How can racing in Formula 1 be improved?

[Mamba]

[quote="Nick Sieczkowski"]6. Limit the number of engines per season. Once an engine is used its development is frozen but the other engines that haven't been used call still be developed[quote]

This one I like. WEC has very little regulations to engines and so on but it is still cheaper. Rather try and limit the budget for teams with other means...
Maybe fix the type of engine to make the teams more equal and keep a single tire manufacturer also for consistency. let the teams play with aero and engine design all they want... If a team is behind, then they must be free to design and upgrade their car to get back in the fight. This would bring wheel to wheel racing back with teams who are behind fighting to get back on the top step...

MAMBA

[sennaf1god.94]

1998 was the first year where the maFIA started killing the sport...

1997 was one of the best years in terms of pure spectacle, multiple front runners, tyre battles and season´s end drama.

Since then F1 has been in a downwards spirale.

[wesley123]

1. Remove DRS

2. Something with tires, mainly improving on durability. Now teams have to stop and not push to make the tires last. Build tires that have the ability to last a whole race, that would remove the need to calm down.

3. Remove DRS

4. Open up rules on KERS, and no more of this lock-in crap

5. Remove the fuel flow limit(if actually possible at all) but keep the allocation limit. By this teams can burn 99% of this in the first few laps, if they want to.

6. Remove DRS

The issue with what they are trying to do is they are trying too hard to get something happening on track. But most of these rules only made stuff duller, as drivers have to slow down to make things last.

To me, F1 is as much as it is about racing as it is tactics. I loved watching a driver push in a few quick laps to get the edge on the pitstop. There is nothing exciting about driving past each other on the straight because someone one of them got DRS.

[sennaf1god.94]

Qualy laps every round is not not I remember the refuelling era. I recall it as one where nobody risked a pass on track unless it was absolutely necessary. The preference was to pass in the pits on stategy and it made the racing really boring.

A good measure to improve f1 racing, would be banning from the sport F1 engineers that are proud of this car:



But something tells me that most of them will be fired before the season´s end. Anyway even if the sport wouldn´t improve too much, at least it will its aesthetics...

[Moxie]

Forget about cost cutting, it doesn't work. However, if the prize payouts did not give the front team a roughly 10:1 financial advantage over the tenth place team, the rearward teams might actually stand a chance. The winners should certainly win more than the losers, but such lopsided payout does not promote competition. I propose a 3:1 ratio between first and twelfth place.

Give the bottom ranked teams some much needed exposure. Teams need to provide a return on investment for their sponsors. I dare say the F1 world won't come to a screeching halt if they actually give three laps per race to show cars from the three bottom teams.

[Tim.Wright]

Qualy laps every round is not not I remember the refuelling era. I recall it as one where nobody risked a pass on track unless it was absolutely necessary. The preference was to pass in the pits on stategy and it made the racing really boring.

A good measure to improve f1 racing, would be banning from the sport F1 engineers that are proud of this car:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... h053zq.jpg

But something tells me that most of them will be fired before the season´s end. Anyway even if the sport wouldn´t improve too much, at least it will its aesthetics...

So... is this supposed to be some kind of personal dig at me?

You are aware that I'm not the Tim Wright who is engineering at Caterham right?

[heidenreich27]

Bring Kers Back

Increase Power of DRS


That would be a great beginning

[spadeflush]

Forget about cost cutting, it doesn't work. However, if the prize payouts did not give the front team a roughly 10:1 financial advantage over the tenth place team, the rearward teams might actually stand a chance. The winners should certainly win more than the losers, but such lopsided payout does not promote competition. I propose a 3:1 ratio between first and twelfth place.

Give the bottom ranked teams some much needed exposure. Teams need to provide a return on investment for their sponsors. I dare say the F1 world won't come to a screeching halt if they actually give three laps per race to show cars from the three bottom teams.

Agreed. There is only this much you can do w.r.t cost saving. The distribution of the TV rights money is a joke. Look at Force India, considering their budget/resources they have been consistently mixing it up with teams with huge budgets e.g McLaren and at some races even Ferrari. Granted, this year the Mercedes engine has helped but they have gotten great results with their smaller budget. You just have to wonder what such teams could be capable of with an extra $10 mil.

[langwadt]

1. Remove DRS

2. Something with tires, mainly improving on durability. Now teams have to stop and not push to make the tires last. Build tires that have the ability to last a whole race, that would remove the need to calm down.

3. Remove DRS

4. Open up rules on KERS, and no more of this lock-in crap

5. Remove the fuel flow limit(if actually possible at all) but keep the allocation limit. By this teams can burn 99% of this in the first few laps, if they want to.

6. Remove DRS

The issue with what they are trying to do is they are trying too hard to get something happening on track. But most of these rules only made stuff duller, as drivers have to slow down to make things last.

To me, F1 is as much as it is about racing as it is tactics. I loved watching a driver push in a few quick laps to get the edge on the pitstop. There is nothing exciting about driving past each other on the straight because someone one of them got DRS.

now they have to put in quicker laps than the guy in front to get with in 1 second to get DRS, what the difference ?
other than now you can actually see the fight, it is not just a matter of guessing if the gap is bigger than a pitstop

2. do you want fast grippy tires or slow long lasting tires?

4. what KERS rules are really limiting them?

5. with out the flow limit there would be no need to run +10krpm, already too much moaning about the noise
I image the fights wouldn't be about who is fastest but rather who is first to give up with low fuel
qualifiying would be unlimited power and dangerous

[sennaf1god.94]

So... is this supposed to be some kind of personal dig at me?

You are aware that I'm not the Tim Wright who is engineering at Caterham right?

Nah, I can read (your signature)...

Just offering a chance to answer the question, now the thread is locked. I remind you your contradiction:

a) Aesthetics-Good Design= Don´t have anything to do...
b) Aesthetics-Good Design= Direct consecuence, not an objective...

Have anything to do or not?

[Lycoming]

They should have KERS rules WEC style; limit how much energy they can store and deploy per lap, and have no power restrictions. Let the teams decide how they want to use the energy. You can use a small motor and save weight, or you can use a big motor and have huge bursts of power for overtaking, for example.

[Gaz.]

For a start I'd like to see the top-10 start on any tyres of their choosing. The current top10 race tyre rules compromise both Q2 and the start of the race.

Pirelli make four compounds for the season, these should be available for every race and teams can use what-ever they can afford throughout the entire weekend. It would be nice if they didn't make every compound degrade and marble like mad though. We had quite good racing in 2010 with Bridgestones that allowed off line moves and didn't 'go off' for a few laps because a driver pushed too hard for one lap. I'd happily see the back of the current 'must use both compounds' rule during the race too.

I can't help feel that the racing has got less close since the introduction of the plank, maybe it's rose tinted glasses but the dependency on wings seems counter-intuitive to cars following each other closely, although saying that we've seen cars nose to tail this year only for the tyres to overheat or expire before the following driver succeeded in making a move stick - would the Alonso/Schumacher battle from Imola have played out as it did on current Pirelli's? I'm not so sure.

DRS- I can't stand this concept. It's like taking paracetamol for a headache when the headache is caused by not drinking enough water. The F-duct was at least a less contrived implementation and had more freedom for the competitors.

ERS- if you can generate it then do as you wish.

Fuel flow limit- they don't seem to be fuel saving much this year, or we aren't hearing too much about it via team radio and driver interviews, if anything the tyres are again dictating the pace of both the lap times and the action. I'm currently undecided on the fuel flow limit concept.

Money- it has to be weighted for success otherwise why bother, but the difference is too much which causes too big a gap between the haves and the have mores.

Although the teams vote for the 5 engines/gearboxes for the season for saving money, it reduces the racing because the teams need the equipment to last. How many times do you hear an engineer plead with a driver because they need the engine/box for the following weekend? If you can remember an occasion then the answer is too many times.

Home viewing experience - enough of the globe have digital TV and a good enough internet connection that FOM could similcast a recorded race to your TV and race data to your internet device. Log onto FOM with your viewing card number and they stream to you in real time a driver tracker and timing screen with subtitled team radio syncronised to your recorded race programme on your TV.

[Moxie]

@spadeflush

With a username like spadeflush, I'm guessing you know a little something about poker. I have a perfectly workable plan to improve F1. Unfortunately, every time I have mentioned it there has been no discussion or feedback at all, not even negative comments. I will run this by you (in this public forum) and let me know what you think.

The key is the concept of pot odds. Economically speaking it is risk vs. reward.

Players will only wager so much to win a prize of any size. The size of that maximum wager may vary from player to player, depending upon the strength on ones hand and the size of his pile of chips. None-the-less, each player sees the size of the pot, and assesses the risk vs. the reward and makes his wager accordingly.

In 2013 the payout for the F1 World Constructors Champion was $168 million according to bleacherreport.com. With the financial support provided by sponsors, it is possible for a top team to spend well in excess of $168 million, and still turn a tidy profit.

At the same time the team that reaped the least financial rewards only took in $14 million. (Bleacherreport.com). The second to last team, in terms of prize money took in $35 million (bleacherreport.com). It the lower tier teams can only hope to win $35 million, and have limited sponsorship due to lack of TV time, their financial risks will be made according to those restrictions.

While this scenario may be great for the poker player with the bigger pile of chips, however in racing it is important to keep competitors in the game. (Bernie Eccelstone does not seem to understand this point). Without racers, there is no race. If the prize money for the top team is reduced, the top tier teams will not be motivated to risk as much money for the smaller prize. They can still make any financial, and technological decisions they wish, and they will do it with their own tolerance for risk and reward in mind. I prefer to think of this as organic price control, as opposed to the silly artificial ploys like testing bans...etc.

A reduction of the payout ratio would create more competition from the front to the middle of the field. All of that money buys a lot of computer time, wind tunnel time, simulator time...etc. As the budgets of teams become closer together, the advantage provided solely by financial might will be reduced. Then the wits of the engineers and the skills of the drivers will return to prominence.

Now with some financial balance among the competition, the regulations can be relaxed, allowing the engineers to show their stuff. The development of new technologies will still cost money, but rather than FOM dictating what technologies to develop, that decision will be based upon each teams assessment of their own risk and reward.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1955 ... per-season

[bdr529]

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-conte ... co-Run.jpg

Not one person in the front row got 20/mpg and they still got a trophy, granted the guy on the left has a first generation Oldsmobile Toronado, and he managed 17.3/mpg, he must only have the 7L motor

As for impoving the racing I'd like to see the rest of the year play out, there still more then half the season to go. but you can get rid of DRS at anytime, never liked the idea,

[outer_bongolia]

These would be my regulations to improve F1:
[*] Only the size, weight, and the total amount of fuel per race should be limited.
[*] No more than 80 lts per race.
[*] Total car length less or equal to 420 cm. The width has to be 160 cm. The maximum height (measured at the end of the race after the driver leaves the car) is 100 cm.
[*] Car weight: Less than 680kg.
[*] Total power output less than 750 hp including the engine and the other motors.
[*] Only two updates are allowed per team throughout the season. The bottom third of the teams in total season points are allowed to bring any updates to the car at any race.
[*] Tires: Any manufacturer can bring tires. Updates allowed until the first race.
[*] Fuel: All fuel has to have the same calorie output per liter.
[*] Driver controls: Only steering, gear change, water, and radio are allowed. All the adjustments to the cars have to be done at the pit stops.

What would this do? It would tighten up the field, giving the backmarkers an opportunity to catch the leading teams. It would allow the companies to bring whatever they want/can to the field. If they want to put a 5liter v12 engine, that's fine. They still need to finish the race with 80 liters of fuel.