Start, Hungaroring, 2015

What should be the top priorities for F1?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

Start, Hungaroring, 2015As a Formula One fan, you’re probably fed up of being asked what you think about how the sport could change. But what should be its top priorities?

Is it more important for F1 to ‘improve the show’ or should increasing the number of teams take priority? Or are the two goals the same?

Does F1 need to embrace radical change to solve its problems, or will cosmetic changes be sufficient?
One of the toughest challenges for those running F1 is deciding what should take priority. Below are ten of the hottest talking points which have come up in recent months – with three would you prioritise to make the sport better?

A. Improve F1 car aesthetics

Williams, Circuito de Jerez, 2015Rules changes have created a generation of oddly-proportioned F1 cars with strange-looking noses.

While Formula One cars will always be designed first and foremost for performance their striking designs are a key part of their appeal. The current rules have made them unattractive and are in need of revision.

B. Make F1 more challenging for drivers

Today’s cars are much slower than they were ten years ago, an abundance of sensors has neutered the challenge of driving and tracks fail to punish mistakes. This has allowed drivers with very little experience to jump straight into F1.

By increasing car performance, toughening up track limits and banning any on-car sensors which are not needed for safety reasons, Formula One will become a more satisfying sporting challenge instead of a clinical technological exercise.

C. Free up the technical regulations

Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing but ever-tightening rules have left designers with too little freedom and restrictions on testing means teams can make little progress with their cars once the season has begun.

It may increase costs and could lead to more of the kind of domination we have seen from Mercedes in the last year and a half, but it’s a price worth paying to restore a vital part of F1’s appeal.

D. Change the race weekend format

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2015Formula One has stuck to the same rigid format for decades. An overhaul is needed to breathe new life into the championship and make it more appealing to a new, younger audience.

E. Make F1 more accessible to fans

With grand prix ticket prices soaring and live races increasingly found only on pay television channels, it’s never been more expensive to be an F1 fan. If it isn’t made cheaper for fans to discover and watch F1, the sport’s long-term popularity will suffer.

F. Protect heritage races

There’s no German Grand Prix this year and Monza’s race is in jeopardy. F1 already gives extra money to some teams based on their historic contribution to the sport – it’s time to recognise that some circuits have the same value and protect their races.

G. Help Mercedes’ rivals catch up

Out of the last 29 races Mercedes has won 24 and set pole position 28 times. One-sided competition like this is unhealthy for the sport, and instead of waiting for other teams to catch up F1 should help them by giving them rules breaks and using performance balancing tricks such as success ballast.

H. Get rid of the gimmicks

Trying to spice up the racing with the Drag Reduction System, high degradation tyres and (virtually) mandatory pit stops has made F1 more predictable, not less. Dropping these gimmicks and encouraging natural racing will remove the taint of artificiality and allow F1 to deliver genuine, memorable thrills.

I. Preserve and increase car numbers under current rules

Formula One’s shrinking grid is a cause for concern but there is no need to make fundamental change to the formula to fix it.

The grossly inequitable distribution of revenue between the teams should be revised into a more equitable structure, as seen in many other sports, and tight new rules introduced to bring down costs.

J. Preserve and increase car numbers using third cars or customer cars

Formula One’s shrinking grid is a cause for concern and it is time to embrace radical new rules to fix it.

Allowing the top teams to run third cars would be a quick and straightforward way of filling the grid up. Similarly, top teams should be allowed to sell chassis to other competitors, allowing them to participate with much lower costs.

I say

Felipe Nasr, Sauber, Hungaroring, 2015I believe that F1 is fundamentally the same great sport it has always been. However years of hasty rule-making and the power games between those who control the sport have begun to affect the depth and quality of the competition.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the gulf in performance between the front and back of the field, and the ever-thinning grid. F1 doesn’t need to reinvent itself to fix these problems, it needs to get a grip on costs and remunerate its competitors more fairly (option I), as other sports do, instead of paying off the most influential teams with huge bonuses.

A larger, healthier, full grid of 26 cars – something F1 has been missing for more than two decades – will make for more varied, interesting and unpredictable racing. Closing up the field by artificial means (G) would wreck F1’s sporting appeal and the other alternatives (J) would hasten the demise of the smaller teams and make F1 even more dependent on the whims of car manufacturer teams who are prone to departing at short notice.

Keeping the cash flowing to teams who need it most means sacrificing some desirable changes. I would like to see F1 return to free-to-air television (E), but it’s probably better for the sport to retain the lucrative pay TV contracts as long as they start sending the money to those who need it.

DRS activation point, Silverstone, 2015Similarly I would like to see designers given greater freedom to push car performance (C), but allowing the huge escalation in costs that would bring with it would be irresponsible given the apparent financial difficulties of teams like Lotus and Sauber. This is a time for stable technical regulations, not more knee-jerk changes.

I see no benefit from making cosmetic tweaks to the race weekend format (D) and I’m not sure there’s enough to be gained from improving the car aesthetics (A) for this to qualify as a high priority.

However there is plenty which can be done to promote better racing. Cutting back the amount of data teams harvest from their cars via sensors and punishing drivers more severely for leaving the track (B) are examples of how the sport can be made tougher and, vitally, more unpredictable.

My last priority will come as no surprise to regular readers: Nothing has done more to diminish the enjoyment I derive from Formula One than DRS (H).



You say

What should be F1’s three top priorities out of these ten options? Are there any changes you would like to see which you would compromise on to improve another aspect of F1? And what other priorities would you add to this list?

Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Which are your three top priorities for F1?

  • A. Improve F1 car aesthetics (3%)
  • B. Make F1 more challenging for drivers (18%)
  • C. Free up the technical regulations (19%)
  • D. Change the race weekend format (0%)
  • E. Make F1 more accessible to fans (12%)
  • F. Protect heritage races (13%)
  • G. Help Mercedes’ rivals catch up (2%)
  • H. Get rid of the gimmicks (16%)
  • I. Preserve and increase car numbers under current rules (16%)
  • J. Preserve and increase car numbers using third cars or customer cars (1%)

Total Voters: 445

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed in stead of the voting form.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories Debates and PollsTags , , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 105 comments on “What should be the top priorities for F1?”

    1. Start appreciating drivers for daring, not for insipid, middle of the road racing.

    2. I agree with B as a priority, but how it is achieved is what is important, because I don’t agree with the current push for track limits, radio bans etc. If anything, those changes are gimmicky and stupid in my opinion.

      It should be done by making the cars (or allowing rather) to be much faster. Track limits should be enforced by “natural” means, walls, gravel, ice… whatever will cause a spin or a crash when you go over the “track limit”. If a driver goes wide and none of that happens, he has not gone over the track limit, he has crossed some random white markings.

    3. Voted C-E-I, meaning: better (equal) revenue distribution and more teams and cars. Open up technical regulations, let teams innovate, improve and let the cars become quicker (you’d say that would increase pace-gaps, but with equal income from FOM, competition would be much tougher). And critically, make the sport more accessible. Allow more content on youtube, lower F1 ticket prices etc.

      1. I think small, unimportant parts of the cars should be regulated and produced far more cheaply, so that smaller teams can focus on innovating with the larger more expensive parts that will have more effect on the car (such as front wing). If all the teams essentially produce the same parts then what’s the point of them spending so much in r&d and manufacturing costs when they could be produced so much more cheaply by a 3rd party.

        1. @williamstuart, yes I agree. I think a decent amount of money can be saved. Things to standardize would possibly be the MGU-H, MGU-K and battery-store, which I think are already of quite similar design. Obviously it’s now to late for that, it should have been done in early stages of PU design process. Also wheels could be standardized. Currently teams are going crazy with ventilated rims which are hugely expensive to manufacture. Also the number of rims a team needs is 13 sets * 4 * 2 cars = 104 for a race weekend. And then they develop and produce new ones sometime in the season. It would surely be much cheaper if Pirelli/Michelin delivered tires and rims as a functioning, tested and verified package.

          1. Michael Brown
            9th August 2015, 20:13

            I like your proposal on wheel rims. Did you know some teams spend thousands on wheel nuts that are worth hundredths at best?

          2. Going for standard hybrid parts would be hugely contra-productive at this time @me4me. It would all but take the motivation away for manufacturers and it would take away the parts where the most usefull innovations can ripen to be used in the wider world around us. Instead, the FIA should just put a maximum on the price the manufacturers can ask from their customers, as currently they let them pay for their R&D Budgets in the past.

            Not sure I like the standard wheel thing, didn’t we already get a rule meaning that wheel rims are homologated for the whole year? Currently there are several rim producers who “compete” in F1, I like to keep it that way.

            1. @bascb, there was a discussion over at f1technical about these MGU units. Some very knowledable people stated they all were basically the same type of electrical machines, obviously with different adaptions to suit each package respectivly. Now like I said, it’s too late for the FIA to force any standardized parts to be used. But if they had done so from the start, a lot of money would have been saved. The innovation aspect of these electical machines doesn’t seem as big as many think. It’s not any more advanced than in WEC or even hybrid supercars, just because it’s “F1”. What F1 can do better than other catogories, because the resources and brilliant engineers, is optimizing use of these units; make them work as a package. So there’s alot of programming involved. Think about it, all you hear from Ferrari, Renault and Honda is about ICE and Turbo upgrades. Not much is said of MGU upgrades other than some overheating issues for Honda. My point is, money may be better spend elsewere.

              I don’t know about that rim-rule, haven’t heard of it. I kind of agree with you that i’d like it as it is as well, just for the sake of competition and funky designs. But if money has to be saved, well it’s just a suggestion.

            2. The reason they are fairly similar is actually the way the rules were written with a lot of limits as to capacities, type of storage etc @me4me. The electrical motor might be pretty much the same for everyone as a result, but if anything, I would say that opening up this aspect of the drivetrain (but installing a limit on engine price for teams to keep R&D cost from being offloaded on the customer teams) would be an interesting development avenue for most manufacturers.

              And as far as I understand, the reason Honda are having issues is because they might have chosen a fairly non standard approach, meaning that their MGU could well differ more from the rest.

            3. Oh, that wheel rim rule was introduced when everyone started to go crazy with the fancy wheel covers (which were then banned) and started fitting fairings to the actual wheels @me4me.
              To prevent an “arms race” here, the FIA introduced a rule saying you cannot change your wheel rim design on the fly (homologated for the season).
              Not completely sure that rules is still active though.

            4. @bascb, Yup, ideally much more freedom should be allowed. Personally I would have liked the FIA to just state a max fuel flow, amount of fuel, max price for PU package and service per year, and minimum car weight (~650kg) and let the manufacturers design whatever they want, electric motors or not. Also free development so manufacturers can catch up. I think after a couple of years performance would converge anyway cause of the restriction in fuel flow.

              Regarding the wheel rims .. I don’t think there is any rule in place to stop teams for using different designs at each race. I can’t find any in the regs anyway, but maybe that’s just me :) Here is an example of Mclarens early 2015 rims: http://www.f1technical.net/development/460

    4. I’ll go contrary to the article and state what I think should be the lowest priorities, from absolute lowest ascending:

      D: The format works. As Brundle often repeats, this is the best qualifying format F1 has perhaps ever had, and Saturdays are plenty exciting enough. The Grand Prix on a Sunday is a pillar of F1 heritage for a reason – the prestige of winning one is as a result of the solitary nature of them, and they are the truest test of car perfomance. An excitment deficit can only be a consequence of circuits and cars.

      G: The way to improve competition is to open up the regulations. Giving with one hand whilst taking with the other is a bad prcedent to set in what is a competition, and will discourage innovation.

      A: Motor racing, as long as it remains a competition between engineers, will never be about aesthetics. The fastest car is the prettiest car. That being said, the rules can be ammended to lend more naturally to aesthetically pleasing designs, and prevent repeats of the widespread nose mockery in the media which is degrading to the brand.

      J: Needs must, but every effort should be made to preserve the manufacturing aspect of F1 with reasonable cost control measures. Customer cars in particular should be a last resort.

      F: Yes, F1 should protect its heritage, as it is a unique selling point. However, the greatest problem to befall new circuits is not so much their location, but the uninspiring designs. I feel that is the primary reason for the fierce criticism of the reshaping of the calendar away from the European heartland.

      1. @vettel1, D. did not make my top three priorities, but I would not mind some changes now and then. In particular, I would like it if F1 would experiment with the weekend format for a selected number of races. I think and unpredictable race weekend is usually a good race weekend, so why not pose the drivers and engineers some new challenges, instead of working through the same pattern every fortnight, with often very predictable results?

        For instance, one race weekend could be nominated in which the tyre regulations are let go, in the sense that drivers no longer need to start on their Q2 tyres, and do not need to make a pit stop or run both tyres.

        Or how about not having any DRS at one race, to see how we like it? Races like Spa, Monza and Canada spring to mind as good candidates for such a trial.

        If would even – forgive the blasphemy – suggest one reverse-grid race in the season, either on Saturday as an additional race, or simply as the race on Sunday. Not a partial reverse grid race, based on ‘feature race’ finish order (I think that’s an absolutely terrible idea in GP2), but based on championship order, so with Stevens on pole and Hamilton in P20. I think Singapore would be a good candidate for such a trial: it’s possible to overtake but not easy, and there are different strategies possible. As a one-off, I think that would be fascinating to watch.

        Unfortunately, these days the tracks do not bring that much variety to F1, but some simple one-off rule changes might.

    5. Keith I am interested in what your thoughts are on something I have been thinking for new teams, if they want to join rather than force them to field two cars, let them only field one car for the first three years, that way they can run and get themselves settled into F1 without having to pay through the roof for so many parts and mechanics and Engineers and so on. They can spend the first three years having more focus on putting the money they would’ve had to spend on all the extra people and parts into the car instead and maybe get the partners and sponsors on board, they still earn the same amount as a two car team would and then after three years they must expand to a two car team?

      1. For the most I like this idea, although I’m not sold on them earning the same amount as a two car team. Did you mean per car?
        I’d really like to see costs reduced by cutting the number of team members who can work on the cars; maybe 9 over the wall at the same time as opposed to the 20 we see now.
        Also, simplify the front wings, make them smaller, less fragile, & fewer elements. I getting pretty sick of seeing these things litter the track whenever they get a slight nudge.

    6. Some of those are pretty connected, I think. Accomplish E and you get I: When fans can not only get closer to the cars, drivers, pitboxes, get more technical insights, they should also be able not only to talk about it, but post pictures and videos they took on race weekends (without FOM having that deleted), when there´s free races on youtube and highlight snippets, people can link that, include that in their twitter and facebook-feeds… et voila, far more exposure for F1, which would almost certainly result in more sponsor-interest, which then helps team survive or even getting started.

      Also, C leads to A (pretty much everything ugly is a result of rules trying to alter the aero) and, over time, G (G will happen anyway sooner or later).

    7. Reduce cost’s & change the distribution model to ensure a healthy & full grid of cars.

      I’d like to see things put more in the hands of the driver but I wouldn’t do it the way thats been done right now (Banning some radio stuff). I wouldn’t ban all telemetry & I wouldn’t remove all the sensors, But there are some sensors relating to tyre wear/life/performance that could be done away with.

      I’d also ban the gimmicks such as DRS, If you want to put things more in the drivers hands & Make things more challenge then surely putting overtaking & the racing in general back in the realms of pure driver skill is a good place to start.

      I’d go along with the 2017 rule changes as I believe they will not only make the cars look better but would also improve the racing.

      I think the race weekend format is fine as it is, I certainly wouldn’t add extra races or do anything to alter qualifying.

      Freeing up the technical regulations is fine in principle but in practice it will do nothing but increase cost’s dramatically & would possibly make the gap between the front & back of the grid larger as a result.

    8. My votes are:
      B, because it separates the naturally talented drivers (Hamilton etc) from “feedback and help from pit wall” needing drivers like Rosberg.

      C, this is more like G. to help other teams catch up.. by free up the regulations

      E, cheaper god damn Grand Prix tickets. If Formula 1 wants more young fans and more filled seats on the grandstands (more filled seats = MORE MONEY!) that is then the way to go. F1 has hit the price bubble and needs to be burst and prices lowered.

      F, I’m thinking truly great race circuits that are no more on the calendar. Turkey, the Istanbul GP was a great circuit. Easy to travel to, reasonably priced and with a really good race track.

      1. @dam00r,

        (more filled seats = MORE MONEY!)

        Actually that’s not a given. Ticket income is the product of the number of tickets sold times average ticket price. The current balance might very well be the most optimal for the organizers in that respect. But I agree with you, prices should go down.

        The critical aspect here is value for money. If F1 is not delivering, a price reduction won’t matter. We need both an improvement in quality of the race/show/experience and reduction on ticket prices. Actually, I think prices must go down no matter how good/bad F1 becomes. Current prices are more than most fan’s and families are able to / want to spent no matter the spectacle. So yes, cheaper ticket prices is a must :)

    9. Increasing the grid size and getting rid of the silly gimmicks are the only two things listed which I care about. The ‘next best’ thing I suppose is freeing up the technical regulations.

      However if I were to select my own third option, I’d increase the variety of circuits visited. I do not care about anything else, especially if it involves pointless, unjustified suggestions like bringing back refuelling or double points for the sheer fun of it.

    10. Pointless doing anything if most of your fans cannot watch the racing because of pay walls. If you don’t attract new fans F1 will die, It’s almost impossible for new fans to follow or stumble across F1.

      1. +1 Bernie himself used to say this.

    11. I definitely think helping the smaller teams survive (and be competitive) should be the top priority for F1, but that’s probably something that can be achieved with minimal tinkering with the sporting side of it – it’s FOM that need to change. But I think everyone thinks that’s a lost cause, and they might be right.

    12. They should improve the coverage. Especially the F1.com website which is ridiculous, and the app. Stream the gps data for others to make use of. Make the onboards available after the race. but most of all…

      SHOW THE ES STATE !!!

        1. Energy Store. Battery state, like they used to show. We should be able to see it all the time really, because it’s so important tactically. There are a lot of passes made by saving and deploying it better/out of sync with the opponent, but we’re none the wiser, maybe just get Brundle talking vaguely about traction or DRS…

    13. * No DRS
      * Cheaper race tickets
      * Free to air tv
      * Wider tyres (now happening :)
      * Less aero (no 2017 massive front wings)
      * Durable tyres
      * Fairer wealth distribution for long term stability, not Tamara Ecclestone’s expenses bill.

      1. yes I’m with you:
        – less aero, only after that we can get rid of DRS
        – fairer distribution so smaller teams can also develop their cars

        1. +1

          DR’S is needed until something else helps cars follow

    14. How about better distribution of money between the teams!

      And, F1 doesn’t need to be more accessible for fans, it should be more accessible for journalists, FOM is a stasi like regime. They should look at how MotoGP does it.

    15. ColdFly F1 (@)
      9th August 2015, 12:52

      As we talk prioritisation – I’ll give you my full list (highest priority to lowest):

      F. Protect heritage races. F1 is a lot about heritage, and F1 would not be the same if it were just racing on new circuits in places with no prior link to F1.
      I. Preserve and increase car numbers under current rules 20 is already little, and more worrying that some of those are on the brink of bankruptcy, thus not able to compete (invest) at the right level
      B. Make F1 more challenging for drivers F1 drivers should be superhero’s, and only the best should succeed in F1. The should earn their places through skill rather than money!
      C. Free up the technical regulations F1 is the most technological advanced form of motor racing. Thus regulations should be less rather than more (otherwise it becomes a spec racing series)
      E. Make F1 more accessible to fans absolutely, any sport depends on its fans
      H. Get rid of the gimmicks Some gimmicks maybe aren’t gimmicks but a poor execution of a solution to a genuine problem (e.g. DRS). But if resolving the above priorities, there should be no need for gimmicks!
      D. Change the race weekend format not really broken!
      A. Improve F1 car aesthetics I don’t care!
      J. Preserve and increase car numbers using third cars or customer cars No! more teams, not less teams!
      G. Help Mercedes’ rivals catch up They should do that themselves – under freer technical regulations with a fair distribution of earnings to the teams!

      1. I completely agree with your list.

      2. you got it right

    16. Forbid teams with more than 250 employees and force them to manufacture EVERY part of the car, except for power unit, tires and brakes.

      That would solve everything.
      Everything.

      1. Teams would hire extra people and call them “contractors”. There are loopholes everywhere.

    17. Whilst I voted for protecting heritage races, but my real priority is not included.

      F1 is asking, nee expecting, the impossible. How can we expect great and close on track racing when the cars have front wings that simply don’t work in turbulent air. Racing is the essence of F1, and solving F1’s racing issues can unlock solutions to F1’s more structural issues.

      Bahrain 2014 was a truly legendary Grand Prix because the laptime delta that Rosberg suffered in Hamilton’s turbulence was minimal. That is because 2014 saw the lowest levels of front end load since the 1990s, and, as a result we were treated to fantastic spectacles at not only Bahrain but Canada, Hungary, Spa and Austin. Calling for a cultural dissolution in F1’s dependency on aerodynamics does not even need to mandate slower laptimes; there are many seconds of laptime to be found in tyres, ground effect and even active suspension systems (the kind of mechanical systems that could be less expensive for the privateer outfits than the extortionate costs of the aerodynamic era). F1 can be faster than ever, whilst providing excellent racing, with a simple logical revaluation of its technical culture.

      2017 appears to herald steps in the correct direction (albeit detail on how to tackle front wing stalling remains negligible) – we can but hope that it represents a more successful application of Max Moseley’s ambitions for the 2009 season.

      1. Have to agree that the continuation of addiction to aero will ensure processions no matter what else they do, as is being borne out today, even with integrity killing DRS. I have been intrigued that along with the suggestion of wider front wings for 2017 comes the immediate assumption that this means a worsening of the problem, but an article referencing this suggested there could be a healthy portion of the wing that is neutral by regulation. Thus a wider front wing needn’t worsen the issue and could be shaped to take advantage of ground effects type airflow. I too think that closer racing brought about with some basic common sense decisions could solve other problems by default. We wouldn’t care as much about the sound the cars make, the aesthetics, the Merc domination, the smallish number of teams if the racing was closer, and one could argue the audience would grow with a more enthralling and unpredictable series of gladiators out there doing battle driver to driver, not driver to disadvantaged driver. Providing more free-to-air, not less, would of course help new people at least give F1 a try without a huge financial outlay, and with a more enthralling product the chances of getting people staying with it would be greatly increased.

    18. I think you should add ”getting rid of Bernie Ecclestone” to that list.

    19. Didn’t realise you could vote for more than one option, but never mind. Cost control allowing more entrants into the sport and getting a full grid would be a blessing. I think you can have a competitive, interesting series with cost control and and still have liberal regulations. Teams just have to decide how to allocate their spend to be most effective. Different teams will take different paths. It allows for innovation while keeping teams in the sport.

    20. My highest priorities from the options:
      C. Free up the technical regulations F1 is about peak of man and machine, athleticism and engineering, the driver and the crew. Announcing regulations changes few years before and stick to it could help reduce the R&D cost.
      J. Preserve and increase car numbers using third cars or customer cars If the current teams can afford to field 3rd car why not? Customer cars also fine because at the end of the day, the like of McLaren, Ferrari, Williams, Mercedes, and Red Bull wont buy customer cars partly because pride and partly because they know they wont be able to beat the original team. So it won’t be death to car building competition aspect. Also customer cars=more even competition. Sure some people will argue there will be 2 tier competition between manufacturer and customers, but this season has proved with all manufacturers we have like 5 tier competition alone and 3 of it (1st, 4th, and 5th) is composed by 1 team only (Mercedes, McLaren, and Manor respectively).
      E. Make F1 more accessible to fans I will still enjoy F1 even if they race behind closed door and I can only watch a recorded race, however its also doesn’t hurt to give fan more access. Increased access = increased new fans = increased profit. Win-win!

      Now for things that I also don’t mind to see:
      I. Preserve and increase car numbers under current rules The point is increasing the field. Although between this and option J above, I prefer option J, I don’t mind if this method actually succeed.
      A. Improve F1 car aesthetics Mainly because d**k nose and thumb nose looks so weird and it actually makes the car performance worse. The only thing that makes me tolerate it because it was for safety factor, but please find another “better” solution that don’t compromise the safety level.
      H. Get rid of the gimmicks You say gimmicks, I say another technical regulation. As long as all competitor using the same spec of regulation then it’s fair game to me.
      B. Make F1 more challenging for drivers I never think F1 is getting easier actually. As long as we can see the difference of “bad” drivers from “good” drivers with same car then the human factor still play important role in the car performance.

      Things that I actually don’t want to see in F1:
      G. Help Mercedes’ rivals catch up If you slower than Mercedes (or any dominant team), than improve your performance rather than handicap the team doing best job out there.
      D. Change the race weekend format No. Minor tweaks sure, but major change is out of question.
      F. Protect heritage races No track should be kept just because its historic value. I enjoy Spa, Silverstone, Monza, etc, but they should have same chance with other tracks to get F1 races. I understand FOM probably ask too much money but saving them just because its historical is not the solution.

    21. F1 should get rid of these current engines because they don’t produce any extra value to the F1 show and their price tag is huge problem for almost half of the teams.

      1. Just because they don’t add any extra value to ‘the show’ in your view doesn’t mean F1 should get rid of them.

        These new engines are obviously adding something to F1 in the eye’s of the engine suppliers as there the one’s who wanted a formula like this with Renault & Mercedes saying they were not interested in staying in F1 under the old formula & Honda saying they would only come back under the current formula.

        Go back to V8’s or even V10’s and f1 becomes formula ferrari since ther ethe only engine supplier who showed interest in not changing the antiquated formula of old.

        the motor industry in general is moving towards hybrids, a lot of the recent supercars are hybrids & hybrids is the tech that motor manufacturer’s want to do.

        f1 should not stick with outdated v10/v12 or v8 formulas just to appease some fans or just because some feel its better for ‘the show’, f1 should do what its done & embrace the future of the industry which is small capacity turbo hybrids!

        1. I’m pretty sure F1 wouldn’t suffer lack of engine suppliers even if Mercedes, Renault and Honda went away.

          1. Not talking about hybrid engines above.

    22. I didn’t vote for B (unlike majority).
      I don’t think banning sensors or radio to drivers is going to improve racing. Also, it is very easy to get around the rules. Instead of the race engineer saying, “cool your tyres” to the driver, they would simply use code language something like, “the turkey is cooked”. What will the FIA do then?

      Banning sensors while implementable reduces the safety of the cars. And under the guise of “safety” teams will anyways install these sensors and pass on information to drivers in code language or some panel on the dashboard of drivers (remember how Merc had a special mode #44 on Lewis’s dash after he won the championship in Abu Dhabi).

      Do not try to take F1 artificially to the supposedly golden era of 70s and 80s. Embrace technology.

      1. @sumedhvidwans

        it is very easy to get around the rules. Instead of the race engineer saying, “cool your tyres” to the driver, they would simply use code language something like, “the turkey is cooked”.

        And if the engineer doesn’t have a sensor telling him what temperature the tyres are at, how are they going to get around that?

        1. @keithcollantine
          I answered this in the second part. Sensors will not be removed as they may compromise the safety of the car. Even if they are removed, thermal cameras (like the onboard cameras) will still be there.

    23. Make Formula H(ybrid) optional – not mandatory – in Formula 1, as it is with every other racing series in motorsport. Since last year – oddly coinciding with team bankruptcies and fan deterioration – we have been watching Formula H(ybrid) racing. Not Formula 1.

      1. @geeyore Making hybrids optional wouldn’t make any difference because they would all still run the hybrids for 3 reasons.

        Firstly because its the formula the engine manufacturer’s currently in F1 want.

        Secondly they all have hybrids systems so why would they not want to run them.

        Thirdly & most importantly as you see in WEC if you don’t run a hybrid you don’t stand any chance of competing for overall success so anyone not running a hybrid would be dooming themselfs towards the back of the grid with no hope of moving forward.
        The hybrid systems are adding 160bhp+ to the cars (That figure should increase over time), How do you expect a non-hybrid to compete against that?

        1. 1) The manufacturers that can afford the $200 million development + $30 million engine costs can afford them. Ferrari did not want hybrid.

          2) They all have hybrids because they are mandated by FIA. Formula 1 not = Formula H(ybrid).

          3) Your final point is rather dubious, and even if remotely correct then the only place to test that theory os on the track, not on paper specs and wishful thinking.

          1. @geeyore You forget the most important thing advantage to hybrid: early torque, which means the car accelerates faster on the start and when exiting slow corner. This not just turbo vs NA engine like old turbo era because MGU basically eliminates the only disadvantage of turbo which is turbo lag. Eventually all the teams will go hybrid route just because this advantage. Well everyone that has the budget for it.

            MotoGP need to double the volume for 4 stroke engines compared to 2 stroke one just because 2 stroke have advantage of acceleration, and its not as good as current hybrid engine advantage compared to previous NA V8 engine.

          2. @geeyore

            1) The manufacturers that can afford the $200 million development + $30 million engine costs can afford them. Ferrari did not want hybrid.

            2) They all have hybrids because they are mandated by FIA. Formula 1 not = Formula H(ybrid).

            They all have hybrids because it was the formula the engine manufacturer’s came up with as they were all heavily involved in all the discussions.

            Yes Ferrari were less keen on them but obviously they were not against them enough that they used there veto that they had to block the introduction of them.

            3) Your final point is rather dubious, and even if remotely correct then the only place to test that theory os on the track, not on paper specs and wishful thinking.

            In what way is it dubious?

            Its a fact that the hybrid systems add an extra 160Bhp+.
            Its a fact that the hybrids produce more torque that allows them to accelerate faster & reach higher top speeds.
            Its also a fact that the current power units have surpassed the overall performance of the previous V8’s.

            And to look at track performance let us look at WEC. As you said hybrids are not mandatory there yet if you don’t run a hybrid your not going to be anywhere near overall wins/podiums.
            If we look at Spa the 1st Non-Hybrid LMP1 car was 14 seconds slower than the pole & 9 seconds off the slowest Hybrid.

            The only way to make it work woudl be to make F1 a 2-class championship like WEC where you have a class for hybrids & another class for the non-hybrids. However that goes against what F1 is about & I can’t see it having any support from those involved or fans going by the recent fan surveys.

    24. Keith stacks the deck against the “Help Mercedes rivals catch up” option, but in fact this sort of thing is the normal reaction of the FIA to domination by one team. From 2010-13 the rules were constantly being changed, sometimes in mid-season, mostly with the frank goal of trying to help RB’s rival catch up.

      It would “Help Mercedes rivals catch up” if Charlie were simply to enforce the rules currently on the books banning driver coaching. One of the few weak points of the Mercedes seems to be its brakes, and the team relies on extensive driver coaching during races to manage that weakness.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        9th August 2015, 20:03

        From 2010-13 the rules were constantly being changed, sometimes in mid-season, mostly with the frank goal of trying to help RB’s rival catch up.

        Interesting is was (also) quite the opposite. The major ‘catch-ups’ that the FIA allowed was the ‘re-equalisation’ of the power units (link). This was primarily in favour of Renault to catch up with Mercedes (and Ferrari to a lesser extent). Thus in those years the main beneficiary of the catch-ups was RBR (and other Renault engine teams)!

      2. Keith stacks the deck against the “Help Mercedes rivals catch up” option

        How?

    25. I intensely dislike elitism so the combination of pay TV and ridiculously unbalanced revenue distribution damage the sport for me. I like to see underdogs build to success; this seems impossible in recent years. I want F1 to be seen and enjoyed by all sport fans so that it has a sustainable future but it currently seems to be following the model of boxing by heading towards Pay-per-view. No body watches boxing anymore.

      1. @scalextric The problem is that live sport has become very expensive to produce & broadcast which is why most sports have now moved towards PayTV as the PayTV providers are the only one’s that can afford the live coverage.

        That was the biggest problem the BBC had (And ITV before it), They could afford the cost of the contract but were struggling to afford the cost of producing there coverage & the same is true for other sports they show which is why both cut back the amount of live sport they broadcast.

        The focus is obviously on F1 here as its an F1 site but sport in general has been going towards PayTV for over 10 years & its a trend that is not going to stop & to be perfectly honest I would not be at all surprised for all live sport to require some sort of payment to watch within the next 10 years be it part of a tv subscription or online platform.

        On that last bit (online platform) i’m expecting FOM to launch online streaming within 3-4 years, There will almost certainly be geo-blocking in many regions due to the contracts with broadcasters but i’m sure people will find a way round the geo-blocks as they do with other things.

        1. @gt-racer I guess I differentiate a little between payTV and pay-per-view. Imagine being asked to fork over an extra chunk of cash for the Monaco GP. PayTV is a step on the way to this, where I live F1 comes with an affordable sports package that also includes the Premier League, IndyCar and NASCAR (and F1 streaming), it doesn’t have it’s own separate fee.

          F1 is expensive to cover because FOM makes so much money from it, not because of the costs of covering a race. That can be done much more cheaply, and even sometime even better by other series, even with online streaming.

          The thing is, FOM can make more money in the short term by charging a high price for the contracts because broadcasters can get cash from payTV and maybe eventually pay-per-view. But that’s not sustainable. The dominant sports in the long term will be more accessible, I believe. Maybe the whole TV model will die in a few years as a younger generation finds other ways to use their eyeballs.

        2. On that last bit (online platform) i’m expecting FOM to launch online streaming within 3-4 years, There will almost certainly be geo-blocking in many regions due to the contracts with broadcasters but i’m sure people will find a way round the geo-blocks as they do with other things.

          im hoping for this. i dont have cable, and havent for a long time… and this is the case with many of my friends. i download/stream everything, and this wont change. broadcasters have been slow to adopt streaming services, and some do have some valid reasons. but in this day and age, it really shows how behind the times something as technologically advanced as the sport of F1 is that it has zero streaming options. especially since a lot of people already stream all all the races anyways. im suprised they arent doing it just for the money, id easily pay for the service, even though i get it for free now.

    26. Change the race weekend format (0%)

      That’s clear then.

    27. No need to ‘help’ Mercedes’ rivals catch up but they should at least be given the chance to do so by freeing up in-season development and increasing testing. This would bring back the in season development war which was always a large part of the intrigue of the season pre-2014. Aesthetics is a big problem in my opinion. I just want to see cars that are an expression of aero efficiency, not straight-jacketing rules. And it is a seemingly unpopular option in this site but the noise needs raising. The cars lose all impression of speed with their current pathetic noise. Increase fuel flow and bring in regs to take away any advantage in under-fueling (set weight for each race?). Increase speeds and allow drivers to push all race. Going off track should be punished by replacing concrete run-offs with grass or gravel. Energy harvesting and deployment is unclear and uninteresting. Last but not least, get rid of DRS.

    28. I can easily pick just one priority that trumps all the others -E.
      With current pay-TV and NO internet legal streams and bad timing data there are few new fans coming up and constant loss of elder fans. This means less sponsors (why sponsor an event that is LOSING watchers EVERY YEAR) which means less money for teams (just look at the sponsor count) which means that
      a)non factory teams are totally dependent from Bernie and won’t vote for technical overhaul bc it costs money
      b)grid is not getting full as there is no sustainable business model
      c)less technical innovation as smaller teams are just caching up all the time
      d)more Mercedes/Ferrari/RB/Insert-factory-name-here domination as half the grid is eliminated from winning before the race has even started
      e)less heritage races as they can’t keep up with increasing costs which are all needed to keep teams going

      Seriously unless the fan base starts growing or at least stops shrinking the major problems are only going to get worse.

      1. @nmsi, very good points, E was my 2nd. choice, I wanted to vote H,H,H because being accessible wont help if the racing is a boring procession of cars looking for an empty piece of track in which to protect their tyres from degradation.

    29. I chose a broad spread. First and foremost the sport needs to be protected from collapse, and that means that the current teams need to be more financially stable or F1 needs to be a viable enough prospect to have teams queuing to join and replace any that do fail.

      Another issue seems to be that people are becoming disenchanted with the sport. The best way to protect against this is making the sport more accessible. Ridding F1 of gimmicks is, I believe, also important to keeping people invested, while also being generally the best approach from a pure sporting perspective.

      Plenty of other factors also deserve a look in of course, but I think most important are protecting the future of competitors, better involving fans (without pandering to them with fanboost-esque nonsense), and improving the sporting credentials.

    30. Hard to vote for me.
      I was thinking the priority should be to make F1 affordable for teams so that the regulations can be opened. Especially the super ristrictive engine and aero-rules, in combination with the tesing ban are what keeps F1 from producing a varied field, giving teams a chance to catch up to the leaders.
      Money should be spent on developing the cars and not for prestige technologies that make shareholders happy.

    31. I voted for:

      C. Free up the technical regulations
      E. Make F1 more accessible to fans
      H. Get rid of the gimmicks

      In one sentence, I want to see competition in F1. I think the most serious deficiency with F1 is the lack of competition. The technical rules do not allow competition. If you are ahead, it is very difficult to be caught. If you are behind, you have limited opportunity to get to the front. I appreciate that competition can be expensive, but this needs to be controlled through a budget cap (or similar) rather than restricting what can be done on the cars. Why would anyone sponsor a team such as Sauber (or McLaren for that matter) who are currently off the pace and do not have an opportunity through the rules to get up to the front? Without these teams (and others), the sport will die. As Fernando Alonso said at the start of the season, he could predict the results of each race and be very close to getting the actual results. F1 is no longer truly competitive. This needs to be addressed.

    32. E. Make F1 more accessible to fans (35%)
      F. Protect heritage races (33%)

      H. Get rid of the gimmicks (44%)
      I. Preserve and increase car numbers under current rules (46%)

      Went for E, F, and I, but I meant to pick H instead of F (my fourth choice).

      Anyway, I think undoubtedly the most important thing is the prize structure.

    33. ACH is my new drug.

    34. What should be F1 top priority?

      1. Stop asking fans for what they want.

      2. Clamp down on the media constantly writing articles on a daily/weekly basis disparaging the sport.

      Media includes this very website. All this article is doing is fanning the flames of discontent and negativity. No solutions. Just rants about what is wrong.

      Find me another series that does not have structural or existential problems. Find me another series that does more to shoot its own foot every single weekend. You won’t find any because unlike Indycar, NASCAR, Wec…etc F1 does not bully its media. Criticize Nascar too much and your access privileges get revoked. You get banished. The media surrounding F1 have exploited this relentless barrage of attacks on the series for personal gain.

      It keeps them in business the more negative they get. But what if F1 eventually collapses and you get what you’ve been wishing for? You honestly think a new series is going to spring up with v10 engines, huge downforce, and still have great racing? Get real people and stop living in fantasy land or viewing the past with rose tinted glasses. That’s all I have to say on this matter. I will never again entertain these types of discussions. I would much rather listen to serious and experienced professionals are trying to do about maintaining F1s ethos of being at the cutting edge of technological advancement while putting on great races on Sundays.

      1. HA,Ha,HA, ” Ve have vays and means to make you vatch F1 Mr. Fan”

        1. @hohum, thanks for proving my point. Maybe speak in a way the rest of us can understand.

          1. @sudd You ask “What should be F1 top priority”? and then suggest they should stop asking fans what they want. However I think that fan input is only given a small scope for those running the show anyway, and they know they can never please everybody. This is an F1 site and a discussion. It is not F1. This site can ask it’s users (F1 fans) anything it wants.

            Nor is this site, as part of the F1 media, needing ‘clamping down on’ when free discussion should be allowed globally, as it is after all just discussion, in the free world, and is far from strictly negative and disparaging. I am in fact encouraged to read all the positive approaches people have to improving a show that even those inside F1 agree needs improving. It would be different and I perhaps might partially agree with you if in fact the product was good these days and yet people still complained. So far the professionals you so applaud have taken things in the wrong direction, and I think the reality is that the professionals and the fans are pretty much on or near the same page as to what could/should be done, but ultimately it is only those who run F1, which many seem to think is the top teams themselves with their vested interests, who will decide. Meanwhile I see this all as healthy discussion toward a common goal of improvement from a bunch of people who care and are free to speak on that.

            Serious and experienced professionals are highlighted on this site constantly with infinite references and links to articles on infinite topics on F1 and racing in general, and thank goodness those same professionals aren’t censored as you so wish…otherwise how would you be able to trust their words are truly their words, and all of them, and not just from those whose access hasn’t been revoked by someone who simply doesn’t personally like what they have to say.

            1. @robbie,

              Sure thing buddy. If you think these weekly, perhaps daily venting sessions about F1 are productive, keep at it.

              These discussions do nothing but drive traffic and create a negative perception of the sport. Everytime you guys have these sessions, you only create more negativity.

    35. Great poll! I have chosen B, C, E, F, H, I, looks like pretty popular choices there.

      B – It’s very clear to see that current F1 cars are less demanding than previous generations. Even if the times are pretty close at some racetracks it’s because of more power straight-line speed. However less downforce you have = slower in the corner you are = it’s less physical challenge. It’s vital that F1 stays demanding by increasing downforce to pre-2014 levels as it would make mistakes more likely. I also doubt Verstappen would have been competitive in F1 before V6s.

      C – As many people already set, it’s a competition between the teams. Majority of us want to see competition between the teams not sterile pecking order and Mercedes at the front every weekend. But even if the Silver Arrows did pull further ahead because of that then our appraisal would be greater.

      E – Absolutely. F1 can’t be only for rich people as it is now. It must be for everyone and must be less complicated. I would put videos with unseen overtakes/moments even if we have to pay for some. What about videopass like motogp? Not only fans and owners would benefit but also that would help promote F1 by showing more interesting action that is missed on TV.

      F – I disagree with @sonicslv. It’s clear to see that historic places are most popular and most fans prefer Germany to Russia. However if new circuits are successful such as COTA they must stay in as well. The only historic track I would remove is Catalunya, someone who designed that racetrack must’ve hated overtaking!

      H – Yes, no double points, no DRS, no minimum pit-stop time or number of visits and also not GP2-like compound differences. However I am in favour of high-degrading tyres (no 4-stoppers of course) unless you can influence them like in 2011 and 2012. I believe some people on this site would want flat-out racing with no stops but I think it’s because we haven’t seen it for a long long while and maybe one race like that would have been fun. I doubt we would have enjoyed it week in, week out. It’s perfect recipe for procession.

      I – We remember Australia and 15 cars on the grid. Yes, they are 20 cars but both Caterham and Marussia are no longer there or they are with absolutely no perspective. Caterham was able to take the fight to Toro Rossos on some occasions and Marussia was thereabouts and they have had some future plans (even if they backfired). It’s hard to see bright future for Manor. It’s even harder to see new teams coming up. I dream of 26+ field and Friday prequalifying. Even if they would be on HRT level to begin with but with current F1 situation it is looking like a tough ask. They can’t be squeezed out if they do enter because it’s useless to do it then!

      Regarding others I haven’t voted for: A – I would have been good to see better-looking cars but for me personally it’s not the most important thing. The cars weren’t pretty in 2012 yet that haven’t put my enthusiasm down. D – format is good. G – I am not in favour of introducing things that are only penalising winning. It must come down naturally. You can’t force only Mercedes to remove their DRS to close up the times. J – no customer cars, it would be a terrible thing for F1. I would prefer one Stefan GP to three Red Bulls. Or 20 cars (2×10) than 24 cars (3×8).

      1. @michal2009b Regarding to F, if the track is popular it should be self sustained and turned profit. Assuming FOM/Bernie finally ask same and reasonable amount of money to hosting F1, if the organizer can’t make profit then I don’t think it should stay on calendar. For every Nurburgring, Magny Cours and possibly Monza soon, there is Monaco and Silverstone (which does a great length to renovate the track and looks better than it ever was – new track layout aside).

        I still put the blame most on Bernie / FOM on asking too much money from the track though.

        1. Well, if FOM and Bernie are pushing for ever more money then it would be increasingly difficult to make profit. And it won’t be organisers’ fault. And new Silverstone layout is better! You can overtake into Village complex and Brooklands now.

          1. @michal2009b Some people love new layout some hate it, but the organizers certainly update the track and facility to modern standards. That’s what other “historical” track need to do really. Another example is A1-ring or now Red Bull Ring.

            The problem is indeed F1 deal makes it hard to turn a profit (and I still blame Bernie/FOM for that), but if historical track is truly loved by people then they should have easier time to sell tickets from new tracks like Sochi for example.

      2. Point H, flat out racing with no stops ? Yes it has been a long time, to most fans it is an unknown quantity and they fear that without pit stops there will be almost no change in positions because pit stops are where nearly all the changes happen, this of course is putting the cart before the horse, passing in the pits happens because it can happen without stress or danger of collision/tyre-puncture or excessive wear, without pit stops drivers would have to pass and defend on track, never again would you hear the instructions ” drop back to save the tyres” and ” let him past we’re not racing him”.

        1. @hohum True, but old F1 also very unreliable. Actually many season has truly dominating car/driver combo that only loses or passed because they got problems. Rarely the WDC contenders fights and finished in podiums at same race.

          1. @sonicslv, whereas today we have the very reliable Red Bulls, Toro Rosso, McLaren and Lotus cars going like clockwork, bang that is. The reality is that vast amounts of money are thrown at reliability because the penalties for using more than 4 engines pa are crippling and development is capped with fuel flow/rpm restrictions, in the rosy days of yore the driver decided if it was worth keeping the throttle wide open to stay/get ahead but risking a DNF, the engineers made similar decisions when they tuned the engine up before the race, fingers crossed and go for it

            1. @hohum Yeah, but I inclined to agree with @michal2009b. No pit stop race with current era reliability (excluding McLarens and STR) most likely will produce processional race. The only cars that have high chance to be able to pass other cars on the track is only Mercedes and even they will have trouble passing Williams or Ferrari. And for it to happen there must be something wrong with their weekend too. Dont forget, most of non Mercedes passes we got this season can be attributed into different tire condition / wear.

        2. Can you give me an example of passing in the pits because of fear of puncture/contact?

          1. @michal2009b, minimizing risk is what tactics are all about, so you could say every tactical pit stop takes into account the danger of contact, more obviously, every time a driver fails to pass the car ahead a couple of times/laps then dives into the pits a couple of laps ahead of schedule they are trading risk, especially if its Maldonado they need to pass, agreed?

    36. I think you’re missing the top choice:
      K – Improve overtaking…for real this time. NOT DRS. They need smaller front wings and more underbody tunnels for downforce.

      There, F1 problems solved. :)

      1. Oh…and you’re welcome LOL

    37. Why alter the regulations in any way other than to perhaps reduce aero influence?

      All the constant flux of regulations only leads to a lottery of who comes out with the best package. What would be best is to maintain a set of regulations until the field closes up.

      Getting rid of the gimmicks and a serious look at reducing costs is all that is required IMO.

      To assist closer racing, reducing wing contribution should be combined with opening up the restrictions on ground effects, but only in a season or two once the field has converged on engine design and performance.

    38. Steph (@stephanief1990)
      10th August 2015, 10:08

      Disappointed at how limited that poll is as my priorities don’t even get a look in.

      What I think is essential is making F1 more representative and inclusive. People from poorer backgrounds (who are more likely to be people of colour), women and LGBT people have almost no chance of getting into F1 at all. The grid is always been made up of men of exactly the same mould- that means a huge amount of talent if being shut out of the sport. If you want a strong sport, you need a strong set of people in the sport and it is severely limited right now.

      Driver rights need to also seriously improve. With better rights we perhaps could have avoided Piquet’s bullying by his boss Flavio and perhaps things would have been different. We definitely wouldn’t have had drivers ending up in hospital after races because they’ve basically starved themselves for weeks to make the right weight, and Mark certainly shouldn’t have been allowed to race in Japan in 07 when he was vomiting everywhere- how that was ever considered safe was beyond me.

      The next is to bring in a budget cap. The costs are out of control and they do absolutely nothing for the show. The biggest team ends up at the top for five years, then everyone gets bored so the rules shuffle as some new rich team takes their spot. The testing ban is basically ineffective because of this because the rich teams ahead can maintain their advantage without being challenged and just keep chucking parts that haven’t been tested on track at the cars. With testing the rich teams still do best as they can run as often as they like and take all the data they want. Only serious action at equalising the field (and most importantly the political influence of the teams) will get competitive and unpredictable championships.

    39. I wish I could vote for “I” we need more cars, but we got 3 new teams in HRT, Manor and Caterham two are now no more and Manor is running dead last with seeminlgy no likelihood of coming up the ranks. The only way new teams can come into F1 is if they are able to do it and be competitive, even teams little BMW and Toyota gave up trying to fund F1 as the finances and competition was not there. A much better distribution of the money from F1 would help, free to air races would increase number of viewers and therefore marketing benefits to justify spending from big companies and less restrictions on rules and testing should make it possible to have close competitive racing and not have you failures made so publicly.

      Currently we have teams like McLaren Honda suffering because their testing is in full public view as are their failing. Why not have testing at the majority of the tracks F1 goes to on the Monday and Tuesday after the race as test days for non race drivers if needs be, the cars are there as is the equipment and personnel. Granted when there are back to back races this won’t be possible but it will keep the amount of testing equal for all teams (without banding it all together). It would give them more time to run new ideas against actual data (comparing the race weekend with the testing) and not spend huge amounts of money on simulations and then running new parts during limited race pracitse to compare against those simulations only to find correlation issues and need to spend even more money upgrading and improving wind tunnels and CFD software.

    40. In the short term focus on E, I:

      -Increase the number of teams to 15;
      -Budget cap at €100 million;
      -The entire sport then needs €1.5 billion to run, that’s about half (?) today’s revenues;
      -Any excess money should not be used to make investers rich, but to strengthen motorsport as a whole: build a credible ladder, with affordable junior series;
      -Move coverage (of qualy and race) back to free TV;
      -Introduce F1Flix with all the sessions live, exclusive content around GP’s and background stories on non-racing weekends. Of course add older races to library all the time. If this is priced around €2 / month, it will be a huge success.

      Now when the basic structure is fixed, you could think of some of the other poll options. For me this should be done very carefully, as I think there’s not so much wrong with the on-track action today.
      —-
      I don’t know what people who voted C (Freeing up tech rules) expect from that. I’m an engineer, so my first interest with F1 is the cars (not the drivers) and I obviously like innovative solutions, but..
      Free tech rules might close up the field, but most of the time tend to do the opposite. Mercedes might dominate this year, but the entire F1 field (excl. Manor) is much closer than most years in history. Tight rules tend to promote tight competition. Free rules opens the possibly for someone to really get it right (or wrong) and really dominate (Mercedes W154, Lotus 78, Williams FW14-style).

    41. I’m not sure any of the options given really inspire me to vote for them. The most obvious problems in F1 are not really addressed by any of them although I and J come closest.

      Michael Andretti sums thing up perfectly. F1 is too expensive. This isn’t rocket science. If it was easier to be competitive on a smaller budget there would be more teams, more cars, closer races. The big question is how do you make f1 more affordable without losing it’s character. The answer is you can’t, but it will have a new character that we can all learn to love.

      What it comes down to is the way the rules are written. It MUST be possible to write a set of rules that make driver, engineering and innovative skills paramount but at lower cost. If its possible to throw money at something to improve performance then the rules should negate this as much as possible.

      I don’t have all the answers but I’ll give you some examples:

      AERODYNAMICS – Wind tunnel time is VERY expensive but good aero makes a massive difference. If you want cheaper the only option is to restrict aero on the cars so it has MUCH less affect. Some people won’t like it and say it stifles innovation but there are other areas to innovate. This does not have to be a major area of innovation! It has been PROVEN on many occasions, less aero means closer and better racing. This is a no brainer.

      MECHANICAL GRIP – A BIG increase in mechanical grip from the tyres would help tremendously in many ways. Firstly it would offset the loss of aero grip suggested above and keep the cars average lap speed approximately the same as now. This should keep those people happy who are horrified every time the cars are slowed down a bit.
      Along with the introduction of less aero this would help cars follow each other in the corners and overtake more. Again a no brainer.

      POWER – We need LOOOADS more power. This will make the cars behave more like they do in the wet. We know when it rains this is a big equaliser.

      All of the above means better racing and cost reduction because no longer will you need the best aerodynamics and the most powerful engine to be competitive. The fact that the driver will make more of a difference is a nice bonus.

      Lets all get our heads together and write rules which allow innovation where we can but don’t allow big cost! I know we can do it!

    42. My #1 would be to equalize the money distribution so the smaller teams aren’t constantly on the brink of oblivion and have the stability and funds to compete.
      #2, bring fan engagement & access into the 21st century. Cheaper tickets. Free-to-air TV. Internet streaming package. Get new fans into the sport to ensure its long-term success instead of cutting deals that screw the fans but bring in short-term profit for CVC shareholders. Ideally have people who actually care about the sport own it instead of sharks who are only in it for money.
      #3, save us from having all the great and iconic circuits replaced with Tilkedromes, many of which are only used a handful of times and then dropped for new Tilkedromes. Which again may bring in short-term bucks for CVC & Mr. E, but is a total farce and bad for the sport. How much longer can this go on before nobody /wants/ an F1 race because it just sucks out a ton of money and then F1 abandons, ala Korea or India? It’s already happened with the Olympics where local residents in for example Boston have rallied *against* it because of the corruption and arrogance and negative impact on the community they have.

      I think as far as the cars go the 2017 plans are largely the right direction provided they go with toning down the front wing & utilizing ground effect for a great portion of the downforce, as has been discussed. So I’m optimistic we’re going to be good in that department soon anyway.

    43. C, H and I. I liked when Ferrari ran three different cars in a single race and the big number of entrants meant some had to sit out of the race. 26 cars, two per team, without DRS is the best we could have right now.

    44. I posted this on the autosport forums so may as well share it here since its kinda relevant.

      I don’t know how people feel about this but i’m going to put forward a view that I think one of the biggest problems with F1 from the past 10 odd years is the focus/push on overtaking & ‘The show’.

      Cars have been changed purely for overtaking, Several circuits have been ruined in the name of overtaking, We had gimmickey/artificial nonsense like DRS in the name of overtaking among other things. I think far too much focus is put on overtaking… Or more accurately on quantity of overtakes & I believe thats come at the expense of quality.

      Its the same with ‘the show’, You have all this stuff thats been done for unpredictability & all that but a lot of it has come at the expense of quality racing. Take the tyres as an example, The High-deg was done purely for the show, Purely to spice things up & make things less predictable…. Yet that has come at the expense of drivers been able to actually push hard & race.

      Giving some example, The final sector at Barcelona has been butched to try & make overtaking more possible & I don’t see anyone saying the changes are better than the old layout. The new Bus Stop chicane at Spa was designed to encourage overtaking yet its a far less interesting corner than it used to be. The changes to the Rascasse at Monaco was done to try & encourage overtaking & the new layout is far less of a challenge than it once was & the same is true where corners were changed at places like Monza & Suzuka to create better overtaking spots.

      The cars were changed in 2009 primarily for the show & overtaking & the front/rear wings have looked crap ever since.

      Overtaking is important to some extent I’m not saying it isn’t….However it shouldn’t be the primary focus but if its going to be then at least look at doing things that provides quality rather than just quantity.

      I basically think that F1 has become so obsessed with the show & getting 50+ changes of position through every race that its lost track of what it should be doing & I think fans are partly to blame for this as well as I think were seeing the nascar mentality creeping in where anything other than 100 lead changes with constant action every lap like you see on a restrictor plate race is deemed dull.

      The chicane at Barcelona was partly for safety but mostly for overtaking as it was really hard to follow through the final 2 corners which they felt was hindering overtaking down the straght.

      I was also referring to turn 10 though, It used to be a pretty interesting, long corner but they moved it forward to create a larger braking zone to aid overtaking in 2004 & now its just a rather dull, straightforward hairpin.

      As to the Bus Stop, The 1st big change to the entry was 2004 where they totally re-profiled it purely to create a better overtaking zone. Yes it needed to be changed for the new pit structures for 2007 but the actual configuration was designed purely to create a better overtaking opportunity & its quite a boring corner as a result (Worst corner on the track).

      There are plenty of other examples like the Variante Alta chicane at Imola, That used to be a great little right/left flick where you really needed to balance the car over the kurbs. They changed it for 2006 again just to make it a better overtaking zone & there’s now nothing interesting about watching a car go through there as its just your average chicane.

      Final chicane at Suzuka is another example, The current configuration was changed for 2003 for overtaking & its again not as good a corner as it used to be.

      The final sector at Magny-Cours was also altered for overtaking & it ruined what was a fairly interesting little section where it was easy to lose time if you drove it too hard.

      And the changes they made to Hungaroring in 2003 again purely for overtaking, The old turn 1 was a far more interesting corner as was the little chicane that used to be at turn 11.

      There’s also the example of Hockenheim which was changed for no reason reason than a shorter lap with more race laps was deemed better for the show.

      You also need to look at new circuits, Part of the reason many of the new circuits are designed the way they are is partly because of FIA regulations restrict what can be done but also because Tilke is doing what its felt creates the best overtaking zones. Slow corner, Long straght, Slow corner. Even the off camber corners he likes to use is done purely for the benefit of the show as there the sort of corners its easy to make mistakes at & mistakes such as cars running wide can lead to overtaking opportunities.

      Like I said there’s nothing wrong with wanting to see a bit more overtaking, But the specific drive to get more at any cost the past 15 odd years has cost F1 a lot in terms of the overall quality of not just the racing but also the circuits.

      1. @gt-racer, Loud applause.

    45. I am curious as to why nobody adresses the way races are covered on tv. In my opinion there is a lot of room for improvement in the way races are edited during the live broadcast. To me it seems rather slow with long takes from the trackside cameras, which do not convey the speed of the cars. I would like to see much faster editing between master shots, on board cameras and helicopter. Bring the speed and action into the living rooms!

    46. I am totally surprised that GETTING RID OF GIMMICKS is not NO 1…… Other wise I agree very much with the person who submitted the list……………. Thanks, Norris

    47. I think F1 priorities is to make closer racing. Its boring when you get the cars so far apart due to the fact that they’re so different, and the only racing is down below 6th place. 2012 was a great season in my opinion, the cars were ugly, but the racing was great. I think the aero on the cars needs to be changed, so that it ends the problem of a faster car getting stuck in the dirty air of the slower car in front. Apart from when something has gone wrong for Mercedes, there is very rarely a race for the lead, as Rosberg follows Hamilton round about 3 seconds behind the entire race, which I think is due to the aero on the cars, which makes it boring. Now, if someone leads on the first lap, they’re very likely to go on and win the race.

    48. My feeling is that technology available on road cars should not be banned in F1. Movable aerodynamic devices are used on high-end sports cars from the Audi TT up – McLaren and Ferrari must find it frustrating that they have road systems that they cannot use on the track in the so-called ‘pinnacle’ series. I say limit both front and rear wings to two elements with plain endplates. Allow driver-control of the upper element at any time. This will give visible indication of driver input, reduce lap times and reward the skilful. It also re-enforces the efficiency message of the current era.
      Compensate downforce with standardised ground-effect floor. Track limits can be enforced with channels covered in grills designed to spoil the ground effect without launching cars into the air.
      Allow active suspension with driver-control of rake and ride height (should be enough travel to prevent aqua-planing in the wet).
      Sensor data for brake temp. etc. to be presented to driver and TV audience in clear graphic form rather than radio warnings.
      Along with the planned wider tyres these measures should reward drivers that can best balance power/downforce/braking/steering. With increased room for driver error there should be no need of artificial gimmicks and teams should not be forced to run tyres of the ‘wrong’ compound during the race.
      I would also like to see a higher a defined eye-level for a better view and central ballast to compensate for driver weight.

    49. Tough choice. Killing DRS (and never speaking about it ever again) would be my top priority, but the degradable tyres are one of the smartest inventions since sliced bread. They alone account – directly or indirectly – for most of the excitement in today’s races. And they’re the same for everyone, under all circumstances. Definitely not a gimmick. That’s why it was impossible for me to vote for option H.
      Option B: Make F1 more challenging – I don’t think there’s a lack of challenge. The one aspect I wholeheartedly agree with is the re-introduction of punishing run-off areas. I’m sick and tired of watching slomo replays of cars sliding over a white line before a lap time gets scrubbed or a pass penalised. Just put some dirt where the track ends. There’s still room for a tarmac run-off after a couple of metres of dirt. If there’s a dirty, bumpy run-off, drivers can run off the track as much as they like. Someone set a fast time while running through the dirt in Copse? Good for him. Someone performed an overtake around the outside of turn 6 in Hungary, while putting all four wheels off the track (like Grosjean did against Massa in 2013)? Nice job!
      But banning telemetry for performance purpose, thus returning to the stone age of sports? That’s an idea I couldn’t agree less with. Something like that would turn me off instantly. So, no vote for option B.

      I ended up voting options E, F, and J. Accessibility is a growing problem:
      E: F1 is great, but it’s not always very entertaining. Which is fine. But paying a couple hundred bucks just to sit in some undesirable part of the track, and potentially witnessing a rather boring race – that’s just not worth it.
      F: F1 needs to preserve a core of traditional venues! Going to places like Abu Dhabi or Singapore or to other rich dictatorships without any real connection to F1 may have helped attract quite a few new fans, but in the long run, those venues are far from sustainable, and they’ve attracted a fandom that’s extremely quick to turn their backs again once they’ve lost their interest, while many loyal European fans are disgruntled by their lack of (affordable) home races.
      J: Bernie and the likes need to get their heads out of their backsides a.s.a.p. and finally try to create a financially sustainable F1, where prize money allows small teams to survive even if they’re not scoring points on a regular basis. A stable, healthy grid of 24-26 cars, whose owners aren’t financially coerced into hiring another Max Chilton, Marcus Eriksson, or Lance Stroll, and can therefore afford to give talented newcomers a chance. F1 as a whole would profit from such a development.

      1. I don’t know what you mean by ‘I don’t think there’s a lack of challenge’. However it’s definitely less physical demanding. Hamilton and Vettel remarked it even at the start of year and everyone seems to agree with that opinion. The reduction in downforce has made driving F1 car much easier. Just take a low how they are lifting through high-speed T3 at Catalunya. In my mind the driver’s influence is at an all-time low now.

    50. Simple, more go less show. Get back to being the pinnacle of motorsports and the show will follow.

    51. How about a schedule with a 3 week break a race then a 4 week break, it just has me watching any other sport that burns gasoline! I have a remote and I’m not afraid to use it!

    52. I: more equitable revenue distribution will restock the grid.

      H: why create a punitive gimmick (high-deg tires) only to cover it with an assistive one (DRS)?

      E: STREAMING VIDEO! You can even charge for it, and you can watch it wherever you are.

    53. 1st I. Preserve and increase car numbers under current rules
      = J. Preserve and increase car numbers using third cars or customer cars: The most important thing is to keep competitor numbers as high as possible. The revenues should be distributed based solely on performances of the previous season, and 3rd cars should be allowed if a team can afford it, but customer cars should remain banned.
      2nd H. Get rid of the gimmicks: Ban pit stops except for emergencies, provide tyres that can last and be pushed on without losing so much performance, either ban DRS or keep it and relax the rules on when to use it.
      3rd B. Make F1 more challenging for drivers: The cars should be driven by the driver alone and unaided, and circuits should be more challenging.
      4th C. Free up the technical regulations: Allow a limited number of kilometres of circuit testing each year and ban simulator testing.
      5th E. Make F1 more accessible to fans: Provide cheaper tickets and more suitable TV coverage worldwide.
      6th D. Change the race weekend format: Qualifying should be changed back to a single session.
      7th A. Improve F1 car aesthetics: Since 2009 the F1 cars have never really looked right.
      8th F. Protect heritage races: Monaco should pay to be on the calendar or be dropped.
      9th G. Help Mercedes’ rivals catch up: It is supposed to be sport, the rules should not favour anyone nor hinder anyone.

    Comments are closed.