Formula 1: Drivers will ask fans about state of sport

ThestigGT999

ThestigGT999

ThestigGT999

Soldato
Joined
30 Aug 2009
Posts
8,109
Location
one nation under sony
Formula 1: Drivers will ask fans about state of sport

My ideas to spice up F1

1)Allow teams to choose tyres

an example this week monaco GP

  • Merc (soft and hard)
  • Red bull (soft and medium)
  • Lotus (medium and hard)

2)Allow teams to use what ever engine they prefer with set restrictions

so redbull can back to V8 while Merc stay on V6 etc

3) points for qualifying (top ten) and top ten reversed

1 Mercedes 12 points
2 Mercedes 10 "
3 Ferrari 8 "
4 Williams 7 "
5 Toro Rosso 6 "
6 Toro Rosso 5 "
7 Ferrari 4 "
8 Red Bull 3 "
9 Williams 2 "
10 Red Bull 1 "

then the grid would be

10 Mercedes
9 Mercedes
8 Ferrari
7 Williams
6 Toro Rosso
5 Toro Rosso
4 Ferrari
3 Red Bull
2 Williams
1 Red Bull

what do you guys think?

what do you think needs to be changed?
 
Id like to see the following, although I doubt my ideas would be popular.

1) Similar engine protocols to WEC allowing for more variety.

2) Tyres that actually allow the drivers to drive to their limits

3) Get rid of DRS, but allow greater use of hybrid technology to compensate

A reverse grid system with Ballast etc similar to touring cars would be good to see too.
 
My fear with V6 vs V8 will be parity in performance. But I would like to see DRS ditched. And maybe something can be done to help cars following each other. Instead of "back off to get some clean air and don't trash the tyres" style that just means you get a few seconds gap aka parade.
The Pit stops being sub 3 seconds in my eyes is getting a little unsafe. I'd rather they are forced to stop for 5 seconds and the over taking happens on track. Not a slip up on a wheel nut.
 
Pit stops should be quicker, not slower. Stops that cost a lot of time encourages teams to use strategies that have the minimal number of stops, thus promoting the need to manage tyres.

JRS has always said we should have no pit speed limit. I disagree with his methods, but the point he's making is a good one. Imagine if making a pit stop only cost you 5 seconds rather than 25, youd be able to flex strategy on the fly, making additional stops as and when needed to react to what's happening on track.

On the engine thing, how would open engines meaning multiple different units work when chassis manufacturers are not engine makers for the most part (7 out of the 10 teams)?. F1 has massive cost advantages for engine customer teams in having a standardised sized and mounting of the Power Units. Teams can fairly easily slot any engine into their chassis. Having to build a car around a specific PU would mean customer teams would have to be heavily tied to their engine manufacturer. Engine makers would also need to be very open with their engine designs to allow teams to build around them.

The open engine rules in WEC work because the chassis maker and the engine maker are one and the same. I think its actually regulated to force that. This setup wouldn't work in F1 where teams only have a customer relationship with the engine makers.

For it to work either all teams would need to be engine makers, or customer cars need to be allowed so that a customer team buys a chassis and engine from a maker.
 
Brundle's had his weigh in here:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/1...r-f1-analysing-martin-brundles-2017-wish-list

Some very sensible ideas to cut costs, glad to see he wants to see DRS phased out too.

Agree with Skeeter about strategies. If pit stops had a lesser deficit it would encourage more aggressive racing which is what we all want to see.
Might just be easier to have tyres that allow the drivers to attack for the duration of the race though.
 
I'm with him on most of those.

Keeping the engines the same but forcing a price cap for customer teams won't make much difference but it should help. Like he says it's cheaper than redesigning another engine for a new format.

The front wings are something he always talks about and I'm totally in agreement. The rear wings are already heavily regulated and limited to 2 elements. Just do the same for the fronts. Define the dimensions and allow only 2 surfaces.

Ground effect has been the answer since it was first invented. F1s resistance to it is born from an outdated view of it being dangerous from 30 years ago.

Sharing components is great too. You can now share suspension but an awful lot is still locked down. Personally I don't see an issue with customer chassis providing its controlled, and customers teams get the same updates as primary teams.
 
Off the top of my head

1) Bring back refueling - although I guess with the hybrids is it more dangerous? LMP manage it.
2) Allow teams to choose tyres - no point hobbling a team if the tyres offered don't work on that car
3) Limit front wing elements - As we know cars need to be able to run closer so maybe less intricate wings might reduce the cars reliance on its nose?
4) Stick to the V6 - its done now, no point going back. Is WEC the same as LMP? Why can't they find a comparable set of rules - might reduce costs?
5) No reverse grid - If cars can't overtake it won't work.
6) Keep DRS if they still can't get the cars to run close to each other.
 
EddScott said:
4) Stick to the V6 - its done now, no point going back. Is WEC the same as LMP? Why can't they find a comparable set of rules - might reduce costs?
Click to expand...

LMP1-H is a class in the World Endurance Championship (WEC). Technically its half a class. The LMP1 class is split into 2 parts, Hybrid (Audi, Toyota, Nissan, Porsche) and non Hybrid (Rebelion, ByKolles). Then theres LMP2, GT Pro and GT Am. Then in the support series theres also LMP3. All the classes other than LMP1-H are basically customer teams buying cars/chassis/engines from suppliers. LMP1-H is the class where the rules are pretty open to encorage development. However, as I mention above, it only works because the whole car, including the engine, is made by the same single manufacturer. It wouldn't work if the engines were developed in isolation to the chassis, which happens in F1.

6) Keep DRS if they still can't get the cars to run close to each other.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Lots of people just say "drop DRS", but without solving the problem DRS solves through other means, your just going to end up with processions. DRS being dropped should be a side effect of solving the following a car issue.
 
Oh and..

7) Allow one customer chassis to be sold by teams prepared to sell last years car. By agreement, the base dimensions and structure of the car remain unchanged for a set number of years so customers can buy last years cars from a top team. Possibly use a token system so a purchased chassis can be modified by the team running the chassis to give that team the chance to cause the odd upset if they get the blend right.

Skeeter - cheers for the explanation.
 
Last edited:
  1. Ditch DRS, extend the KERS use time
  2. Ditch "must use both tyre compounds" rule
  3. Ditch flow rate regulations.
  4. Bring back refuelling
  5. Reinstate pit lane speed limit / Cap it at 100kph.
  6. Full access to pit lane radio
 
1) Engines. If Bernie wants V8s back, then let him contract someone to build a spec 'FOM' V8 with no KERS. Make it available cheaply to any team that wants it. Keep the current V6 hybrid regulation in place, but take away the limits on fuel flow - just give them the amount of fuel to race with and let them decide exactly how they want to burn it. Keep reducing the fuel tank size every couple of years to encourage development.
2) Aero. Ground effect.
3) Chassis. Shorten the maximum permissible wheelbase, but keep the crash structure regulations at the front as they are. This will mean teams have to make their bodywork wider in order to get all the components in, increasing drag and therefore increasing the effect of slipstreaming.
4) Suspension. Allow active ride. Widen the track of the cars back to the 2m it was before the '98 season.
5) Wheels and tyres. Wider rear wheels than now, keep fronts at current width. Open up the competition to other tyre manufacturers. Get rid of the 'must use both compounds' rule.
6) Qualifying. Bring back the 1 hour-12 laps format. Pole winner gets a bonus point.
7) Race. Bonus point for leading a lap. Bonus point for leading the most laps. Bonus point for fastest lap.
 
Why 6? I'm with Brundle, the current qualifying format is the best F1 has ever had, all be it hampered by some retarded tyre rules. Why would you want to go back to a format that often saw 40 minutes of absolutely nothing on track?
 
Skeeter said:
JRS has always said we should have no pit speed limit. I disagree with his methods, but the point he's making is a good one. Imagine if making a pit stop only cost you 5 sectyresather than 25, youd be able to flex strategy on the fly, making additional stops as and when needed to react to what's happening on track.
Click to expand...

I like the idea but it just isnt practical

1st the pitlane is used vastly less than the racetrack, so even going at the same speed the cars would be slower

2nd pitlane is a lot narrower, a lot of pitlanes are curved, have brick walls on one or both sides etc etc which will always slow cars / drivers down compared to an open track

3rd The safety aspect, not just for the drivers but the teams and mechanics. Yes,motorsport is inherantly dangerous and in one sense thats why we all watch it but sometimes it can be taken too far.

4th Increasing the speed increases the chance of a crash (in a confined space) and forgetting the human aspect for a second, potentially blocking the pitlane completely for other drivers and cars.....hence ruining the race unfairly. Maybe wrongly but I think this isvpotentially much worse than when they block the pitlane intentionally using the current rules

The intention is spot on but to me the above is insurmountable considering the time you want to reduce the stops by ( even increasing the pit speed limit by 20mph on a trial basis would be unlikly imo)

Would LOVE to see a completely free choice of tyre manufacture and formulation ( but forcing two types per car per race as now) Not sure why trackside advertising works if fewer people are watching and the scrapping of drs to make way for wider rear tyred ground affect cars
 
Drop the speed limit in the pitlane? Yes, tell me how much damage a car travelling at 120MPH does to a team standing waiting for their car to stop for tyres and the brakes fail, as happened to Alonso last weekend.
 
Skeeter said:
Why 6? I'm with Brundle, the current qualifying format is the best F1 has ever had, all be it hampered by some retarded tyre rules. Why would you want to go back to a format that often saw 40 minutes of absolutely nothing on track?
Click to expand...

Because the current format bores me to tears. The as-mentioned retarded tyre rules don't help matters. Yes, the top teams and drivers used to stay in the garage for the first half of qually but it used to set up a wonderful battle in the dying minutes that was genuinely full of tension. Even when it was just to see how much Senna could bend the laws of physics. Or even this guy:


FrankJH said:
3rd The safety aspect, not just for the drivers but the teams and mechanics. Yes,motorsport is inherantly dangerous and in one sense thats why we all watch it but sometimes it can be taken too far.

4th Increasing the speed increases the chance of a crash (in a confined space) and forgetting the human aspect for a second, potentially blocking the pitlane completely for other drivers and cars.....hence ruining the race unfairly. Maybe wrongly but I think this isvpotentially much worse than when they block the pitlane intentionally using the current rules
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if people on here remember that the speed limit in the pitlane isn't that old, or why it was actually introduced. For years and years and years drivers didn't have to stick to a limit in the pitlane. They didn't necessarily go through at full tilt of course - they were trusted to use their judgement about what was safe. If we're going to go ahead and admit that the current crop of drivers have about five braincells between them and therefore can't be trusted then fine, keep the limit.

* - after Imola '94, because Michele Alboreto shed a wheel after a stop and it clattered into some Lotus and Ferrari mechanics. It hasn't exactly stopped cars being sent on their way with only three wheelnuts for four wheels.

MissChief said:
Drop the speed limit in the pitlane? Yes, tell me how much damage a car travelling at 120MPH does to a team standing waiting for their car to stop for tyres and the brakes fail, as happened to Alonso last weekend.
Click to expand...

Not going to hurt a great deal less if they get hit at 55-60mph. You want it safer in the pitlane? Get a tyre manufacturer to make a tyre that lasts all race, ban pitstops entirely except for wing changes or punctures and set the speed limit to walking pace.
 
MissChief said:
Drop the speed limit in the pitlane? Yes, tell me how much damage a car travelling at 120MPH does to a team standing waiting for their car to stop for tyres and the brakes fail, as happened to Alonso last weekend.
Click to expand...

About as much danger as there used to be.

I think the limit should be increased and pit lanes made shorter. At some tracks going through the pitlane is quicker than following the track. That's what I want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom