Discussion
Muzzer79 said:
entropy said:
Muzzer79 said:
Take this the right way please, but how would that spice things up?
Drivers rarely get it wrong, as in crashing, in Qualifying now so surely your Q4 would just be a repeat of the times in Q3?
I think that Qualifying is one of the things they shouldn't mess around with and works well as-is.
One lap shoot out, all-or-nothing for pole - more pressure, greater chance of error.Drivers rarely get it wrong, as in crashing, in Qualifying now so surely your Q4 would just be a repeat of the times in Q3?
I think that Qualifying is one of the things they shouldn't mess around with and works well as-is.
Q4 participants get an extra set of tyres of their choice that then must be handed back after the session.
There would be 2 or 3 drivers under pressure going for pole, the rest going for a good lap - just as in current Q3.
They also get extra tyres in Q3 now?
PixelpeepZ4 said:
bring back refuelling.
That added some excitement (READ: fire) and also allows an extra dimension and uncertainty to the strategy mix
The idea that refueling made F1 exciting is a total myth.That added some excitement (READ: fire) and also allows an extra dimension and uncertainty to the strategy mix
From bleacher report "Between 1994 and 2009, when refuelling was used, overtaking was lower than at any point in recent memory. This period saw a huge variety of cars used, from the wider, slick-tyred 1990s machines to the narrower, grooved-tyre cars of the 2000s."
Gary C said:
Get rid of tarmac run off areas, have low grip gravel or grass at the edge with enough area to keep it safeish
Stop the preferential treatment of historic teams. equalise payments better, Ferrari should not get a free ride while being crap.
Allow more innovation rather than making all cars the same.
No gravel. Once a car is on it, they're out of the race.Stop the preferential treatment of historic teams. equalise payments better, Ferrari should not get a free ride while being crap.
Allow more innovation rather than making all cars the same.
Punish them for a few seconds, not an entire race.
aston80 said:
Gary C said:
Get rid of tarmac run off areas, have low grip gravel or grass at the edge with enough area to keep it safeish
Stop the preferential treatment of historic teams. equalise payments better, Ferrari should not get a free ride while being crap.
Allow more innovation rather than making all cars the same.
No gravel. Once a car is on it, they're out of the race.Stop the preferential treatment of historic teams. equalise payments better, Ferrari should not get a free ride while being crap.
Allow more innovation rather than making all cars the same.
Punish them for a few seconds, not an entire race.
Force Peugeot to supply engines again, they used to provide a bit of a spectacle
aston80 said:
Gary C said:
Get rid of tarmac run off areas, have low grip gravel or grass at the edge with enough area to keep it safeish
Stop the preferential treatment of historic teams. equalise payments better, Ferrari should not get a free ride while being crap.
Allow more innovation rather than making all cars the same.
No gravel. Once a car is on it, they're out of the race.Stop the preferential treatment of historic teams. equalise payments better, Ferrari should not get a free ride while being crap.
Allow more innovation rather than making all cars the same.
Punish them for a few seconds, not an entire race.
Some interesting solutions to what isn't really a problem.
F1 is first and foremost a world championship competition for the designers and manufacturers of bespoke racing cars that adhere to a strict set of technical regulations and sporting rules. A lot of the ideas made here would mean it is no longer F1.
But I understand the spirit of the question the answer to which is quite simple:
1. Significantly reduce the impact of aerodynamics on how the car adheres to the road.
2. Change the technical regulations to reduce the benefit of over-spending. For example; a steering wheel must only steer.
F1 is first and foremost a world championship competition for the designers and manufacturers of bespoke racing cars that adhere to a strict set of technical regulations and sporting rules. A lot of the ideas made here would mean it is no longer F1.
But I understand the spirit of the question the answer to which is quite simple:
1. Significantly reduce the impact of aerodynamics on how the car adheres to the road.
2. Change the technical regulations to reduce the benefit of over-spending. For example; a steering wheel must only steer.
Id go for
2 tyre manufacturers
No rule saying teams have to use all compounds let them use one compound and pit more times or less
No team radio and no telemetary unless its for a life threatning situation like a potential blown engine.
Let drivers decide when to pit and what settings they want and what engine modes
Scrap engine gearbox turbo hybrid enalties let the teams use the maximum power from the engine for each race
Get rid of drs and have give the cars skinnier aero so less grip but more driver skill required
Get rid of the stupid fuel flow limit..let the cars have as much fuel a team thinks it needs and maxumum flow for maximum power output
2 tyre manufacturers
No rule saying teams have to use all compounds let them use one compound and pit more times or less
No team radio and no telemetary unless its for a life threatning situation like a potential blown engine.
Let drivers decide when to pit and what settings they want and what engine modes
Scrap engine gearbox turbo hybrid enalties let the teams use the maximum power from the engine for each race
Get rid of drs and have give the cars skinnier aero so less grip but more driver skill required
Get rid of the stupid fuel flow limit..let the cars have as much fuel a team thinks it needs and maxumum flow for maximum power output
Threads like this entertain me. People state what F1 'should' do and then run off lists of what they 'want' it to do, totally ignoring commercial realities and safety
I mean... I would vote for them to have V10 n/a's in a heartbeat, and to unlock various other technologies in the regs, such as adaptive suspension and full fat GE. But I don't for one second think they 'should' do that, it would be commercial suicide and eventually lead to drivers passing out behind the wheel.
I mean... I would vote for them to have V10 n/a's in a heartbeat, and to unlock various other technologies in the regs, such as adaptive suspension and full fat GE. But I don't for one second think they 'should' do that, it would be commercial suicide and eventually lead to drivers passing out behind the wheel.
Muzzer79 said:
LP670 said:
fergusd said:
Impose a driver age limit
why?TheDeuce said:
Threads like this entertain me. People state what F1 'should' do and then run off lists of what they 'want' it to do, totally ignoring commercial realities and safety
I mean... I would vote for them to have V10 n/a's in a heartbeat, and to unlock various other technologies in the regs, such as adaptive suspension and full fat GE. But I don't for one second think they 'should' do that, it would be commercial suicide and eventually lead to drivers passing out behind the wheel.
People are a bit unrealistic about the way of the world in many topics, not just F1 I mean... I would vote for them to have V10 n/a's in a heartbeat, and to unlock various other technologies in the regs, such as adaptive suspension and full fat GE. But I don't for one second think they 'should' do that, it would be commercial suicide and eventually lead to drivers passing out behind the wheel.
I’d go for a standard ICE unit from Cosworth/Ricardo or similar. normally aspirated, v6 or v8. This will put out 500bhp. Every car runs it. Manufacturers can then make as much as they like from hybrid technolgies. This opens the door for money to spent on more relevant technology. Combined 1000bhp+
Using circuits on a more rotational basis. We all loved seeing F1 at Imola and Mugello and turkey.. brilliant races! F1 needs these.
More ground effect, although this is comming...
Using circuits on a more rotational basis. We all loved seeing F1 at Imola and Mugello and turkey.. brilliant races! F1 needs these.
More ground effect, although this is comming...
Murghee said:
Id go for
2 tyre manufacturers
No rule saying teams have to use all compounds let them use one compound and pit more times or less
No team radio and no telemetary unless its for a life threatning situation like a potential blown engine.
Let drivers decide when to pit and what settings they want and what engine modes
Scrap engine gearbox turbo hybrid enalties let the teams use the maximum power from the engine for each race
Get rid of drs and have give the cars skinnier aero so less grip but more driver skill required
Get rid of the stupid fuel flow limit..let the cars have as much fuel a team thinks it needs and maxumum flow for maximum power output
Fuel flow limits are there for good reason. In fact it was Keith Duckworth of Cosworth who proposed it.2 tyre manufacturers
No rule saying teams have to use all compounds let them use one compound and pit more times or less
No team radio and no telemetary unless its for a life threatning situation like a potential blown engine.
Let drivers decide when to pit and what settings they want and what engine modes
Scrap engine gearbox turbo hybrid enalties let the teams use the maximum power from the engine for each race
Get rid of drs and have give the cars skinnier aero so less grip but more driver skill required
Get rid of the stupid fuel flow limit..let the cars have as much fuel a team thinks it needs and maxumum flow for maximum power output
Without it you'd get an exaggerated version of lift-and-coast and other fuel saving/fuel dumping strategies with massive speed differentials at different points of the race/race race track and therefore becoming a safety issue similar to quali with cars on hot or warm/cool laps.
You will still get fuel saving no matter with or without fuel flow limits simply because fuel is ballast.
Fuel flow meters are used now because the technology to implement and - more or less - police now whereas in the 80s the fuel tanks became smaller and smaller.
Not a fan of tyre wars - it can be a powerful and dominant variable; driver x won/handicapped because of the tyres can applied to the 2006 season is a good example. However, what I'd find interesting to implement would be instead of being contracted to a manufacturer be given the choice or having to use different manufacturers over a race weekend.
Tyre strategy can be interesting. Everyone doing 1 stops isn't necessarily great to watch.
To spice things up I'd go for -
-Stricter track limits around the whole track - 5 strikes and you're OUT
-Pit lane shut when under safety car
- VSC and SC the same - ie Maintain time gaps
-Pit to car radio - Safety only
-Less aero generally
-No DRS
-Reduced budget caps year on year
-Prize money shared evenly
And on a more general point , as somebody said earlier
''F1 is first and foremost a world championship competition for the designers and manufacturers of bespoke racing cars that adhere to a strict set of technical regulations and sporting rules. A lot of the ideas made here would mean it is no longer F1''.
I think most people here would agree with this , although the good thing about rules and perception is that they can be changed .
However even before the 'George in Lewis's car' watershed event (that any logical F1 fan already knew, certainly in the last 30 years) I feel the whole F1 machine needs to be more honest about what it actually is . People are now far more aware and can't be hoodwinked by snake oil and BS marketing . They know .
F1 , the press ,the commentators , F1 forums etc bang on and on and on about the drivers .......... Fact is they are all brilliant and massively talented , we have our favourites , we like to discuss who we know is best (and worst) and judge their characters but F1 is NOT a drivers championship .Yet 90% of all F1 coverage seems to be about the drivers . If you think about it , it's actually quite bizzare.
It fascinates me when so many here say ''If you want a one spec/equal machinery series then F1 isn't for you , go and watch something else'' but ironically can't say ''If you want a real drivers championship then F1 isn't for you , go and watch something else''
I feel the sport would gain massively from some clear transparency of what it actually is.
-Stricter track limits around the whole track - 5 strikes and you're OUT
-Pit lane shut when under safety car
- VSC and SC the same - ie Maintain time gaps
-Pit to car radio - Safety only
-Less aero generally
-No DRS
-Reduced budget caps year on year
-Prize money shared evenly
And on a more general point , as somebody said earlier
''F1 is first and foremost a world championship competition for the designers and manufacturers of bespoke racing cars that adhere to a strict set of technical regulations and sporting rules. A lot of the ideas made here would mean it is no longer F1''.
I think most people here would agree with this , although the good thing about rules and perception is that they can be changed .
However even before the 'George in Lewis's car' watershed event (that any logical F1 fan already knew, certainly in the last 30 years) I feel the whole F1 machine needs to be more honest about what it actually is . People are now far more aware and can't be hoodwinked by snake oil and BS marketing . They know .
F1 , the press ,the commentators , F1 forums etc bang on and on and on about the drivers .......... Fact is they are all brilliant and massively talented , we have our favourites , we like to discuss who we know is best (and worst) and judge their characters but F1 is NOT a drivers championship .Yet 90% of all F1 coverage seems to be about the drivers . If you think about it , it's actually quite bizzare.
It fascinates me when so many here say ''If you want a one spec/equal machinery series then F1 isn't for you , go and watch something else'' but ironically can't say ''If you want a real drivers championship then F1 isn't for you , go and watch something else''
I feel the sport would gain massively from some clear transparency of what it actually is.
entropy said:
Fuel flow limits are there for good reason. In fact it was Keith Duckworth of Cosworth who proposed it.
Without it you'd get an exaggerated version of lift-and-coast and other fuel saving/fuel dumping strategies with massive speed differentials at different points of the race/race race track and therefore becoming a safety issue similar to quali with cars on hot or warm/cool laps.
You will still get fuel saving no matter with or without fuel flow limits simply because fuel is ballast.
Fuel flow meters are used now because the technology to implement and - more or less - police now whereas in the 80s the fuel tanks became smaller and smaller.
Not a fan of tyre wars - it can be a powerful and dominant variable; driver x won/handicapped because of the tyres can applied to the 2006 season is a good example. However, what I'd find interesting to implement would be instead of being contracted to a manufacturer be given the choice or having to use different manufacturers over a race weekend.
Tyre strategy can be interesting. Everyone doing 1 stops isn't necessarily great to watch.
I'm in two minds about tyre wars. For me, the tyres are a part of the car that have a performance impact just like the aero, engine, chassis or driver. If the teams have freedom with all those other parts within regulations, I don't see why tyres are viewed any differently or why one team having the best tyres is seen as an unfair advantage whereas when they have the best engine that's fine. And tyre wars did help deliver us that memorable performance from Damon Hill and his Arrows in Hungary 1997.Without it you'd get an exaggerated version of lift-and-coast and other fuel saving/fuel dumping strategies with massive speed differentials at different points of the race/race race track and therefore becoming a safety issue similar to quali with cars on hot or warm/cool laps.
You will still get fuel saving no matter with or without fuel flow limits simply because fuel is ballast.
Fuel flow meters are used now because the technology to implement and - more or less - police now whereas in the 80s the fuel tanks became smaller and smaller.
Not a fan of tyre wars - it can be a powerful and dominant variable; driver x won/handicapped because of the tyres can applied to the 2006 season is a good example. However, what I'd find interesting to implement would be instead of being contracted to a manufacturer be given the choice or having to use different manufacturers over a race weekend.
Tyre strategy can be interesting. Everyone doing 1 stops isn't necessarily great to watch.
On the other hand, I can see that the racing overall is closer than it has been for a long time and if there was a tyre war there would likely have been bigger differences in performance in the midfield this year.
For me the problem with dominant tyres is that they just look like tyres. I didn't mind the ground effect Lotus 79 being dominant because its advantage had the byproduct of making it one of the most beautiful racing cars ever built.
entropy said:
Fuel flow limits are there for good reason.
Without it you'd get an exaggerated version of lift-and-coast and other fuel saving/fuel dumping strategies with massive speed differentials at different points of the race/race race track
.
Sounds like a reason to have it.Without it you'd get an exaggerated version of lift-and-coast and other fuel saving/fuel dumping strategies with massive speed differentials at different points of the race/race race track
.
entropy said:
You will still get fuel saving no matter with or without fuel flow limits simply because fuel is ballast.
.
Well, you could mandate that they carry say 200kgs of fuel..
entropy said:
You will still get fuel saving no matter with or without fuel flow limits simply because fuel is ballast.
.
Well, you could mandate that they carry say 200kgs of fuel..
Oh, the ban on Pit to car radio was tried, and was a disaster.
Remember a couple of years ago FOM did a big fan survey to ask 'what do the fans want?'
They didn't bother publishing the results as it was inconclusive.
And you can read that here and in other threads; there's very little consensus about what we all want.
'More power, less power, let them do want they want, give them a spec engine' etc etc
One of the few things I see a general agreement on is reduction in dirty air from aerodynamics. And that's what the '22 regs are addressing.
They didn't bother publishing the results as it was inconclusive.
And you can read that here and in other threads; there's very little consensus about what we all want.
'More power, less power, let them do want they want, give them a spec engine' etc etc
One of the few things I see a general agreement on is reduction in dirty air from aerodynamics. And that's what the '22 regs are addressing.
I think there needs to be more of a lottery involved. Together with the fact there are only 20 seats, my idea is this.
. More than two drivers per team, say 3 and maybe 4
. Take a leaf out of the football book and have a draw at the beginning of the season that determines which drivers do which race
. So if there are say 24 races and 3 drivers, each driver must complete 16 races but the draw decides which ones
I think this year showed how a few curve balls could help with the predictability. Issue with this, is imagine Max doesn't get drawn to race in the Netherlands, but a way around this is to make sure that all drivers get to do their home race
. More than two drivers per team, say 3 and maybe 4
. Take a leaf out of the football book and have a draw at the beginning of the season that determines which drivers do which race
. So if there are say 24 races and 3 drivers, each driver must complete 16 races but the draw decides which ones
I think this year showed how a few curve balls could help with the predictability. Issue with this, is imagine Max doesn't get drawn to race in the Netherlands, but a way around this is to make sure that all drivers get to do their home race
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff