chassis and engine so that the car isn't at least just a mid-pack runner at best.

the "extra" in cost is just chump change compared to the amount of testing they do.

That and the fact that they can run the third car in a different livery to get more sponsorship money

the topic of this thread is what they should do to improve the racing, not what they're already doing So everythign I say is just my opinion on what they should do

[kilcoo316]

no way should the private teams be got rid of.... ford pulling out last year should serve as a reminder of what the manufacturers will eventually do.

Slick tyres should be brought back, super skinny ones on the front, and big massive b*starding ones on the rear, so the quickest way through a corner is in a 4 wheel drift... the spectacle would offset the current lack of overtaking - although that might be enhanced by such a rule change anyway

[West]

Ron Dennis stated he didn't want to sell his cars because F1, he thought, was about making your own chassis and then getting an engine. It's all about intellectual property.

There's still extra costs shipping the third car, as well as the necessary spares and tools. It will do nothing to cut testing, because the team will still spend the resources to make the first two cars as fast as possible, regardless of the rules.

It's not Ferrari's fault that everybody else can't make a competitve car... although they do spend the most money. To handicap Ferrari with rules is retarded. The only thing I want to see is more money to the teams, and a way to cut costs.

Rules stability will also help the lower teams catch up.

[Lafora]

I don't think running a third car handicaps ferrari in any way at all.

Gene nor Badoer is in the same league as Wurz and Ant however

[dumrick]

no way should the private teams be got rid of.... ford pulling out last year should serve as a reminder of what the manufacturers will eventually do.

I agree. Teams like McLaren and Williams have the sole purpose of racing and, therefore, we can trust in their permanent commitment to F1. Big constructors' interest relies solely in marketing and image advantages, so they come and go and assure no stability to the series.

Just compare the levels of commitment in F1 of the teams above, or Lotus, Brabham, Tyrrell (even if they disappeared from F1, they struggled till the end) with Alfa Romeo, Mercedes, Honda, Renault (just to mention makers that actually have already alligned a full car).

[guest like person]

A while back Jeremy Clarkson, of Top Gear, suggested, in one of his rants, that the drivers should not be affiliated with teams. Rather, at each race ther driver gets in a different car.

The logic behind the idea is that the driver who consistantly makes the best of the car he (or she, but thats a different story)is given will get points and ultimately win the drivers championship, while the best car will most likely do well with whoever is driving it, so they will get the constructors championship.

Now im sure there are a million and one problems with this system, but i think the basic idea is right and it would make the races a lot more interesting....shumacher in a minardi anyone?

love the forum btw, i might even register one day

[RacingManiac]

The fact that sponsorship money comes from sponsors who are willingly or was convinced to give money to a team, Ferrari cannot be blamed for having the most money as they got their sponsor the same way as any other team might. Working on sponsorship is a big part of racing. The added bonus of course is that if you are successful more sponsor will be willing to support you than say someone who is not successful. But no governing body have rights to stop someone from sponsoring a particular team, or by doing so indirectly, penalize the successful team. And AS a team, it should be their duty to spend ALL the money to convert sponsor's investment into their success to fulfill their responsibility over the sponsorship, since they didn't give you money to make you rich.

Do away with blue flag rule is just non-sense. While its true that racing driver SHOULD be able to deal with a slower car accordingly, they do not however, have to responsibility to predict what unreasonable action the slower car might take.

[sharkie17]

Big constructors' interest relies solely in marketing and image advantages, so they come and go and assure no stability to the series.

do you think that Ferrari is worried either about image or marketing advantage? or did you mean big constructor like toyota nad renault?