It's fair to say that the new-for-2014 Formula 1 regulations
have proved divisive
- and not just for the fans. With new, quieter engines, even Bernie has vowed to get F1's mojo back when it comes to sound.
This in 2014 isn't looking likely
This year's rulebook has prompted plenty of spectators - from the hardened F1 fanatic to even the casual Sunday afternoon observer - to question exactly why the FIA opted to rock the boat.
The series needed it, as a fifth year of unimpeachable reliability and Herr Vettel romping away into the distance from Friday morning to Sunday evening doesn't bare thinking about. And although the new rules seem to have stopped that, the question is, have they worked for you?
That's why at PH we're pondering if Jean Todt gave us a call and a green light for some no doubt rather lucrative consultancy work hacking a new set of rules together, what would PHers like to see in there? Soapboxes at the ready...
The progress of turbos in F1...
We'll start with what's been probably the most controversial point of the season so far: the motors. Are they noisy enough for you? Do you think extra hybrid energy recovery is the way forward? Or would you prefer an open engine formula with close balance of performance regulations and power equalised by fuel flow rate?
For me at least, it'd be a return to the 3.5-litre V10 era on sound alone, or the period of 1.5-litre turbos, with massive levels of power really testing the drivers. I suppose, then, my like for small capacity turbos in F1 proves that the new rules really could work if reliabilityimproves just a touch and, more importantly, if the teams manage to liberate a few more decibels from the new V6s. Certainly by the way the cars were moving around in the wet in Australia, they're proving to be a suitably largehandful.
Bring this back, says Sean
For me, the engine changes would only play a small part and would be made with a number of other tweaks to the design of the cars, the tyres they use and even whether or not refuelling would be allowed.
One thing's for sure, my ideal F1 car wouldn't have any frontal appendage that could be likened to the snout of an anteater's nose, a platypus's beak, an elephant tusk or, ah, any other anatomical part. In fact, it'd pretty much look like a McLaren MP4/5.
But there's some (albeit shaky) science behind that.
Although the FIA has tried this year, a serious reduction in downforce would improve the racing. Forget drivers whinging about a lack of grip or balance - I'm sure their millions of euros will keep them warm at night, plus it's their job to drive what they're given - the sport is about entertainment. Even more so today with fans and sponsors picking up the tab.
Are all these really necessary?
In my opinion, function should dictate the form of a Formula 1 car, but not at the
expense of
aesthetics
, or my health. I don't want the silhouette of a phallus burnt into my retina.
Tyres
Much has been made of tyres in recent F1 seasons. Too much maybe, as an excuse for under-performing, overpaid superstars? That's another story entirely...
But, next to tyre regs from 30 years ago, current rules do seem just a bit over complicated. Rather than forcing teams to use two different compounds during the race, how about a soft and a hard with a set performance difference? Let's say the soft was two seconds a lap quicker (roughly) but you could go longer on the hards without pitting - similar to recent years maybe, but you wouldn't have to use both compounds and the softs wouldn't fall apart after a handful of laps.
Also, bring back qualifying tyres. Formula 1 is about pushing the envelope of what's possible in terms of engineering, as well as a drivers' mental and physical ability. Chucking four one-lap super sticky specials at the car means we'd certainly get a show.
Sean wants a return for refuelling too
I say allow it. It brings back another strategic element and would mean the soft/hard tyre debate would have greater importance, as tyres are inextricably linked with fuel loads.
Example: you're on a three-stop strategy and use soft tyres every stint, refuelling in small amounts at each pit stop. With a rival on a two stopper using the hard tyre first and a high fuel load, pitting for a splash and dash and some soft rubber with 10 laps to go, if the balance between the two tyres was right, it could set the race up for an almighty final battle.
Structure
On the subject of qualifying, I think it should be an open one-hour long session with no parc ferme rules imposing fuel loads to start the race on.
Turbos in F1 have some heritage!
That way we'd get a mad last 15 minutes, and we'd know clearly who was the fastest driver in the fastest car. Just look at how well that format works in MotoGP.
I'd also ban double points and simplify the system to keep the championship closer for longer. 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 with one for fastest lap would do it.
We've not even talked about DRS yet, but with so much murmuring around the new rules, now's the time to speak up. What would you like to see - or not see - in F1?