How would you change F1?

[YellowG1]

Although the 2012 regs are set, I think we all have an opinion as to how to make the sport better. What would you change?

The more I watch DRS, the more farcical it becomes to me. If you're within a second, you just get to drive on by on the straight. I'd love to see real passing come back to the sport. Since passing usually comes under braking, I'd say we should lengthen braking distances a bit, either by making the brakes smaller and a little less effective and/or making the car heavier (going back to a V10/V12 configuration might help).

For tires, why not have three tire choices for any given grand prix and let teams choose to run any two of the three? Could make things interesting if you have a choice between soft, medium and hard, provided soft is very soft (lasting less than 10 laps) and hard could get you through most of the race....

If we're gonna have DRS, why not trust the drivers to open it whenever they feel it's appropriate, instead of having detection zones?

Also, I'd say ditch the blue flags. If you're coming up to lapped traffic, make an honest pass, rather than expecting the backmarker to move over. Everyone on the grid is a professional, so if you can't make a clean pass on a guy 3-4 seconds or more slower than you, then so be it.

Given that the front tends to wash out when cars are close to each other, let's try bringing back active suspension to see if it can compensate a bit?

I'm not sure what the rule is here, but why not let teams run 3 or more cars if they choose? We'd have a few more cars on the grid and hopefully you wouldn't have as many qualified guys (Heidfeld, for example) on the outside looking in.

One other thing: why not cut down on the number of pit crew members so that only two tires can be changed at once? Makes the pit stop delta a bit longer and perhaps makes things more interesting when it's time for a pit stop.

And let's just ditch Valencia. It's pretty, but the most interesting thing I've seen happen here is Mark Webber running over a Lotus last year. Spain already has Catalunya anyway.

Finally, why not ditch one of the three practices? This may make it more difficult to have a really well set up car for the race and encourage a bit more passing.

What do people think?

 

[Bigbazz]

900BHP V10 engines again, slightly bump up the minimum weight to counter it (since if it stayed the same they would have heavier engines and find the weight loss elsewhere, to remain at the same weight as they are currently).

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Evolution rather than revolution... The races this year have been much better thanks to the new rules.

I think DRS needs a tweak though. It is supposed to aid overtaking, but all its doing is making overtaking too easy. As has been said, its aim should be to get the attacking car only alongside by the braking zone so he still has work to do to finish the pass. The FIA are placing the DRS zone on the longest straight though? A good case was Schumacher attempting to pass a toro rosso, in slipstream he was JUST about quicker, but when he pulled alongside he fell back slightly. He then activated DRS and was able to breeze by. Without it there he would have passed should he been braver on the brakes or with decent car positioning. That's without taking KERS into equation too, since next time round he could have used it all on that straight.

For me, DRS will be a lot better if placed on smaller straights where less overtaking is likely to happen, because you are then going to open up an overtaking zone. Again looking at India, the DRS zone on the start straight worked well I think, but I would have put the second after turn 4, albeit with hindsight. Enough cars were close enough out of 4 to have been alongside in 5 with DRS aiding them. Not just Hamilton on Massa, but there were others that were just about not close enough to make an attempt.

The new Pirelli tyres have had their role this year, but that aspect is fading with each race that passes and as the teams know more about them. Australia was interesting seeing the vastly differing strategies play out, but they are now all on similar wavelengths (at least with the other teams around them in respective battles). Maybe we need new tyre compounds every year?...

 

[Tired Tyres]

Lots of power, not enough grip and no downforce in any meaningful sense. Make the cars hard to drive.

Add to that a clutch pedal and a stick shift and no pitstops and I would be happy.

 

[PeterJB]

-Bring back V12 engines.
-Bring back Ground effect and Turbos.
-Ban KERS and DRS.
-Allow the top 10 qualifiers to start on fresh tyres like everyone else.
-Give a point or two for Pole Position and Fastest Lap.
-Scrap Bahrain and Valencia and bring back Magny-Cours and Prince George (It may be a lousy track but then Africa is now represented)
-Allow the lap record to be set during any session.
-Bring back in-season testing, rookie drivers need it.

 

[Grayfox]

Ballast weight for winner to allow mid field to have a chance.

 

[daan]

-Bring back V12 engines.
-Bring back Ground effect and Turbos.

Ground effect is bad, mmmkay. Grip, grip, grip, grip, spin, crash, die.

And V12 with turbos?

My sig says it all.

 

[Famine]

I'd implement my version of the constructor's championship.

Although it wouldn't have actually affected anything at the top this season (in fact, I think it might have shortened the constructor championship by 1 race), it's not really meant to affect things at the top that much. It's also a handy reference tool for driver performances, specifically in-team, and also it might entice a few American fans into the sport - popular sports in the US are ones where there's lots of stats for the commentators to waffle on about

 

[Hun200kmh]

I remember that. And I do think it's a very interesting and valid idea, although I would make a few tweaks to it, to really reward teams that have a strong lineup. Namely, I would award teams, in every race, only the points the second finisher got for his drivers championship.

Using your example:

Ferrari - 18 pt
McLaren - 10 pt
RBR - 8 pt
Mercedes - 2 pt
Renault - 1 pt

 

[Famine]

Which excludes lower teams completely - even worse than it is now!

According to my system, the last race scored the following for the Constructors:
Red Bull - 25
Mercedes - 18
McLaren - 15
Renault - 12
Force India - 10
HRT - 8
Lotus - 6

And the overall championship:
Red Bull - 386 (361/25 - 94:6 split)
McLaren - 246 (130/116 - 53:47 split)
Ferrari - 204 (171/33 - 84:16 split)
Mercedes - 152 (88/64 - 58:42 split)
Force India - 150 (87/63 - 58:42 split)
Renault-Lotus - 103 (57/46 - 55:45 split)
Toro Rosso - 101 (57/44 - 56:44 split)
Sauber - 88 (54/34 - 61:39 split)
Williams - 64 (34/30 - 53:47 split)
Lotus - 45 (45/0 - 100:0 split)
HRT - 41 (27/14 - 66:34 split)
Virgin - 40 (23/17 - 58:42 split)

Lotus have managed a fourth (Monaco), along with a fifth each for Lotus (Italy), HRT (Monaco) and Virgin (Canada), simply by virtue of having the fourth or fifth highest placed second finisher at those races. All it takes is two retirements and all three of the lowest ranked teams score points. In the present system they need at least eleven retirements to score any points.

You can also see massively underperforming drivers really easily. Webber has scored 94% of Red Bull's championship points, meaning 94% of the time he's finished behind his teammate with both cars finishing. Trulli has scored 100% of Lotus's points, finishing behind Kovalainen every time both cars have finished. Alonso is massively outperforming Massa (16 to 84 split). Button and Hamilton (53 to 47 split) and Senna/Heidfeld and Petrov (45 to 55) have been equals within their teams. All empirical and lovely.

 

[Hun200kmh]

The exclusion of lower teams is no problem, if financial consequences are your concern that'll be easily solvable by awarding FOM money based on points earned by drivers.

The main merit of your "invention" - my opinion of course - is to make the teams need a strong pair of drivers. And if you get a result like this:

1st - Vettel
2nd - Webber
3rd - Alonso
4th - Button
5th - Hamilton
6th - Rosberg
7th - Petrov
8th - Sutil
9th - Alguersuari
10th - Barrichello
11th - Massa


... I don't think the second Ferrari should earn 18 points. That's ruining the main advantage I find in your system ... the need for TWO great drivers.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

If I could do anything with F1 I'd bring back refueling and one lap qualifying.

 

[Famine]

The exclusion of lower teams is no problem

It's one of the biggest problems in F1 today. The three "Q1" teams score no points. Ever.

if financial consequences are your concern that'll be easily solvable by awarding FOM money based on points earned by drivers.

Which is none. It's almost impossible for them to score any points, outside of an Indianapolis.

Fans wonder what the point of them is. Commentators wonder what the point of them is. This gives them a tangible point. Or points...

The main merit of your "invention" - my opinion of course - is to make the teams need a strong pair of drivers. And if you get a result like this:

1st - Vettel
2nd - Webber
3rd - Alonso
4th - Button
5th - Hamilton
6th - Rosberg
7th - Petrov
8th - Sutil
9th - Alguersuari
10th - Barrichello
11th - Massa


... I don't think the second Ferrari should earn 18 points. That's ruining the main advantage I find in your system ... the need for TWO great drivers.

It wouldn't. For the drivers, Massa scores no points. For the constructors, Massa scores 15 (Webber 25, Hamilton 18). Mercedes, Renault, Force India, Toro Rosso and Williams weren't able to bring their second cars home ahead of three other teams' second cars and sacrificed constructors' points in favour of drivers' points (or there was a massive, unfortunate and selective crash)...

The best part is if the two Lotuses were 12th and 13th, they'd score 12 constructor points (while scoring no driver points). And this has happened already this season.

 

[Hun200kmh]

My mistake ... I meant 15 points (3rd place among second finishers).

Again, I understand your financial concern, but that's not a sporting concern and therefore should be dealt with in other way. I think rewarding a team that put BOTH their drivers up there only litle more than a team that has a massive difference between drivers is not fair and in fact negates the best outcome I see from the system you designed.

 

[Jimlaad43]

With two laps to go, give all teams a set of qualifying tyres and force them to pit onto those tyres, give them DRS for the whole track and tell them to go for the lap record. 1 point per tenth of a second faster than the previous record for every driver.

 

[YellowG1]

It's unfair to the winning teams, but maybe another way to bring the backmarkers up a bit is to make the schematics available to HRT, Lotus, Virgin, etc. for either the previous season's constructor's championship winning car or the championship winner from two seasons earlier. These teams would certainly learn a lot from looking at an RB6, I think. At least then the backmarkers would only be maybe 1-3 seconds behind instead of 4-5 or more.

 

[PeterJB]

It's unfair to the winning teams, but maybe another way to bring the backmarkers up a bit is to make the schematics available to HRT, Lotus, Virgin, etc. for either the previous season's constructor's championship winning car or the championship winner from two seasons earlier. These teams would certainly learn a lot from looking at an RB6, I think. At least then the backmarkers would only be maybe 1-3 seconds behind instead of 4-5 or more.

But then you'll basically have 8 Red Bulls on track.

 

[Famine]

Again, I understand your financial concern

I have not mentioned finances.

but that's not a sporting concern

Indeed not. Having to demarcate between three teams with no points based on their thirteenth place finishes is a sporting concern. My way we don't need to do that.

I think rewarding a team that put BOTH their drivers up there only litle more than a team that has a massive difference between drivers is not fair and in fact negates the best outcome I see from the system you designed.

We can see that the present system rewards speed alone. We can see that by only rewarding how high the teams' second driver finishes, the teams have an interest in getting both of their drivers home, and home high, rather than concentrating on one driver. This requires speed and reliability. Balance is beneficial too, and these stats allow you to see who isn't balanced more easily.

This season has been somewhat of an anomaly, but the stats agree. The RBR is the fastest and most reliable car by some margin. Of the next two, the McLaren wins out by having a better balanced team than Ferrari. Mercedes' driver balance is rewarded with 4th at present, just ahead of Force India, for whom Di Resta scores the majority of Constructor points. Renault, Toro Rosso and Sauber are much of a muchness, Williams are a poor relation and Lotus, HRT and Virgin round out the bottom. This differs from the present system in that Force India are nearly a hundred points behind Mercedes twenty behind Renault and only ten ahead of the Sauber/STR pairing (who are ranked according to a fluke 5th from Kobayashi - seasons should never be decided by single fluke results and my method irons that out too).

 

[mattythedog]

How would I change F1? Simples. Get Adrian Newey to design a car, and give that car to everyone. Then we see who can win by driver skill alone, not the car helping. I would allow teams to make set up and strategic decisions, but the underlying car would be the same.

 

[F1 fan]

Terrible idea. F1 is no spec series. Besides, the bigger teams will still be at the front due to being able to hire better personnel and drivers.

 

[Tornado]

Then we see who can win by driver skill alone, not the car helping.

There are many spec and almost-spec series of motorsports in the world, and I can't think of one where that holds true. Bigger teams with more money to throw around still win most, if not the overwhelming majority, of the time.

 

[mattythedog]

Terrible idea. F1 is no spec series. Besides, the bigger teams will still be at the front due to being able to hire better personnel and drivers.

But no teams will be bigger thats the point. Teams are only 'big' because they are fast. Give everyone the same car and budget and all the teams will be equal.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Single make formulas are good in qualifying but not a race. In qualifying, you can see the person who is faster; but in races, they can all make the same top speed, same cornering speed and acceleration/braking, making it hard to race.

 

[Tornado]

Teams are only 'big' because they are fast.

Toyota?

 

[Tired Tyres]

How would I change F1? Simples. Get Adrian Newey to design a car, and give that car to everyone. Then we see who can win by driver skill alone, not the car helping. I would allow teams to make set up and strategic decisions, but the underlying car would be the same.

F1 is about designing and building your own car, so this would not work but I do like the idea of using one car for a separate world series. It won't strictly tell you who the best driver is though, more like which driver/engineer combination work the best.

 

[mattythedog]

Toyota?

Top end of the mid-field. Thats pretty fast, considering Ferarri and Renault basically won everything.

 

[Hun200kmh]

@ mattythedog: That's totally against what F1 stands for. F1 is about being the absolute best. Driver. Team. Car. Everything.

If in some years you get the domination of a particular driver of a particular team, so be it. We had that happening many times over and never the other teams ceased to try and overcome the gap to the best.

Lotus, Tyrrell, Ferrari, McLaren, Brabham, Williams, even the one-year-wonder that was Brawn ... and many others. Their excellence made F1 dull at times, but if F1 had been a spec series it would be no more.

 

[mattythedog]

Fine, on reflection my idea may not work. Can you stop attacking my idea now?

 

[Lizard]

Allow DRS whenever during a race.
V12 unlimited revs. Would accept V10's if V12's were too powerful to be safe.
Bring back refuelling.
Make kers unlimited just use what you have charged.
Destroy and I do mean destroy the abominations called catalunia and valencia.
Bring back Monsoon tyre.

 

[F1 fan]

But no teams will be bigger thats the point. Teams are only 'big' because they are fast. Give everyone the same car and budget and all the teams will be equal.

But you're forgetting about things like sponsorship and prestige. Mclaren and Ferrari are hugely prestigious and Red Bull are owned by one of the biggest drinks companies on the planet.

At the end of the day, they'll prevail. Teams like HRT have a tiny budget, so any proposed budget cap will still likely be more than they can afford.

Fine, on reflection my idea may not work. Can you stop attacking my idea now?

No one is attacking anything. The point of a forum is discussion. This idea has already been picked to the bone before and would not be beneficial for F1.

Also, if all cars are the same, overtaking will suffer.