What should F1 be? (Making F1 better)

What is the point of Formula 1?

What is the point of Formula 1?

We began our discussion about how to make F1 better yesterday by asking what made F1 great in the past and what – if anything – is missing from it now.

In part two we’ll tackle a question that often provoked disagreement and debate between F1 fans: just what is Formula 1 supposed to be?

I’ve suggested some answers inspired by quotes from readers from earlier in the discussion. Pick the one that you think best describes what F1 should be, or write one of your own, and explain why you support it in the comments:

A contest to find the best racing driver in the world

In the sixties and seventies, the majority of overtaking took place under acceleration out of corners usually due to missed gear changes; something that rarely happens today.
Mark

This argument holds that what people who watch F1 really care about is who is the best driver. Technology that makes it easy to drive the cars, like semi-automatic gearboxes, should be banned. If the cars are more difficult to drive we’ll see more mistakes and better racing.

Making teams use more standard components is good because it will create a level playing field.

A contest to find the best racing car constructor in the world

Things like the proposed budget cap, the engine development freeze and the ban on testing were all conceived by the FIA in an effort to make the sport less costly and consequently more attractive to smaller teams, but I feel this goes against the spirit of F1.
Ric

This argument is the opposite to the first one.

The point of F1 is to see who can build the best car and so we should roll back the enormous restrictions on car design that have grown in the past decades. Allowing teams to develop radical new technologies will make F1 more exciting.

But some technologies – traction control, stability control and the like – may diminish the importance of the driver.

The most entertaining form of motor racing

Can we even expect much overtaking when the cars start in the order of which one is fastest?

Do we want to mix up the starting grid? Either reverse it or add fuel strategy into the mix to get some order changes.
Patrickl

Other motor sports have not been shy about introducing rules to ‘spice up’ the racing, so why should F1, one might argue.

If the cars started every race in reverse championship order we’d see much more overtaking. Bringing back refuelling would mix up the order during the races even more. A NASCAR-style ‘chase for the championship’ would keep interest alive late in the season.

The most dangerous form of motor racing

I don?t want drivers to die, but i want the possibility to be there.
Kowalsky

A very controversial idea. Should danger be a part of Formula 1? Even some F1 drivers have suggested the sport is now “too safe” but can it ever be too safe?

Is risk or injury healthy for a sport – or can relishing an element of danger only ever be seen as bloodthirstiness?

A test bed for the automotive industry

Think how much of a real world impact F1 could have if hybrid/KERS technology was unlimited
Sam

Instead of allowing unrestricted, undirected technological development in F1, the sport should only allow innovation where it helps build better road cars.

For example, through Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems similar to hybrid engines on road cars, through tyres which are closer in specification to those used on the road, and through fuel-saving technology.

A worldwide motor racing competition

The sport is effectively a ??European gentlemen’s club??. Of the 24 drivers, only 6 are from outside Europe. To me that eliminates the ??best drivers in the world?? label. Europe may hold he best drivers, but that cannot be proven. He from a certain country or he with the deepest pocket, prevails.
Hamish

Another arguments is that F1 should do more to spread its appeal around the world. Countries with large populations and large car-buying markets are neglected at the moment like America, Russia and the whole of Africa.

Over to you

Do you agree strongly with any of these statements? If so, why? Which of them are wrong?

Some of these statements are mutually exclusive – such as the first two. Which of them is more important?

What’s your definition of what Formula 1 should be?

This is part of “Making F1 better”, a series of articles looking at ways to improve Formula 1. The next instalment in this series will run on Monday. For more information see the introduction: Making F1 better: a discussion series

Making F1 better

Image (C) Renault/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

194 comments on What should F1 be? (Making F1 better)

1 2 3 6
  1. F1 is not football, it is a private club and money will always be an issue, so we will never get the best potential in!

  2. I don’t think I could handle seeing a driver the same age as me being killed doing something he enjoys. I’ll put the judgement into the drivers hands since they are the people who are in the danger zone not the fans or the stewards.

    • damonsmedley said on 24th April 2010, 16:23

      The risk of being killed is already there, as we saw last year with Massa. Just think if a crash like Kobayashi’s in Melbourne, where he took out two drivers after a front wing failure, had have been different. What I mean is, the car could easily have been half a metre higher off the ground upon impact and that would put the front of the car at or around Nico Hulkenburg’s head area… I know I’d be reconsidering watching F1 if a driver died too.

      • matt90 said on 24th April 2010, 17:20

        I think being more dangerous means cars significantly faster, so that impacts with barriers are more damaging. A|ccidents like both Massa and Kobayashi’s are simply dangers of open cockpit racing, and unlikely to increase/decraese with any changes made to the speed of the cars. I see where Kowalsky is coming from, in that the majority of accidents, sometimes even when leaving the tarmac at great speed, only end up being an inconvinience for the drivers as a result of their race ending. I certainly don’t want to see drivers die or even be injured, but it makes you hold your breath and appreciate the drivers more if you know that every trip through eau rouge is near the limits of the car and driver. An increase in ‘danger’ can largely just mean that corners that were once massively challenging to take fastest or even get through correctly at all could be that way again.

    • We want turbos said on 25th April 2010, 2:09

      IMVVHO formula one would be all about the best (not always the fastest) car/driver combo however whilst I’m all for innovation eg f ducts or exhast fed diffusers etc anything concidered as an artificial driver aid tc semi auto gear box etc should be banned! Front wings are the main aero problem for me so why not force them to be one solid piece pretruding from the side of the nose! Leave all other aero as it is now! Engines let them have what they want turbo/supercharger/V12 etc powered buy different fuel types if they wish. On the danger front stop trying to slow the cars down utilise tecpro barriers instead of putting tescos inbetween the track and barrier also bring back gravel!! I think that’s about it anyway.

      • Mike said on 25th April 2010, 10:20

        one solid piece pretruding from the side of the nose!

        You remember hearing all about balance? one of the main components to this is the balance between the downforce created by the front and rear wing, with no downforce from the front, you would have the cars under steering to an extreme level.

        As far as gravel is concerned, the main problem, and it is a large one, is that the cars can dig in, and then prodded to flip over. That’s why we are seeing a move away from Gravel.

        Manuel geraboxes are regulary suggested, but I’m still not sure about how realistic that is, considering the difference between the cars now and in the earlier years.

        A V12 Turbo engine? with no regulation?
        I don’t know what a specific figure is now for an F1 engine, but I suspect your solution will see a 2000BHP engine. I say a, because my guess is only one or two teams will have enough money to develop it, and teams like Williams or Torro Rosso will be more than just seconds off the pace.

        • damonsmedley said on 25th April 2010, 12:59

          If a Formula 1 car flips in the gravel it shouldn’t matter too much. It’s not exactly the most violent form of accident and more often than not, it doesn’t happen to roll over anyway. Gravel traps are good because they slow the cars down and they sometimes even stop them from rejoining the race, like Petrov in Melbourne. Mistakes should be punished in my opinion and if that involves the risk of a roll through the gravel then that is just part of the risk of racing a car.

          • Nutritional said on 25th April 2010, 21:19

            Rolling your car in a gravel trap is all fine and dandy, unless the car begins to roll in the gravel trap, but finishes rolling on top of a wall or something. You should look up the video of Gregg Moore’s death. He didn’t roll his car in a gravel trap, but the car rolled, and he didn’t survive.

        • We want turbos said on 25th April 2010, 15:16

          I think you missed the point on the engines not a v12 turbo, the teams would rule that out anyway as they wouldn’t be able to get a fuel tank to carry all the fuel lol! I meant a v12 or a v6turbo with new turbo technology they could be lightening quick and use less fuel than the v8’s of today! Also as for gravel traps anyone remember a car digging and flipping? The loss of front wing aero would have to be offset by more mechanical grip or/and bringing back ground effects. With respect to manual gear boxes it will NEVER happen but if I where in charge that’s what I’d like to see, drivers driving!!!

          • Adam said on 25th April 2010, 17:32

            The reduction of the front wing wouldn’t lead to understeering cars. The engineers would have to reduce the rear downforce to balance the car. So, fast down the straights and slow around the corners with longer braking distances. All good, without the need to actually ban rear wings.

  3. It should be more about finding the best drivers in the world and entertainment. I disagree that it should be dangerous, but mistakes should be punished, like we saw in qualy in Suzuka last year.

    • damonsmedley said on 24th April 2010, 16:25

      Good point about Suzuka. Tarmac run-offs are the worst thing for F1. A driver makes a mistake and half the time only gains time. I don’t particularly like crashes, but deep gravel beds certainly punish mistakes even if the barriers don’t.

      • James_mc said on 24th April 2010, 18:29

        I like the idea of abrasive tarmac runoffs so that drivers are still punished for their mistakes and there’s no Raikkonen-esque overtaking round the outside like in Spa

        • Yes, they’d probably stop an out-of-control car more quickly too.

          How about gravel and dirt where the driver rejoins the track, so he’s penalised by getting a rough ride, and dirt on his tyres. This might work after chicanes, say at Monza, but not everywhere.

          • From what I understand, tarmac has the greater chance of slowing an out-of-control car, as it has more chance to regain grip and assist the driver to do so.

            If true, an alternative without diminishing safety could be a GPS that flags when a car has entered a ‘safety zone,’ no warnings, no steward’s discretion, no exceptions…drive through penalty.

            F1 for me is seeing the bravest driver pushing the fastest car in the world to it’s limit. Without punishing mistakes adequatly, everyone can drive to the limit.

  4. damonsmedley said on 24th April 2010, 16:18

    F1 should be about the best drivers from around the world, in the best and fastest cars in the world. But if Bernie keeps changing it, it will not be about the best cars in the world. Too many changes will mean lower categories like GP2 will become faster. F1 needs that element of technology as it adds an extra degree of excitement to the sport, but someone needs to draw a line. Where that line is drawn is the toughest question one may ask at the moment but it needs to be done. It’s a very tough issue that I can’t see going away soon.

  5. Mr. Jiggs said on 24th April 2010, 16:27

    IMHO the biggest obstacle to overtaking is the aerodynamics of the current F1 car. I would like to see ALL wings removed (like the old “cigar” cars). Allow ground effects, but NO protuberances from the monocoque. And for engines, set a maximum horsepower and let them use ANYTHING they want. Advancing the technology will not “hurt” the drivers. The better the tool they have to work with the better their skills will be exhibited. IMHO

    • Matt said on 25th April 2010, 13:01

      I agree with you there on the engines. Let them use any way they want to reach that maximum power… turbos, diesels, hybrids, whatever… if they can’t keep pushing for more power then things like efficiency & durability become aims

  6. George said on 24th April 2010, 16:31

    F1 only really needs to be two things:
    1. The fastest cars in the world
    2. The best drivers in the world

    Everything else is just garnish

    • steph said on 24th April 2010, 16:47

      lol! Completely agree with that. The best strategists in the world too, I don’t want to watch chess and want all out racing but I admit it is a strong element to the sport too.

    • sato113 said on 24th April 2010, 17:37

      totally agreed. however it needs to have the most advanced technology in the world, no restrictions.

    • Craig said on 24th April 2010, 18:36

      Yes, exactly. I think there has to be less restrictions on the cars, only ones for safety are required imo.

      • Does everyone have to find their own sponsorship to pay for this technology?

      • Sean said on 25th April 2010, 22:40

        Less restrictions will mean more expense and this means the richest will win. Formula One has to finally bite the bullet and forego the idea it needs to be the most technically advanced formula. There is no merit in this unless it is directly applicable to road cars, which it almost never is. Formula One is a sport and should remain a sport. It is not a business or a technical exercise. It should be about spectacle, about displaying and rewarding the skill and bravery of the participents.
        Modern cars are too easy to drive. What kind of sport gives it’s best exponents the easiest test? Make the cars faster on straights, slower in corners. Give them only 10% of the downforce they have now. Change nothing else and the F1 world will be heaven. Trust me.

    • Some would say that F1 neither has the best drivers or the fastest cars.

      F1 is a sport that is run to a set of regulations. These regulations do not stipulate that the drivers have to be the best or that the cars have to be the fastest.

      It is a motorsport that is governed by a Formula. But it tries to be all things to all men (and women) and so it sometimes finds itself pleasing none.

      • wasiF1 said on 25th April 2010, 2:17

        Totally agree with you George, many people really forgets what is the definition of F1 is.But they also needs to fight in the best tracks in the world where they will be challenged.Like Spa, Melbourne, Monza.

  7. steph said on 24th April 2010, 16:44

    To a degree, each one of those ideas has some basis.

    F1 should be always about moving forward. It’s about sophistication, innovation and exhileration. If we had a thousand overtakes every race it would be a lottery, not only would it be a dull one but we’d appreciate the achievements of the pilots and teams a lot less and it would even possibly be far less appealing to sponsors if there is no structure or order to a race track.
    Most fans, appreciate just what it takes to squeeze out that extra tenth and are willing to wait that little bit longer for a special pass but F1 should still look to improve this area and all areas.

    These are the very best drivers in the world so they have earned it to drive the best equipment. It’s inevitable that as the machines get better then less mistakes will be made but there will always be a human element to it.

    Techonology should be explored. I think Max had a point when he said F1 is very fragile esp when it comes to regulations about the cars. They need to have some foundation and basis, costs are an issue (even if I have always thought if they can’t cut it then walk but that isn’t feasible, it can’t be black and white) but new techonology explored some perhaps road revelant but otherwise just to push boundries more maybe like Le Mans but without jeapordising the sport. The DDDs were a good example of creativity inspite of the strictness of the rules.

    The drivers are possibly the easiest thing that can stay the same as they are human. I think if mistakes are made more need to be punished ie get rid of some of the run off areas (not the blog before Red Andy comments! sorry couldn’t resist :P). Use a different designer and company for the tracks, Tilke isn’t really to blame it’s the regulations which need to be loosened up, however if all tracks are done by one man it’s inevitable they will feel similar.

    F1’s permanently in the strange place of needing to stay the same to keep its roots but needing more than any other sies, to keep pushing forward. It’s the pinnacle, it’s how it is and yes sopme improvements could be made but overall it isn’t doing too badly. It really is a global sport, more venues (whether we like them or not) want to host a race, the TV coverage has improved dramatically in 10/20 years, there are less deaths and even though big names have pulled out there are still teams interested in joining. It’s a fairly healthy business and the sport -an ‘aspect’ to some although really it is the cornerstone – is thriving if you look at the competition right now.

    F1 always needs to be the best, have as much outside interest as possible but still be ruthlessly tough, it needs the human element which can’t be repressed but we’re never going to agree on what is best for the sport in the future but we should mainly agree it is the best motorsport right now or it is in trouble.

    • TONY858 said on 25th April 2010, 12:56

      A contest to find the best driver in the world?

      I do think that formula one should be a contest to find the best driver in the world. And I do think that “If the cars are more difficult to drive we’ll see more mistakes and better racing” . But making the cars more difficult to drive doesn’t necessarily mean reducing technologies, why not making cars more difficult to drive by making them faster and putting more powerful engines on them.
      I don’t think it’s bad for the sport that cars have automatic gearboxes. But I do think it’s bad and I actually think it’s ridiculous that cars are easier to drive but less powerful than before (even though they are safer now).

      A contest to find the best racing car constructor in the world?
      I think its important the competition between constructors but i don’t find it as important as the competition between drivers. Constructors competition is ok as long as it doesn’t interfere with healthy and fair drivers competition.

      The most entertaining form of motor racing?
      No, I don’t see F1 or either serious sport’s as pure entertainment. Peoples favorite sport not always is the most entertaining from a “show” point of view. For uneducated audiences entertainment will alway mean tons of action. But for an educated audience, high levels of competition is sometimes more important than pure action. For example, i find cricket very boring, but that’s because i don’t understand the sport, i bet that people in India who understand it find it quite entertaining. Same for soccer and all sports.

      The most dangerous sport of motor racing?

      I don’t think that F1 should be the most dangerous racing series. But i do think it should be the fastest. I actually support safety but not at the cost of speed. I’m ok with safer cars, safer circuits but SLOWER CARS?

      Making the cars slower so drivers don’t have any risk is like limiting boxers to train before a fight so they don’t harm the opponent. Or now bullfighter fight goats because bulls are to dangerous.

      And apart from all this, F1 cars are pretty safe now, if they weren’t they wouldn’t be crashing on purpose (crash gate). Do you think that drivers in the 60s would have crashed on purpose in a street circuit to help a teammate?? Don think so.

      A test bed for the automotive industry?
      Again it’s ok as a secondary goal. As long as it doesn’t harms driver competition.

      A worldwide motor racing competition?

      Absolutely a YES. In order for F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport it is important for it the be a world wide competition. And for that I think F1 should be the fastest racing series without leaving any room for discussion.

      If F1 was without any doubt the fastest racing series of the world it would become a more global championship.

      Some years ago before the CART racing series went down you could actually argue that CART or Indy Racing cars were faster, or at least had faster top speeds.

      If F1 was significantly faster than al the other racing series it would bring more attention from all over the world. Even the American market that although you like it or not, it would be great for F1 to get the American Fans attention.

      By the way, I disagree with whoever said that F1 was an European club. F1 has and has had drivers from all around the world. It has had Canadian, American, Brazilian, Argentinian and even South African champions. The situation today is that the vast majority of drivers are European but that could change anytime.

  8. johnno said on 24th April 2010, 16:57

    bring back KERS and turbochargers, limit the amount of downforce ‘points’ and give points to drivers in free practice with the fastest times.

    • sato113 said on 24th April 2010, 17:38

      why bring back turbochargers? I never really understood their appeal.

    • Stephen C said on 24th April 2010, 19:22

      I hated KERS and believe it was a total waste of money. When a racing car is braking it is doing so while being driven on the edge of it’s design envelop. Trying to design a braking system that collects the energy for later use without affecting that braking at the edge of the design envelop just seems so contrary to the intent of a racing car that one wonders why anyone even thought it had merit. It seemed like a bad publicity stunt foisted upon the teams.

      What I do think is teams should be encouraged to use any hybrid technologies they like, whether the energy is gained from the engine or exhaust or just charging up before the start of the race or whatever. It should be up to them, and there should be no “maximum uses” per lap or any such thing. I do believe there should be voltage and such like restrictions for safety, and possibly a power output limit e.g. not allowed to exceed the equivalent of 100 hp, but apart from that there are already weight and budget and such like restrictions, which will limit what teams can do.

      • wasiF1 said on 25th April 2010, 2:24

        They can bring KERS, but they have to make it at a lesser cost, in fact I think this is one component which the FIA can make a standard to all teams which will save some money for the teams.

        • Kers was expensive because it was completly new; the price would have been a lot less if it has been carried over to this year.

          A standardised system completly misses the point, and would make no difference to the racing as everyone would use it at the same point on each lap

      • You hate it, yet you’re saying teams should be encouraged to use hybrid technologies ?

        Having to recover the energy while braking is part of the challenge, and probably makes the cars harder to drive, which I think is exactly what we want to see.

  9. Taxman said on 24th April 2010, 17:04

    For me modern f1 cars are far too stable, with too much grip and not enough horsepower. I would like to see the cars sliding around some corners and losing traction under acceleration. We often see this in Motogp and is a common reason for overtaking. In my opinion they should shorten the wheelbase and reduce the amount of ballast in an attempt to induce more instability and oversteer. This would sort the men from the boys and then maybe we will see more mistakes being made.

    • Comment said on 25th April 2010, 3:09

      Well in F1 you need to have a stable and consistent drive of the car to get the most possible best time lapping the track. That’s why the car is setup with grip, traction and drag in mind. Yes, you may see car slides or yet lost traction and grip that’s because the car exceeds the limit which have a factor of driver inputs, track or tyre conditions…

    • 100% agreed the car’s havent got enough power for the current level of grip, too many corners can easily be taken flat out :)

      If you increase the power, then the cars get “too quick” , so a 50% increase in power with a greater decrease in downforce would probably have them sliding all over the place :)

    • @Taxman
      We already had that and it backfired, so it really isn’t a good idea, you had to tame the beast, racing others was secondary.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt8bhqgBznM
      The real issue now are new longer strips, the cars became faster over the years, and the old venues just don’t suit them.
      But it looks just awesome, how the car slides..

  10. Zazeems said on 24th April 2010, 17:25

    Totally agree damonsmedley!

    Whatever you say, a couple of incidents, spins, and drivers getting stuck in the gravel, really spices up a race. Tarmac is just silly.

  11. matt90 said on 24th April 2010, 17:33

    On the first point, F1 is mostly a showcase of the best drivers in the world already. If a driver impresses in other formulae they can get a drive in F1, and if they are seen to be doing a good job comparitive to their team mate and the performance of the car they will move to the best teams and win. Unfortunately it does require money to get started, but thats more an issue with the price of competing in motorsport rather than F1. The way in which the best drivers are ijnored is when the driver is in series very different such as NASCAR or in an area where the population or even the driver themself has no interest in F1. A lot of asian countries have races, and the number is increasing, but they sometimes need to be better advertised to increase interest and tempt drivers to F1 or even just to motor racing. There does need to be more races in the Americas and maybe Africa and Russia too to encourage drivers from that area to the sport, as well as fans. (it would also be nice to see scandinavia rewarded with a race- I would be curious to see what a track would be like and I’m sure there would be a massive turnout)

    So to increase the chances of F1 finding the best drivers, I do not think anything with the cars or races needs to be changed, just the locations and general popularity. (although one way of enticing some drivers may be to increase speed and return the likelihood of overtaking to levels from 10 to 20 years ago)

  12. an easy way to make f1 races more action packed is to bring the safety car out more often. NO MORE LOCAL YELLOWS. Every time a car stops on track or on the side of the track bring out the safety car. Keep the cars close together(just like nascar).

    • Matt said on 25th April 2010, 13:08

      The only good thing about the safety car is when they show the in-car shots of the driver and you can hear that glorious growl from the engine. Apart from that, the less safety car the better.

      I tried watching a NASCAR race where it was a bit damp in Montreal… restart, someone off within a lap, safety car, restart, someone off within a lap, safety car, restart, someone off within a lap, safety car, restart… I had to turn it off

      • Theres 43 cars in a nascar race so theres obviously going to be more cautions.

        Plus you were watching a wet nascar race what did you expect.

        Cars don’t just crash in formula one like that do in nascar.

        Is it really safe when marshalls are runnig around on the track or a crane is on the track and cars are flying passed them at 190mph? I don’t think so.

  13. ElliottB said on 24th April 2010, 17:43

    I honestly have a combination of radical ideas that I would love to see happen.

    1) Switch to diesel-electric. High torque electric motor with a diesel generator and a kers system to also charge up the batteries. — One advantage to a switch to this style hybrid, is a future switch to hydrogen fuel cells is easier, as you’ve already got a well advanced electric motor and kers system.
    2) Make the front wing be around/connected/within the front suspension. Sort of like the 1982 renault, but more of a wing than just suspension casing. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/renaultopenday-1.jpg
    3) Increase mechanical grip
    4) Make the base Monocoque be a standardized design with some exceptions: How your electronics, pedals, etc mount and wire through. And any adjustments for driver height/size. This will cut costs and I feel it is an area that shouldn’t/doesn’t change that much from season to season. Also you could make small components/common areas standardized. Parts such as: pedals, rims, etc.
    5) Remove restrictions on: rear wing, rpm, front wing ( only if the suspension wing idea ), certain areas for barge boards, etc

    • a series hybrid would definatly make a very fast car for a given engine output, but not a very exciting spectacle

    • Mike said on 25th April 2010, 11:13

      I think its important for F1 teams to design their own Chassis, It wastes alot of money and It only serves to assist the wealthy teams, but It separates F1 from other “spec” series.

  14. They should invert the field. Start the HRT row 1,Virgin row 2 , Lotus row 3.At the back would be Red bull on row 12, Mclaren row 11, ferrari row 10,and so on.
    Can the fastest cars get to the front and can the slowest cars stay at the front and not break.There would be great passing. Saftey car periods would be more frequent, so the fast cars could always keep track of the leaders.

    • David A said on 25th April 2010, 17:07

      What’s the point of bothering to qualify if the slowest drivers end up at the front?

      • Dont qualify, just go off the points.
        :1st in point starts last
        :Last in points starts 1st

        Fastest lap comes during the race.
        The fast guys would be pushing extremely hard.

        It sounds radical but it would be entertanig.

        It would be Chinesse, Malaysian gp 2010 but all the time.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th May 2010, 11:00

          but all the time.

          Which is precisely its flaw. Every race would be the same story and that would become tiresome. We’d have sacrificed a significant part of the sport’s heritage and hundreds of millions of TV viewers on a Saturday for a contrived spectacle that would quickly become predictable.

  15. What makes F1 exciting to me is the science behind it. Its amazing to see how in spite of the rule changes, the cars keep going faster.
    If we really want to judge the driving ability, the cars need to be identical which is not what i want to see.
    I think rules should encourage innovation and the direction of these innovations should be towards future road cars.
    If budget caps are necessary, then where the money is spent should be more flexible, by this i mean that technical control should be relaxed – maybe the variety of solutions to the same problem (of having the fastest car) will make things exciting.

1 2 3 6

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.