Another thing I’d like is to remove the restriction on using the same compound on all corners of the car. Quite what this achieves I don’t know but it’s taking away driver choice.

For me F1 should allow choice and variation in as many areas as possible, both for the driver and the designer. A framework should be in place to make sure things don’t get out of hand, but after that allow people to innovate. Maybe there should be a 5 year window of rule stability, after which engine and aero regulations change in one go (similar to the start of last year).

I think it’s best when there is a paper-scissors-stone field and not identikit cars like there is now. The turbo era was a typical example of this with some teams having great power but poor handling. Deregulation of KERS would mean more of this. Some teams would go for the Clarkson POWAH approach with the penalty of more weight. Others would go for the Lotus approach of less weight and less power. After a few years the best solutions would converge, hence the need for a 5 year rules refresh.

Job done!

The regulations being introduced in F1 do not make any sense to me any more.

I agree, I think this is very much the point Adrian Newey made last week. They went through a process of working out how to improve overtaking via the OWG, but quickly slipped back into their old habits of tweaking the rules on a whim with no clear goal in sight.

The thing about KERS is four fold for me:

1. We are supposed to be saving money in F1 and this was an example of regulations being badly managed to firstly introduce a costly ad-on to cars and then kick the teams that actually gave it a go in the crotch by letting the majority can it instead of having to play catch up this year. In effect making it a massive potential waste of money and R&D. Although I hope we see this coming over to road cars which will perhaps make it worth it anyway.

2. It was only crippled in order to give lower order teams a chance to still compete. If they were going to allow this split of “have and have nots” then they should have raced two classes or simply accepted that racing is nasty like that. Put up or shut-up. Not that I think that it’s a good idea to run two classes, but neither is having a loose rule system that creates that situation, and means that it has to be crippled from day one.

3. F1 is supposed to be more environmentally friendly, and this was a step that way. Now we’ve gone the opposite way. Super fast qualifying, and heavily laden cars in the beginning of the race burning more fuel and driving like dogs.

4. What has been done about overtaking for this year? Nothing. The one hope we had was something like KERS running at 100%. We have not even seen William’s take on this year, which I was keen to see. Again, don’t get me wrong I am not in the bleating and moaning camp about overtaking that much. On *real* tracks it’s still possible. A little bit more would be nice, but then again if we keep making street circuits because the media and fair weather fans like it all to be close to the shopping malls and hotels then we’re never going to see any overtaking anyway!

The regulations being introduced in F1 do not make any sense to me any more.

I wouldn’t want to see all the teams slowly evolve to mastering one favored strategy of not stopping at all. The tyre makers will also adjust and provide tyres that are more suitable, no more high grip softs..

@Sam O nice breakdown but I can’t see why would they risk not stopping at all and losing it at the end because the tyres have no grip, stopping once and then either sticking to the same compound or switching to the other seems to make more sense..

Btw, what is the rule for 2010 on using both compounds, is it still mandatory? And are Bridgestone still the manufacturers?

Of course more than 1 compulsory pit stop is beyond me, it would be nothing but a waste of racing. The point of a pit stop is to provide the driver with a more reliable and faster car. If they are able to survive with no pit stops then bravo, but I think the pit stops have benefits and add suspense with all the different possible strategies..

I am still ticked off with the whole KERS situation. It should be mandatory this year for all teams. Period.

How is banning refueling allowing teams to have more flexible strategys?

The two are mutually exclusive. I have no doubt at all that the racing will be much more predictable, with noticably less over taking.

The premise that this is a cost cutting exercise is ridiculous- the $200,000 that this will save is a drop in the ocean relative to overall budget.

It’s just another slight of hand tactic to keep people busy and divert them from the underhand political manipulations that blight the sport. Come this time next year there will be a similar debate discussing how it was such a bad idea.

I really have no understanding why people are so obsessed with low fuel qualifying. Isn’t the winner the one who was the fastest on the track?