If you are the F1 director...........

[Entai]

Monaco is not dangerous, Canada is not dangerous, Singapore is not dangerous, Baku is not dangerous all have minimal runoffs, and lots of big walls, drivers manage to get round without crashing every corner or going outside track limits, why would any other track be different ?

Either that or modern sensors are pretty good, have sensors on the car , one wheel outside the white line and engine is stopped end of race.

Drivers at this level know to the millimeter where their wheels are, they cheat because they know nothing bad happens, make bad things happen if limits are broken, they will stop cheating.

 

[The_Abyss]

Monaco is not dangerous, Canada is not dangerous, Singapore is not dangerous, Baku is not dangerous

They are all far more dangerous than other tracks with large run off zones. High speed accidents are few and far between these days, but there's an enormous difference when you've 3 metres of kerb and a concrete wall, even with crash protection, compared to an acre of run off. Kvyat's crash in Austria last year showed how - he barely missed one wall and slid out of control across the track and a run off area before hitting the crash protection. If he'd have hit the first barrier it would have been a terrible crash, side on too. Concrete walls also ensure that any accident is bounced right back onto the track, and collect other drivers.

F1 doesn't need driver pinball.

 

[MooMoo444]

Monaco is dangerous - but the other tracks mentioned at least have some space available. I don't think Monaco is a good track, only a good location.

 

[MikeTheNative]

This is why I dislike the things Brawn is saying currently, about how F1 is listening to the fans, 98% of everything stated in this thread so far would be absolutely and utterly terrible for F1, most fans don't have a clue what they are talking about and should be completely and utterly ignored when it comes to making rules.

I agree with this, your average F1 fan doesn't understand the complexities enough to be able to choose rules which would promote close racing or make the cost astronomical. (I'm not saying I do either). Something people need to understand when they point at a different series and say 'well that series has different winners, close racing etc.' Is most race series run a BOP so cars are artificially slowed or speed up to keep close racing or have a raft of spec parts.

 

[Glaucus]

for most it wouldn't let them go quicker, as they under fuel the cars anyway, like vet in this race. Same reason peopel who say they should increase fuel allowed won't work, its all calculated for the fastest possible way to complete the distance and only altered if they are out of place.
Ham starting at the back probably fueled up more than the frot runners knowing he needed more grunt to over take.

 

[RoboCod]

for most it wouldn't let them go quicker, as they under fuel the cars anyway, like vet in this race. Same reason peopel who say they should increase fuel allowed won't work, its all calculated for the fastest possible way to complete the distance and only altered if they are out of place.
Ham starting at the back probably fueled up more than the frot runners knowing he needed more grunt to over take.

It's a shame really. Bring back refueling.

 

[Shimmy]

Refuelling basically just ensures you finish in your starting grid positions.

 

[MissChief]

It's a shame really. Bring back refueling.

No, no and no. Refuelling in F1 is a recipe for dull and boring races. The stats back it up. When F1 has refuelling in the regulations on track passes drop significantly. It's the opposite of what Liberty are trying to achieve.

 

[Lopéz]

It's a shame really. Bring back refueling.

What would that achieve?

 

[poosemon]

What would that achieve?

In theory split of strategy's for splash and dash vs slow and steady. In reality (as was demonstrated when refuelling in f1 a few years back) teams end up on similar strategy's and bide their time to try and undercut in the pits rather then force an on track overtake.

If the aero can be engineered in a way that cars can follow eachover closely this could improve things immensely. Mercedes is the extreme example of this, however you can see how the car washes out/changes dramatically when following another car. Hamilton should have been able to pass Kimi due to performance difference, however the aero on the Mercedes is so disturbed following the Ferrari he just couldnt get close enough. All the other cars he passed he had a bigger advantage of grip and engine power that overcame this.

 

[MooMoo444]

Refueling sucked. They just need to make a fill level mandatory, enough that allows flat out all race. You have incentive to push to lose the weight, and also don't need to fuel save. Obviously this depends on the tyre life too as it would put more strain on them.

 

[deuse]

No, no and no. Refuelling in F1 is a recipe for dull and boring races. The stats back it up. When F1 has refuelling in the regulations on track passes drop significantly. It's the opposite of what Liberty are trying to achieve.

Funny you should say that, because the most people watching F1 world wide was when there was refuelling. 2008 over 400ml people.
F1 has lost over 150ml people for various reasons. Also the backers in F1 are getting smaller by the year.
In 2007-2008 they got F1 right. In 2009 it all went pear shaped.

 

[MissChief]

Funny you should say that, because the most people watching F1 world wide was when there was refuelling. 2008 over 400ml people.
F1 has lost over 150ml people for various reasons. Also the backers in F1 are getting smaller by the year.
In 2007-2008 they got F1 right. In 2009 it all went pear shaped.

Much of that is down to races moving to pay TV and/or domination by a single team, not Ferrari.

 

[englishpremier]

Refueling sucked. They just need to make a fill level mandatory, enough that allows flat out all race. You have incentive to push to lose the weight, and also don't need to fuel save. Obviously this depends on the tyre life too as it would put more strain on them.

But doing that would penalise those with the most fuel efficient engines.

 

[deuse]

Much of that is down to races moving to pay TV and/or domination by a single team, not Ferrari.

The BBC still had F1 for free yet people was leaving. Sponsors are leaving even now.
I agree with pay to view being a part but not all. And the failo will not help things next year.

 

[MissChief]

The BBC still had F1 for free yet people was leaving. Sponsors are leaving even now.
I agree with pay to view being a part but not all. And the failo will not help things next year.

True, but there are an awful lot of distractions now than then. Viewership in general across nearly every medium is falling. F1 isn't unique in that respect.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Easiest way that they could make F1 better is to remove the mandatory "2 tyre compounds must be used" rule.

 

[englishpremier]

Here's a good one.

Bring back Maldonado and Koboyashi. Put them in the fastest car on the grid but make them start from the back of the grid every race.

Bound to be a spectacle

To spicy it up even more, Stick Montoya and Ralf Schumacher in fast midfield cars.

 

[Mr Jack]

No, no and no. Refuelling in F1 is a recipe for dull and boring races. The stats back it up. When F1 has refuelling in the regulations on track passes drop significantly. It's the opposite of what Liberty are trying to achieve.

I assume you're referring to this. It's a striking graph, big rise when they banned refuelling... except that the biggest rise is actually when they introduced the DRS system and the fall associated with the introduction doesn't show any deviation from the extension of an existing trend.

Refuelling may not have increased overtaking but it did interest to the races and strategy in, and of, itself. Silly rules about using tyre compounds were introduced because the complexity introduced by refuelling was lost.

 

[Mr Jack]

Personally:

Make the cars narrower and shorter, so they're easier to pass.
Have a fixed amount of pre-race charging available to the cars, but otherwise let them deploy Hybrid energy exactly as they please.
Limit the aerodynamics, so that cars can follow one another better
... but otherwise open up the technical rules to allow more innovation otherwise.
Restore in-season testing and a decent mid-season break that allows time to develop.
Restrictions on upgrading engines must go; especially between seasons.
Better track choice. While I'd keep Monaco, the more tedious tracks must go.
No more putting races on at a time that suits European audiences; it's a World Championship and they should act like it.
Allow refuelling.

More bonkers ideas:

Open up the technical data. Teams must submit complete technical specs of their cars before each race. These specs are distributed to all other teams two races later. This allows the smaller teams to ride the coattails of the richer teams more.
Any driver who does not win a championship in their first six years is no longer allowed to race in F1.
Cars must carry ballast based on their current championship position.