.. a guy on page six says: "Personally, I feel that the developments so far these last couple of years go some way to improve the show and that should hopefully continue."

Gosh darn it, instead of handicapping (or knee-capping the people who write the rules), we get to endure the never-ending bull.

Perhaps only the drivers' votes should set the season's rules – each vote carrying weight – according to the number of years they've participated.. or something. =)

I have witnessed F1 for over 35 years so just want to clarify some points on this.

F1 HAS primarily been a processional race ever since it’s inception in 1950 (OK granted there have been some exceptions. Witness for one, the 1993 Kayalami & Silverstone events between Prost’s Williams Renault and Senna’s McLaren Ford. Senna kept Prost at bay for quite a few laps but ultimately the Williams proved too much for his Mclaren). It will be as long as you have cars faster than the next. Also, generally the guys who gets the pole in most cases wins.

When people say that a ban on refuelling will make the action more exciting. They are for the most part comparing the last time this happened.

Let’s us look a bit further into this (we’ll use the 1980s for comparison). The cars of that time were VERY different to the ones nowadays (i.e. Ground clearance, Active Suspension, Turbos, Reliability, as well as the comparative lack of safety). Drivers were willing to take more risks as they weren’t sure if the car would make it across the line. The racing was harder edged (to argue whether drivers were of a much higher calibre in those days is a fruitless exercise). You also saw quite a few cars running out of fuel

Nowadays, the majority of drivers do not have these worries. They still take risks but this is what racing is about. The refuelling ban will not all of a sudden make the action on track more exciting although I believe it will go some way in encouraging this. The onus will be much more on the driver than with the tacticians behind the scenes. However, the cost implications will be indeed significant.

I remember similar arguments about the re-introduction of slicks and banning of traction control a year ago or so ago.

Has the banning of Traction Control made that much of a difference (also when taking into account that there are other forms of technology on the car that make up for this loss)??

Has also the reintroduction of slick tires made the racing more exciting??

Personally, I feel that the developments so far these last couple of years go some way to improve the show and that should hopefully continue.

That is a comment I made last year either here or somewhere else. I have made similar comments on a lot of sites but since Villeneuve died in 1982 and that comment says it was 26 years ago then the comment was from last year.

It looks like you have some moron who thinks it’s funny to do stuff like that. I know sidepodcast have had similar problems recently and no doubt other sites have too.

Yes, take the aero off and its a different game, but then I think that will put F1 in a dilemma. Big engines, fat tyres and very low aero will be a handful and good to watch, but then all these feeder series will start giving the F1 cars a bit of a slapping, and from then on in what are they feeding? I’ve only been to a few GPs but I love watching F1 cars take the same corner 3 times as fast. It’ll take good management and good regulations to keep it the fastest formula, whilst promoting good on track racing.

Currently, a light car versus a heavy car does this, which is why I don’t think F1′s transition to no refuelling is quite ready yet. Tracks like Singapore (the worst on the calendar from a racing point of view to my mind) will be a procession post the first lap next year, as it currently is with only refuelling promoting changes in positions.

It was only brought in by the Max and Bernie double act to create a false sense of drama where non was needed.

So I’m with Keith in really looking forward to next year.