What rule changes would you make in F1?

[Backmarker]

Over at Autosport they have a current featured article "What we'd change about Formula 1". The article's behind a paywall, so I've not personally read it, but judging from the comments on the forums, the suggestions are as follows:

Make revenue sharing fare
Open up entry rules
Halve the calendar
End back-to-back races
Young driver test mini-races
Give the FIA complete rule-making power
Slash costs hugely
Ban in-session data
Give teams more control
Ban fossil fuels
Ban semi-automatic gearboxes
Create an 'F1' draft
Reverse championship order grids
Understudies for qualifying
Restrict in season upgrades
Random/reverse grids

I wondered what rules F1 Rejects would introduce, and what they think of Autosport's suggestions?

[AdrianSutil]

Most of those are just ridiculous. Halve the calendar? Imagine the worldwide uproar from the countries that miss out. Having said that, I've always wanted reverse grids.

How about something the BTCC uses? Penalty ballast. Would make vettel's car about 100 kilo's heavier!

[Rusujuur]

I wouldn't change much, but cap the amount of races to 16-17, allocate a number of gearboxes per driver per year, so less penalties, maybe reintroduce refueling.

[DemocalypseNow]

Only one thing.

The techincal regulations would be updated to make fireball canons a requirement on all cars.

[Ferrarist]

Open up the engines
Allow the teams to run the engine that fits best to them. I think an open engine formula would be cheaper than the tightly restricted 1.6l formula. Of course, the works teams are still free to run their turbo engines, but the rest should be allowed to run cheaper engines, like the current 2.4l-V8s or even a 5.7l stock block V8.

Allow only one or two aero kits for the whole season
What is says on the tin. A normal aero package for most tracks and low-drag package for tracks like Monza. There is no point in running 7-8 different aero kits throughout the year.

Balance the different engines via different grip
Of course, the different engines need to be balanced out, to give every team a fair chance. My proposal would be, to allow teams with weak engines to run high grip, while teams with powerful engines get low grip. But the FIA should mandate a minimum power output. It wouldn't make much sense, if teams started to run F3 engines that can only put out 300 bhp. But there should be enough cheap engines that can run at least 500 bhp. So the possible power range should go from 500 to 900 bhp then.
On the subject of hybrid engines: The horse power of the hybrid will simply be added to the power of the combustion engine. So theoretically, a team could enter an all-electric car for F1 one day.

Allow testing again
The FIA should allow teams to test whenever they and wherever they want. Yes, they will be imbalances between richer and poorer teams. But I think on-track testing is still cheaper than buying and maintaining expensive simulator equipment.

Allow customer cars
The FIA should go with the times and allow customer cars. But here's the catch: Customer F1 cars can only come from third-party constructors, who don't have a F1 team on their own. That way, the top teams will be stopped from creating closeted B-Teams (Arguably, Toro Rosso has shown that B-Teams can still be done).

Sell PPV tickets from the official website
If F1 wants to go pay TV, then they should at least sell season tickets on their homepage. That way, F1 fans don't need to get a Sky subscription, if they want to pay for F1. However, pay TV should only be a last resort, if F1 really can't get money from somewhere else.

Open up the tire market
If you want to avoid the bullcrap we've seen last year with Pirelli, just open up the tire market for everyone. In the end, the truly "best" tire should win out.

Offer a scholarship for GP2 graduates
The FIA should offer a scholarship for the winner of the GP2 season, so F1 teams are encouraged to sign him. Renault Sport could also be encouraged to offer a similar scholarship for their FR3.5 champion.

Make travelling more efficient
Why does F1 have to visit asia in spring and fall? Why not put an Australasian tour on the beginning, the European tour in the middle and the American tour at the end?

[dr-baker]

Make travelling more efficient
Why does F1 have to visit asia in spring and fall? Why not put an Australasian tour on the beginning, the European tour in the middle and the American tour at the end?

But that's far too logical! Where's the sense in being logical?!

[noiceinmydrink]

Halve the calendar
Ban in-session data
Create an 'F1' draft
Reverse championship order grids
Understudies for qualifying
Restrict in season upgrades
Random/reverse grids

NO.

[girry]

Ferrarist's customer car idea (so teams could be entered with very small budget) + complete rewriting of the aero rules to make the cars actually racing friendly and not in dire need of gimmicks.

Probably some other things too, but those two things would already make things so much better.

[Aerospeed]

Ferrarist's customer car idea (so teams could be entered with very small budget) + complete rewriting of the aero rules to make the cars actually racing friendly and not in dire need of gimmicks.

Probably some other things too, but those two things would already make things so much better.

Interesting, how would the aero work to make the cars racing friendly?

[PT8475]

- Ban DRS
- Reintroduce refuelling
- More stable tyres, no longer necessary to use both tyre types
- V10, normally-aspirated engines
- Triannual tests at circuits not used on the current championship calendar, with race drivers banned from partaking
- Fewer flyaway races
- No freeze on engines

[Ferrarist]

Interesting, how would the aero work to make the cars racing friendly?

Maybe by shifting the grid-power balance toward more power and/or less grip?

[f1andrea]

Most of those are just ridiculous.

In my opinion all of them are ridiculous. From the actual F1 I'll remove the double points for the last race and I'll divide the calendar in 2 pars: historic race and normal race. The historical race must be raced every year, the normal ones could be replaced or been raced one times over two years. In this way you can have some "strange" country that can host an F1 race and the historical race will be save.

P.S.: I will let race only the Singapore GP by night, not also Bahrain or other countries

[FMecha]

PPV is a bad idea, Ferrarist. I understand that it is a last resort thing, though.

Anyway, my-not-so-logical propsals would be: success ballast (decided by not only race results from current season, but also previous one), freedom of engine and tire choices, extend compatibility with WEC, bring back pre-qualifying, etc.

[AdrianSutil]

Someone posted about no engine restrictions? If you meant the team could do whatever they wanted with the engine that would be a crazy idea. The cars would become so fast it would be dangerous. You'd then need so much more aero work done on the cars to stop them from just crashing or twisting. That costs a hell of a lot of money and lets be honest, we'd all want some sort of a budget-cap wouldn't we?

No engine modifications and leave it at that. Greatly reduce the size of front and especially rear-wings to limit the downforce, forcing drivers to actually *gasp* drive and fight for position. Ban DRS but keep KERS only if it could be modified into the Indycar-style push-to-pass. Being back refuelling and take away the 'must start race with tyres you qualified on in Q3' rule (don't think many would protest). Performance or success ballast as myself and FMecha have already mentioned. And lastly, cheap customer cars. The chassis must be either one or two years old and can only be sold to a team that failed to score a World Championship point in the previous season, that'll stop teams like Force India and Sauber from using last years Mercedes and Ferrari cars, as an example. We want to close up the field, not have the midfield disappear further ahead of the backmarkers because Caterham and Marussia (and all the new teams) would probably think 'what's the bloody point?!'

Don't think my suggestions would break the FIA bank balance and i reckon it could all be implemented by 2015, or 2016 if there's complications.

[girry]

Ferrarist's customer car idea (so teams could be entered with very small budget) + complete rewriting of the aero rules to make the cars actually racing friendly and not in dire need of gimmicks.

Probably some other things too, but those two things would already make things so much better.

Interesting, how would the aero work to make the cars racing friendly?

The wake the cars produce must be eliminated....you know, the cars cant follow each other through the corners without the car behind suffering from massive understeer with the modern aero dependence on the cars. It's a massive disadvantage to be behind another car, DRS and pirelli tyres etc. are there only to go around the core problem with the car design.

A bit more emphasis on power (I'd do this by opening engine development slightly as Ferrarist suggested....actually I agree with all his ideas bar opening testing and the aerokits) and way less emphasis on aero grip compared to mechanical grip would help eliminate the issue.

[Enforcer]

Open up the engines
Allow the teams to run the engine that fits best to them. I think an open engine formula would be cheaper than the tightly restricted 1.6l formula. Of course, the works teams are still free to run their turbo engines, but the rest should be allowed to run cheaper engines, like the current 2.4l-V8s or even a 5.7l stock block V8.

I think rather than balancing the engines with differing grip levels, you could take out specific mechanical restrictions (ie. must be V10/V8/V6 and X capacity) in the engine formula, but subject it to limitations in terms of fuel type, fuel consumption, and most importantly a budget cap. You'd probably still need a capacity limit, but hopefully a less aggressive one than either the '13 or '14 rulesets. The fuel consumption limits would be set to prevent the massive turbo approach of the 1980s, and the budget cap would hopefully prevent manufacturers from pouring King's ransoms in to methods to get 1500hp (or other similarly lethal figures) without breaking the fuel consumption limit.

Of course that assumes you can police all that, esp. the budget cap, properly. I don't know if you can or not and suspect that you probably can't.

Agree with:
Allowing customer cars (contracts and costs would need a lot of scrutiny tho')
Allowing refueling again
Removing DRS
Opening up the tire market
I'd leave KERS in, as it's a valid approach to engine design under the the above, but remove the mandatory requirement.
I'd allow more testing, but not completely de-restrict it.

I'd go after the aerodynamics in a big way. Kill the 'dirty air' effect off it at all possible, so there can be closer racing. Change the rules so that as much of the lost aero grip can be recovered mechanically (bigger tires as a crude example), because we don't want the sport to get slower for any reason other than safety. I'm not sufficiently qualified to make more specific recommendations though.

[LellaLombardi]

I would have a Sorry! card for qualifying. So for two occasions per season, team mates can swap places on the grid. The catch is the two occasions should not benefit the same driver twice. Say Vettel and Riccardo qualify 14th and 4th respectively, Red Bull can use their Sorry! card to swap them. But on a later occasion in the season Riccardo must be the one who benefits. That could actually shake up the championship quite a bit and it would prevent a driver's weekend from being a complete write off from a bad quali.

[Backmarker]

I''d get rid of pit-to-car radio. Leave decisions like whether to push and wreck the engine to the drivers. Return to pitboard communication in order to communicate information to drivers. Drivers would still be able to radio back to the pits ("Tyres are finished, pitting now"), but wouldn't get told how to drive by their engineers.

And also I would get rid of blue flags. If you're fast enough to pass a backmarker, pass them. You shouldn't need them to jump out of the way. (Hopefully) this would mean leaders would run away for a bit, then get caught up lapping cars, narrowing their lead.

[MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx]

OK-remove the huge tarmac areas.Some of them can surely be replaced with grass or gravel,so if you make a mistake and go off,you pay the penalty-you may end up beached or with gravel in the radiator or grass blocking your air ducts or damage to your floor.That's what happens if you go offtrack-you shouldn't just be able to whizz round without losing out.And it would cut out some of this passing-by-cutting-the-chicane...if there's a gravel trap there,you can't just dive through.

Cut the bond and increase the number of teams.Some will invariably drop out or fail to make it to the grid,others will be too uncompetitive to do anything but some will make it.F1 could easily work with 15-16 teams.In 1989 or 1990 we had 30-something drivers at some races.Qualifying and prequalifying worked fine. As for facilities-the older tracks will still have facilities for a larger number of teams,new ones can be constructed with them.Adding an extra 2-3 garages on won't break the bank.If a team doesn't perform well,they don't qualify.
The bond needs to be high enough to weed out the Andrea Modas,but now it's so high and places so limited,the only way in is to buy out another team and it's pretty much restricted to big manufacturers.The days of a wealthy team owner being able to bring a team onto the grid a la Osella or Minardi are just about gone and that's a shame.

Reduce the stewarding decisions.Back in the 1980s and 1990s,we didn't need a steward's decision for every little move or touch of wheels.It would be a racing incident-some would be Driver A's fault,some would be Driver B's.It was only in cases of blatant poor driving that Race Control got involved.Soon we will have every overtaking manoeuvre studied to see if it incurs a penalty.

[watka]

I would have a Sorry! card for qualifying. So for two occasions per season, team mates can swap places on the grid. The catch is the two occasions should not benefit the same driver twice. Say Vettel and Riccardo qualify 14th and 4th respectively, Red Bull can use their Sorry! card to swap them. But on a later occasion in the season Riccardo must be the one who benefits. That could actually shake up the championship quite a bit and it would prevent a driver's weekend from being a complete write off from a bad quali.

I understand your intentions but there's no way it wouldn't end up as a dog's breakfast. Imagine if say (not picking on him) Vettel made a gearbox change and got a grid penalty and ended up not putting a lap in, whilst Ricciardo gets pole. It would be ridiculous if Red Bull switched and put Vettel on pole with a fresh box and Ricciardo in 22nd. On the other hand, they could still apply the penalty to Vettel and back him start 11th, but that wouldn't stop Ricciardo from starting last. Then later in the season, Ricciardo could be given his benefit by switching some position like 7th with 8th.

I''d get rid of pit-to-car radio. Leave decisions like whether to push and wreck the engine to the drivers. Return to pitboard communication in order to communicate information to drivers. Drivers would still be able to radio back to the pits ("Tyres are finished, pitting now"), but wouldn't get told how to drive by their engineers.

I like this a lot. Riders have to put up with no radio in MotoGP and only the best riders can get the best out of their tyres for the longest. Rossi's world championships were built on knowing just how hard to push. In comparison, whilst Stoner was a great rider he often got pulled back in races after ruining his tyres, and therefore is never likely to be held in the same esteem as Rossi. The only problem is that lack of team radio is a little at odds with the sport's image as the pinnacle of technology. This thinking would state that the driver's should be given all of the information possible about the car. Another problem is that team radio isn't the only way to relay information. It would still be possible for a team to get their driver to regulate their lap times through a combination of using the pit board and lap time deltas.

[go_Rubens]

I apologise, a very long post coming up.

Well, there are quite a few things that I'd do to make the sport a better spectacle without artificial devices, and overall improve the general problems with F1, i. e., costs, testing, and bunches of miscellanious stuff.

So, therefore, I propose these rules for the cars, which some of these changes I've said here in the past:

Smaller Wings

Red Bull gives you wings. I don't give Red Bull larger wings. F1 has had a period with larger wings, notably the front wing. But with a wider front wing, teams are likely to make the airflow go around the side of the car and wheels to maximize aerodynamic efficiency. What I propose is both a smaller front and rear wing. Not only does this reduce downforce, it removes the effect of airflow around the side of the car around the front wing, which causes turbulence behind the car. Decreasing the size of the rear wing removes downforce, which cars today so greatly rely on, and can also cause air turbulence depending on the car setup.

Engine Restrictions

I'd have restrictions on engines, but not a complete freeze of development. Since I am a person who likes to see relevancy to other racing series and road cars in general, I'd allow teams to run V8s and V6s (turbos or naturally aspirated) in F1. This happens so there is some relevancy to road cars and the WEC, which could be a good testing ground for engines. I'd allow the V8s to be 2.5 liters and the V6s to be 2 liters. Teams could run ERS systems to be able to use more power. V8 engine users would be more restricted in retrospect to the V6s, which won't be as restricted, in hopes of evening up the contest, and since V8s are more expensive to run than V6s under normal circumstances, this may even out the amount of money manufacturers spend on engines. So, the 2 engines would be similar in terms of performance. This would be a good way to allow engine development while keeping things nice and tidy without teams being at a disadvantage of any type unless the disadvantage is because of the actual engine built by the supplier itself. Only 8 engines can be used per year, and extra engines will result penlties, unless there's a good reason why the team ran more than 8 engines.

Gearboxes

The gearboxes would be revamped. Since most cars on the road today are either automatic or a stickshift, with more cars starting to switch to DCT gearboxes similar to F1 cars and Ferrari road cars, teams will run gearboxes other than DCTs. Since I'd like to see more driver skill in F1, and that I want to provide a challenge for teams to build faster cars while being slowed, I will have teams using normal manual gearboxes or sequential gearboxes. That way, drivers will have to focus more on driving to really be bothered to do much else other than on the straights. This also means that more work will be on the teams to create the optimum setup for the car, so drivers don't have to constantly change settings like engine power or brake bias. Actual clutch pedals will be used.

Steering

Let's be quite honest. The steering on an F1 car is arguably one of the most responsive sterring systems in the world. While that's quite nice, it seems as if drivers are driving the car and it's easy. I know it's not easy, but there's just a level of consistency that makes the driver's inputs seem rather predictable, and all the cars except the really bad ones seem to have the same steering system without much diversity. So, I'll ban power steering. Yes, against the road car relevancy thing, and the WEC thing, but all car parts can't be the same. That's why we started racing anyway, to see who could build the best car. With banning power steering, the cars should be harder to drive, and possibly less predictable. Every team will have to make a steering system of their own so that the cars don't look the same in terms of driving experience and to the people watching the TV sets and the screens around racetracks. It'd be interesting to see who develops the best steering, and how the drivers cope with the steering, good or bad.

Tyres

F1 tyres recently have been crap. Well, the FIA has been crap. But I'll prove that I can do better. I'd allow multiple tyre manufacturers to return. I'll have three tyre manufacturers supplying the teams for the races and tests. The tyres will have to be tested in terms of durability, so there will be less tyre failures at high speeds (I'm looking at you Silverstone). There will be qualifying tyres, and drivers won't have to start on the same tyres they qualified on. Despite the fact that this idea may raise costs, I'm all for it. All the cars won't use qualifying tyres for the race, as they'd probably won't last, and it'd be interesting to see which cars are good on both qualifying and race tyres, which is good one one and bad on the other, or bad on both. It'd be a good way of mixing up the grid, and hopefully provide exciting racing, with drivers pushing like there's no tomorrow and drivers pushing just as hard, but only just hanging on. There will only be one tyre compound for the race, and they won't be designed to last the whole race. This is meant to take out tyre strategy to an extent, and keep good racing going through the whole field. This may seem like a bad idea, but then there's...

Refuelling

Refuelling will return, but with a formula similar to that of Group C sportscars of the 80s and 90s. Each team will be given a certain amount of fuel for the whole weekend, which will be determined by the type of track being raced at. This will have relevancy to the engine development schemes. The goal here is to have the teams limited on fuel for the weekend, but without having the racing affected too much. So, enough fuel will be given to get theough the whole weekend, but if it isn't managed well in practice or qualifying, then the teams will have work to do to stay competitive. The same can happen in the race with mismanaging fuel, and we'll see cars running out of fuel again if fuel is mismanaged. So, there is another risk involved. But also, I'll have the fuel tanks be made smaller, with a maximum capacity for the tanks. This also makes engine development critical, as with development allowed and a decent amount of power, they'll have to work with smaller tanks, causing a need to be more efficient. I think this could work.

Car Telemetry

Normal cars have gauges to tell you how much oil pressure, fuel, and all the other good bits of information. But, normal cars don't have telemetry with a team monitoring them, do they? I didn't think so. So, in-car telemetry with monitoring by the team wikl be banned, so if there's a problem with the car, as in a lost cylinder or a gearbox issue, the problem will have to be reported to the pits by the driver himself, and then the team can look at the issue. However, in car telemetry which cannot be accessed by teams will be used only in the case of an accident so that the cause of the accident can be investigated and determined, like a black box on an aircraft. So, team communications is more limited, and more interesting for the viewers.

Now, for the races and racetracks:

Runoff Areas

This is a controversial topic amongst people, and I'll rest my case. I think asphalt runoff is safe, but with the way it's used today, drivers can easily gain advantages, and not be disadvantaged when going off course. I think we should eliminate asphalt runoff areas and replace it with the skidpads similar to that of Paul Ricard. That way, it's safe, drivers will be punished with tyre wear from the skidpads, so their race is affected, even if not terminally like gravel traps, which beach cars. But, before that, the runoff will not be at the very edge of the track. Why? Well, drivers can likely use a skidpad for a short amount of time and be able to get away with a cut corner. So, the runoff area itself starts at the edge of the track, but with 5 meters of grass at the edge, so drivers won't want to cut corners. Then the skidpad area would start after passing 5 meters outside the track limits. I don't like cut corners. So there it is.

Kerbs

Kerbs these days are a joke upon a joke. I'm talking about both types. The flat one designed with the idea of a rumblestrip will give the driver a hell of a shake, but drivers use them, which are usually about the width of an F1 car, to gain advantages. The other one, the tall ones behind the rumblestrip, are stupid. They are designed like ramps, but they launch cars in the air. The Abu Dhabi GP2 Sprint Race last year says it all. With that in mind, I'll make a claim, to bring F1 racetracks back to the past, but modern at the same time. So, there will only be one type of kerb, and that is one with a median height compared to the two types used today. But that's still reasonably high. So, the kerbs will be heightened, and will feature a design which will allow cars to use them, but take penalty from using them, while being more safe than the kerbs at Abu Dhabi (like, being slowed down, and maybe a technical problem). With that in mind, drivers won't want to ise them, so they'll actually stay on the track, and we'll se clean passes on track, as long as the driver being passed is Klien as well. So, the focus here is obviously clean racing.

Points System

The points system of today is not really good. It covers the top ten, which is nice, but it took away the relevancy of historical figures even more than the 03-09 system. Nope, not my thing. So, with that in mind:

P1 - 15 pts
P2 - 12 pts
P3 - 10 pts
P4 - 8 pts
P5 - 6 pts
P6 - 4 pts
P7 - 3 pts
P8 - 2 pts
P9 - 1 pt

Fastest Lap - 1 pt

This doesn't take away from historical figures too much, even if they're ruined anyway. But, there is a gradual decrease from 1st to 9th, which is kind of what I wanted. A gradual decrease going farther down the order is not something F1 has, and it jumps all over the place today. 1 pt for fastest lap is something I'd like to see. Plus, double points would never happen in go_Rubens's rulebook!

Entries

The amount of cars that can enter a full season will be 34 cars. Customer chassis will be allowed as long as requirements for cost of chassis purchase and engines are met, with requirements set so costs are kept down. Each team must have at least one car, and no more than two. The number of team entries will be based on teams that run one car or two before the limit of cars is reached, if the limit is reached. Teams must run identical liveries.

Sessions

There will be 3 Free Practice sessions. The first 2 sessions are an hour and a half long, the last one only an hour long. The first two will be run on Friday, before the first qualifying session. The first qualifying session will determine who is in Pre-Qualifyng based on pace alone. No one DNPQs yet. The Pre-Qualifying session will be after FP3 Saturday morning, lasting thirty minutes. The slowest 4 are DNPQs. Then the second qualifying session starts, which lasts 30 minutes. The slowest four are DNQs. Then the main session, which lasts an hour, with drivers allowed to do 12 laps maximum in the session, with a minimum of three laps, unless there is a case of force majure, such as a technical problem or crash. The best three overall times set by every driver determines who starts where with cumulative scores. The race is on Sunday, lasting the usual distances of today.

A completely seperate area will be made for testing. So, without further wait:

Testing Dates

There will be 3 preseason tests for all teams able to participate, plus one tyre test. There will be 4 days per week of testing for normal testing, and 3 for tyre testing. To add to that, there will not be a Young Driver Test, but a midseason test will be held before the summer break begins, which will last for 3 days. Young drivers can test during the testing dates or in a private test with a team, with the guidelines below.

Seperate Tests

Seperate tests can be held by any team who wishes to do so, with the following guidelines. The teams can test without permission with current cars three times, with a limit of 2 days testing time per test, with a week's notice. If a team wishes to test more than that, it must be because of a tyre test being held by their tyre manufacturer, or if it is related to anything regarding safety concerns with the car, and forced to test a safer part, or the team wants to run a young driver. The young driver will have to be a test driver or a reserve driver for the team, or else they cannot run in the car. Any violations will result in a fine equivalent to the amount of money spent testing illegally.

Simulators

Simulators will be banned. It's apparently more expensive and they're never 100% accurate, so that in my opinion defines useless in F1.

Now, for random stuff:

Helmet Liveries

Helmet liveries must stay the same, unless there is a good reason as to change it. For example, to tribute someone, celebrate X Grand Prix starts, and other related reasons. Other than that, choose something you can live with for a year; only after a season can you change it again.

Car Numbers

The teams will have set numbers, with the numbers being brought back from the 84-95 system. New teams start with new numbers, as well as teams that started after the 84-95 seasons. Teams with connections to teams in the 84-95 period or have been around since the 84-95 period will have the same numbers as they or those connected teams had back then.

[MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx]

I would also add in: Teams will not be penalized if they do not attend every event. That was what killed off some of the smaller teams in the late 90s-having to trek to races at the end of season they knew they would not do well(or even qualify at),just to avoid the fine.It did for Larrousse in '95-having missed the first couple of events,they were in a position to turn up with a good car later on in the season,but the fine would have been too much for them.So they just quit altogether.

And also-numbers must be displayed prominently.It was so easy in 80s-90s to identify cars-big numbers,clear distinct colours.Now you have to search for the number crammed in between the ads. (Brownie points to any team that comes up with a distinct livery.There are too many black/red/white combos.Where are the oranges,the pinks,the yellow,the bright blues?)

[go_Rubens]

And also-numbers must be displayed prominently.It was so easy in 80s-90s to identify cars-big numbers,clear distinct colours.Now you have to search for the number crammed in between the ads. (Brownie points to any team that comes up with a distinct livery.There are too many black/red/white combos.Where are the oranges,the pinks,the yellow,the bright blues?)

I have always wanted to see a livery hat was distinct but not ugly in the process, which has never really happened since I started watching F1. Let me sum up the liveries of todays F1 teams in my eyes:

Red Bull - too crowded, although noticable
Mercedes - Like silver on an F1 car, but bland
Ferrari - Only the red makes them recognizable
Lotus - Black and gold not my type. A livery that's like the Camel Lotus livery of the 80s and 90s?
McLaren - Easily recognizable only due to silver being used by them for an eternity
Force India - Distinct, but not pretty on my eyes
Sauber - Boring
Toro Rosso - Uninspiring, boring, and hard to identify in a group
Williams - Uninspiring, boring, and hardest to identify in a group
Caterham - Recognizable when on camera
Marussia - Recognizable when on camera

By the way, I'll say this right now. I think a pink F1 car would be cool.

[watka]

And also-numbers must be displayed prominently.It was so easy in 80s-90s to identify cars-big numbers,clear distinct colours.Now you have to search for the number crammed in between the ads. (Brownie points to any team that comes up with a distinct livery.There are too many black/red/white combos.Where are the oranges,the pinks,the yellow,the bright blues?)

Given the current economic difficulties and the struggles to attract sponsorship, you would have thought that there would be more than enough space on the cars to display the racing numbers prominently but alas.

[UncreativeUsername37]

So I'm not the only one who mistook Williamses for Saubers multiple times this season?

[andrew2209]

By the way, I'll say this right now. I think a pink F1 car would be cool.

Alex Lloyd's 2009 Indy 500 car.

Yeah, I could see why people would disagree with you.

That being said, if a team painted a car purple with black wings, that could work well IMO.

[TomPryce]

Wacky Races GP.

Use of oil slicks, dart guns and flamethrowers essential. Having as many people as can fit in and around the car would be fun. Token villain character with sly dog to shake things up.

In other, more sensible news, I actually think that it would be an awesome idea to force un-aerodynamic shapes for the cars, to bring it back to the more 80s/90s style. I loved the shape of those cars, and it just felt a little more like natural racing.

[mario]

Ferrarist's customer car idea (so teams could be entered with very small budget) + complete rewriting of the aero rules to make the cars actually racing friendly and not in dire need of gimmicks.

Probably some other things too, but those two things would already make things so much better.

Interesting, how would the aero work to make the cars racing friendly?

The wake the cars produce must be eliminated....you know, the cars cant follow each other through the corners without the car behind suffering from massive understeer with the modern aero dependence on the cars. It's a massive disadvantage to be behind another car, DRS and pirelli tyres etc. are there only to go around the core problem with the car design.

A bit more emphasis on power (I'd do this by opening engine development slightly as Ferrarist suggested....actually I agree with all his ideas bar opening testing and the aerokits) and way less emphasis on aero grip compared to mechanical grip would help eliminate the issue.

That is easier said than done though - whilst the various aerodynamic appendages create their own issues, the largest cause of the turbulent wake behind the cars are the exposed tyres. The most effective way of reducing that would be to design partial or complete wheel covers - though you'd effectively be designing something closer to a sportscar prototype car, or at the very least like the DW12 (though the covers there are mainly aimed at preventing wheels clashing rather than reduced wake).

[roblo97]

Bring back ground effect so then the cars can have more downforce from underneath the car and they can run with less wing and less drag as a result.

[Gerudo Dragon]

• Add ovals to the calender, though they have to be a mile or less in length
• Remove double points
• Allow customer cars
• Allow only proper gearboxes
• Ban Tilke from making any more tracks
• Allow refuelling
• Introduce green-white-checker finishes

[MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx]

By the way, I'll say this right now. I think a pink F1 car would be cool.

I present...

[Klon]

To respond to the popular demand of customer cars: NO!
If you can't build a chassis yourself you have no business in F1. It's as simple as that; there are enough series on this planet where you can buy a car and start a team, however the top class should be reserved for people willing to go the extra mile.

[pi314159]

I would allow customer cars, but only in a very limited way. I would allow them to help new teams to get into F1. A team would be able to run customer cars for a maximum of three years, and only chassis which finished 6th or lower in the constructors championship would be allowed as customer cars.

I disagree with those who want to add success ballast to F1. It would be another artificial way to get the cars closer together, and while I enjoy a good title fight too, I don't want an artificially manufactured one.

Now, some of my own ideas:

I'd allow as many tyre manufacturers into F1 as want to join, and have a tyre war. To limit costs, I would limit the price the tyres may cost per year, similar to how the chassis costs are limited in LMP2. Tyres should not be made for the show, they should be made for maximum speed. How the manufacturers achieve that is their decision. Formula 1 should get rid of the "both compounds" and "top 10 have to start on qualifying tyres" rules, too.

The engine rules are far too restrictive to allow any innovation. Just make a cost cap of 20 million $ per year, and let the manufacturers do what they want. Of course, for safety reasons, I don't want 1500hp. And as efficiency becomes more and more important in modern cars, I would restrict the fuel flow, but leave the configuration of the engine to the manufacturer otherwise. Hybrid systems should allow more different solutions too to allow more innovation in Formula 1. F1's hybrid systems, even the 2014 ones, are a joke compared to what LMP1 will have next year.

[mario]

To respond to the popular demand of customer cars: NO!
If you can't build a chassis yourself you have no business in F1. It's as simple as that; there are enough series on this planet where you can buy a car and start a team, however the top class should be reserved for people willing to go the extra mile.

There are also a couple of potential issues with customer cars - firstly, the exertion of political influence by the major manufacturers over their customers by manipulating the supply of customer cars, and secondly there is the impact that it would have on aspiring designers if the design teams of the smaller outfits were effectively made redundant by the widespread adoption of customer cars.

After all, think about how many highly regarded figures in the sport started out at midfield to tail end teams. We had Newey at Fittipaldi, Costa at Minardi, Brawn at March, Allison, although starting at Benetton in the late 1980's, worked for some time at Larrousse, James Key started work at Jordan - most of them had to work their way up the field rather than simply walking into a top team. Cutting down on their options could well end up damaging the prospects of several aspiring designers hoping to break into the sport.

[Wallio]

To respond to the popular demand of customer cars: NO!
If you can't build a chassis yourself you have no business in F1. It's as simple as that; there are enough series on this planet where you can buy a car and start a team, however the top class should be reserved for people willing to go the extra mile.

Execpt the top class allowed customer cars until the mid-'80s......


I say:

Loosen Engine Specs:
Give them a Displacement (3.5L), a rev-limit (20K), a fuel limit (both per race like Group C, and per lap, like the WEC), make them N/A, and require you get 3 weekends (excluding Fridays) out of them, then let them go.

Drop KERS and DRS:
Self-Explanatory

Lower the Minimum Weight by 50 Kilos:
Ditto

Allow Customer Cars
Make a team declare if they are a Constructor or a Customer. Customers cannot place in the WCC and so they score no TV money. However, They can use FIA travel. To prevent cherry picking and B-Teams, a a constructor must supply any team that pays for one. (Up to ten teams)They cannot refuse. Teams cannot switxch chassis mid-season. Also teams can run as many or as few events as they want.

Allow More Than 26 Cars In:
Revert to the 30-car quali, and even pre-qualifying to sort out the best 26 for the grid.

All Constructor Teams Run 3 Cars:
Customers can run 1-3, as they see fit.

Allow Teams to Sign Any Tyre Manufacturer
These official supplier business is nonsense, if you can convince someone to give/sell/design tyres for you, run them. Someone big may have 7 teams, someone like Falklan might have 1, and its all good.

Switch to a "Two-Races per Weekend" Race Series:
Race 1 30% of a GP distance, and one required stop for tyres (of any compound). Race 2 65% of a GP distance with at least two required stops for tires (you can do more) and at least one of those must be for fuel too. This will allow the FIA to get more points (thus more license money), so we can.....

Ditch the Double Points Finale:

Finally....

Open Testing Up Again......(Sort Of):
Every Team gets 21 Days of Testing. You can use these whenever you want. If you want to run a ton in the winter, you'll have none left for the final push, and vice versa. You can only run as many cars as you have entered into the championship to each test day, or you can run a extra car in the practice sessions of a GP weekend. Each session is equal to 1/4 day of testing. Max one car. All teams must supply the FIA with test dates, locations, and drivers. Those who violate these rules (cough Merceded, cough) face immediate disbarment from the championship.

[AdrianSutil]

To respond to the popular demand of customer cars: NO!
If you can't build a chassis yourself you have no business in F1. It's as simple as that; there are enough series on this planet where you can buy a car and start a team, however the top class should be reserved for people willing to go the extra mile.

There are also a couple of potential issues with customer cars - firstly, the exertion of political influence by the major manufacturers over their customers by manipulating the supply of customer cars, and secondly there is the impact that it would have on aspiring designers if the design teams of the smaller outfits were effectively made redundant by the widespread adoption of customer cars.

After all, think about how many highly regarded figures in the sport started out at midfield to tail end teams. We had Newey at Fittipaldi, Costa at Minardi, Brawn at March, Allison, although starting at Benetton in the late 1980's, worked for some time at Larrousse, James Key started work at Jordan - most of them had to work their way up the field rather than simply walking into a top team. Cutting down on their options could well end up damaging the prospects of several aspiring designers hoping to break into the sport.

Both of you make valid points but I want to refer back to my customer cars idea: That a team can only use a customer chassis if they failed to score a World Championship point in the previous season. As soon as they score a point, next years chassis will have to be designed, financed and built by the team themselves. The teams will still need their full quota of staff and more importantly, their chief designers.

This idea was to 'help' new teams enter the sport. We're not meant to take this thread as gospel, but I think we'd all agree on lower entry costs for more new teams and this idea of mine seems to be a good one. I do agree however, that if such a rule was to come into effect, the FIA would need clear and concise rules about what the teams can and cannot do.

I don't think anyone here would mind seeing Caterham and Marussia pick up a cheaper version of the 2013 Mercedes and Lotus chassis for this season...

[AxelP800]

My opinion:

Circuit
- Raise the flat kerbs
- Runoff would be 20 % asphalt and the rest is grass and gravel depends on what needed
- Make runoffs smaller ( you should know what I mean)
- Have an oval race
- Have a race like a 'wildcard' race. Example: We have Imola as European GP, then the next year we have Brands Hatch as European GP. Then the next year we go to other countries, not have to be the country that already have a GP. We can have Scandinavia, Rijeka, Portugal and etc,

Car
- Engines: Use normally aspirated engines with KERS for 15 seconds a lap (like sort of push to pass), and allow any configurations of the engine
- Aerodynamics: Reduce rhe front wing length, reduce the rear wing height
- Tires: Tire battle would be nice
- Allow refuelling

[Aerond]

I'll say something which would be almost free to implement;

1.- Limit radio communications; So drivers have to figure out more stuff themselves
2.- Limit car to pit telemmetry; So again drivers have to figure out more stuff themselves

The second you do that, racing will become 1000% more interesting because there will be not so much control over what drivers do and don't and we'll see way more racing variants.

[Ferrarist]

To respond to the popular demand of customer cars: NO!
If you can't build a chassis yourself you have no business in F1. It's as simple as that; there are enough series on this planet where you can buy a car and start a team, however the top class should be reserved for people willing to go the extra mile.

On one hand, I'd agree. If you have no money to do F1, you should have no business in F1 at all. On the other hand, maybe the initial entry costs are too prohibitive for new teams at the moment, so third-party customer cars would lower the entry costs for new teams.
Customer cars won't mean that teams can't do some develop on their own. The CART for example: While most teams had a Reynard chassis, they also did some work on their own on the Reynards, to get the extra advantage over the others. Of course, in order to make it happen, the FIA has to force some chassis manufacturers to refrain from their monopolistic business practices (Certainly not Dallara...), so teams could build their own spare parts.

[Collieafc]

Ditch daft/draconian penalties. What would be classed as a racing incident 10 years ago is subject to a drive through\grid\time penalty nowadays. If its deliberate, than fair enough but theres more important issues in F1 than giving drivers a penalty for getting a lift to the pits.