F1

The essential changes that should transform F1 in one place

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #299979
    Atticus
    Participant

    I figured it would be a good idea to gather all those ideas that seem to be (to me, at least) widely supported and held to be beneficial of the No. 1 single-seater category in the world, which is going through a tough period right now in terms of viewership, sponsorship and perceived quality of competition.

    Here is my, by no means exhaustive, list, in order of importance or to-do:

    1) Remove the Strategy Group’s power to effectively make decisions on rules. (Possibly make it an advisory body.)

    This would enable the FIA to resume some of its weight in the rule-making process (possibly with a more influential leader than Jean Todt), but most importantly, it would enable the changes below to take effect – changes that would now surely get the veto in the status quo.

    2) Decrease the importance of telemetry, improve crash tests and introduce reliability-related stress tests.

    With less telemetry, it would once again fall on the shoulders of the drivers to manage their equipment ‘by feeling their way around’ the races, which method may be much more appealing for the viewers than data and is also much more susceptible to fall off the edge in terms of reliability – providing uncertainty. The easiest way to do this is to remove most of the sensors from the cars – but, of course, this would raise reliability concerns, so I would advise introducing FIA-controlled stress tests of various critical components, aimed at reliablity, besides stricter crash tests themselves.

    3) Increase mechanical grip (already in motion from 2017 on) by introducing wider and/or stickier tyres and decrease downforce levels. (Possibly ban DRS later on.)

    More mechanical and less aerodynamical grip would go a long way of enabling cars to follow each other more closely and encourage what is called ‘side-by-side racing’ on the other side of the Atlantic. Upon having a positive effect over a given number of years’ ‘trial period’, DRS may be banned.

    4) Give more weight to sound attendance management and planning instead of headline figures when selecting races for the calendar.

    This one is for the FIA, because that one is largely under Bernie’s control at the moment (unlike the previous ones, which are blocked by the teams). Somehow it should be made more beneficial for Bernie to select venues which make their business plans rely on cash flow stemming from a strong stream of attendance figures (prime example: Red Bull Ring) – the reason for this is that this would ensure more exposure for the cars, drivers, sport, but most importantly… for the sponsors. Sponsors would be easier to lure into F1, if they see an environment from which they can actually profit and build their image for their target customers more positively, instead of appearing at events which are for a selected few (e. g. on the Middle East), have more controversy and negative bias attached to them via a series of political topics and blunders, lack quality of competition in the public eye and are financed by heavy sums from some magnates’ own budgets.

    There may well be other important aspects and absolutely necessary rule-changes, but I feel like this is the single most essential list – short, but large-scale and, I believe, effective.

    As Keith used to say ‘Over to you’, what do you think of it? What change would you like to add and/or what would oyu like to see removed for some reason?

    #299992
    Atticus
    Participant

    And suddenly, everybody went quiet…

    #299995
    Strontium
    Participant

    Free to watch for everyone. Without this, sponsors are simply disinterested.

    I first started following F1 when it happened to be on the television, I went on it just to see what it was like. Thankfully the race was quite good, and from there I’ve become a fan. That cannot happen if you have to pay.

    Worse reliability and even more accidents, somehow. I know this one sounds silly, but the reality is that people love the unpredictability and the dramatic moments when something happens. A lot of the most memorable races have been because of things like this.

    #300021
    Nick
    Participant

    Maybe a lot of fans are quiet on this subject because we have been absolutely bombarded with suggestions from drivers, team managers, former drivers, pundits, commentators and other fans.

    It’s plain to see there are plenty of things that can be improved in current F1, but keeping up with all of the suggestions of both what’s wrong and what their supposed solutions would be are starting to become a huge nuisance.

    #300022
    Atticus
    Participant

    @npf1

    That’s one more reason for everybody to make up his or her own mind. Believe me, it was not that easy to write the original post either. For once, all that were there for me were my own thoughts and not somebody else’s suggestions; I had to filter everything through on what I thought to be important.

    #300089
    @HoHum
    Participant

    Besides the obvious need for the cars to be able to race close together, ie fix the tyres and aero, it must be, to a very large extent, the cost of viewing, I reached this conclusion yesterday when I was looking to see if there was any Le Mans coverage on TV and stumbled into Formula E, imagine my surprise to see in Germany full grandstands of people watching much slower, virtually silent cars in a Trulli-train, literally not metaphorically, Jarno Trulli in second place a half second slower than the leader was leading a single file train of 8-10 cars. Apparently this coverage is available every week and as I said the grandstands were full, but F1 with empty grandstands is only available live on the same channel every second race.

    #300091
    @HoHum
    Participant

    @strontium, accidents ? not so sure, but cars beached in sandtraps I could support, last night I watched the Moto GP from Barcelona (SPOILER ALERT) there were several riders caught out by high track temperature and the main feature was the 2 top of the championship riders out front with 1 pushing to catch the leader and the leader pushing to maintain the gap, boring you say, not a bit, 1 little mistake from either was likely to end their race and with it their chance of the championship would slip away too. Whereas usually in F1 a little mistake merely costs a few 10ths of a second.

    #300095
    JackySteeg
    Participant

    1) Bring Formula 1 back to free-to-air TV in its major territories and halve the cost of ticket prices. Formula 1 may well be the best show on Earth, but that’s irrelevant if nobody can afford to watch it.

    2) Have Pirelli reduce their selection to 3 compounds, and allow teams to bring as many or few of each tyre as they choose to each race. No restrictions or compulsory use of both tyre rules.

    3) Strip back downforce to IndyCar levels. Introduce ground effect and larger tyres, and remove DRS.

    4) Completely free up engine development. No freezes and no compulsory use of 1.6l V6 turbos — but keep fuel limits to ensure efficiency and road relevance are still part of the game.

    5) Distribute all revenue fairly. No more grease payments to keep the top teams involved. The money given to the 13th placed team should be enough to actually run a Formula 1 team. Also include a small emergency reserve fund to assist teams in any dire financial situation.

    6) Disband strategy group and keep all power of the rules in the hands of the FIA.

    #300092
    Atticus
    Participant

    Yes, I think we can add doing something with the endless, unpunishing tarmac run-offs as well.

    5) Install Paul Ricard-style blue and red, progressively rougher strips in the tarmac run-off areas.

    These would enable drivers making mistakes to continue their race still (to not get stuck in the gravel trap and pay the ultimate price in racing for a single error), but should be made so that going through the blue stripes cause excessive tyre wear, while the red causes a puncture.

    How does that sound? A kind of ‘deliberate’ puncture doesn’t sound good, it’s probably it’s weakest point safety-wise, but it was approved for the Ricard so I see no reason not to be approved for other tracks as well (we are constantly taking about realistic proposals here hence the absence of points like ‘bring back the old, bumpy, no run-off, insanely fast and narrow tracks’ and the like).

    We do have to admit tarmac run-offs have one immensely positive aspect and that is the encouragement of overtaking. Biggest negative? No punishment for errors – getting the balance right for making a mistake or braking too late would be the best of both worlds. Good point, @hohum.

    #300123
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    1) More fuel, have cars start with 150 kgs of fuel and allow a flow rate of 150kgs or allow refuelling.
    2) increase mechanical grip
    3) increase ground effect to allow cars greater grip to follow each other in corners.

    #300124
    Pavel
    Participant
    #300128
    @HoHum
    Participant

    @atticus, the abrasive runoff would be great for F1 but the motorcyclists probably would not agree.

    #300129
    @HoHum
    Participant

    @pavel.you must be joking!

    #300094
    Atticus
    Participant

    Yes, I think we can add doing something with the endless, unpunishing tarmac run-offs as well.

    5) Install Paul Ricard-style coloured, progressively rougher strips in the tarmac run-off areas.

    These would enable drivers making mistakes to continue their race still (to not get stuck in the gravel trap and pay the ultimate price in racing for a single error), but should be made so that going through the ‘blue Ricard’ stripes cause excessive tyre wear, while the ‘reds’ causes a puncture.

    How does that sound? A kind of ‘deliberate’ puncture doesn’t sound good, it’s probably its weakest point safety-wise, but it was approved for the Ricard so I see no reason not to be approved for other tracks as well (we are constantly taking about realistic proposals here hence the absence of points like ‘bring back the old, bumpy, no run-off, insanely fast and narrow tracks’ and the like).

    We do have to admit tarmac run-offs have one immensely positive aspect and that is the encouragement of overtaking. Biggest negative? No punishment for errors – getting the balance right for making a mistake or braking too late would be the best of both worlds. Good point, @hohum.

    #300144
    Atticus
    Participant

    Sorry guys for my kind of misplaced, and essentially double, posts here lately – I’m often have problems with the forums, my posts just don’t get online instantly; I’m just redirected to another topic when I click on Send. To make matters worse, these posts do seem to appear later on and then they kind of seem like they are out of context.

    Sorry again, F1 Fanatic allegedly tried very very hard to resolve these kind of long-time issues, but they still linger and probably will for some time.

    *

    Getting back to the topic, @hohum again has a valid point for me regarding the effects of the Paul Ricard-style run-offs on motorcyclists – and those effects are quite devastating for my idea. So scrap it for now, at least the version I drafted above.

    I’m happy to see a lot of you seem to agree with my proposition to decrease downforce and increase mechanical grip which kind of underlines the importance of that rule-change from the fan standpoint.

    However, some mentioned increasing ground effect – the thing is, teams are already making more and more underbody downforce step-by-step, because, of course that’s ‘free’ downforce (next to no drag) so it’s always the aim. I’m sure the classic 30-40-30 downforce generation ratio between front wing, floor-diffuser, rear wing is already moving slowly, but steadily towards a higher middle value. I won’t necessarily support decidedly pushing for ground effect in the rules, e. g. with skirts as we all know how dangerous they were when they were allowed. ‘Sealing’ the floor via clever little aerofoils on the edge of it seems enough for me.

    Interestingly, so far (till I wrote this post, might be not till you see it…) there’s only one of you who’s for some rule change regarding tyres – and I very much agree. I think the great racing of the past few years, since 2011 (most often behind the runaway best guy that is) was down to the tyres and the performance difference it may create. The only thing I’d change is Pirelli’s overly conservative approach lately – I don’t see early 2013 deg levels, but a more healthy balance. I think the current system is great (we don’t need that complicated nonsense Pirelli announced yesterday), the tyres just have to be less durable.

    Some notes on engine formula – I’m supportive of an LMP1-style freed-up engine development, but only on the longer run. It isn’t cheap either, that’s the reason. Don’t forget, LMP1’s varied PUs are developed by huge factory teams whose manufacturers pour quite some money into them as well – no wonder smaller LMP1 teams are not using them, they can’t afford it. So not now. No substantial fuel flow increase either – the green aspirations of F1 fends off attacks from the environmentalist sides and at least that part is OK now. Maybe a minor increase for louder engines, if other options won’t prove to be successful in that regard.

    Finally, free-to-air coverage – and yes that’s a big thing which should be a priority. Most of the very successful series worldwide stayed free to watch (NASCAR, BTCC, V8, WEC on some major markets), so it seems to be an essential part of the recipe of success. It’s down to two parties basically – Bernie to ask less money and the networks to have the most professional, robust and solid finances to afford the high prices. I don’t see how regulatory bodies may have an effect on this, however, and then we’re back to the ‘checks & balances’ between the FIA (regulatory side) and the FOM (commercial side).

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.