My 6-Point Plan to Make F1 Exciting Again

Following the less-than-impressive Barcelona GP and after reading David Coulthard's latest column for the BBC, I thought I'd set out my ideas to put the spark back into F1...while also saving money and being eco-friendly!

1. Relax Design Restrictions
As we all know the design regs have become increasingly complicated and prescriptive with each successive season. F1 is supposed to be about innovation and creativity and the current regs pretty much strangle all attempts at this. Instead I'd simply have the following rules:

- maximum dimensions for cars (length, width & height)
- aero devices restricted to front & rear wings and barge boards (any other aerodynamic effects to be achieved by shape of bodywork)

2. Relax Engine Restrictions
The only rule would be a maximum capacity, say 3.0 / 3.5 litres. Any cylinder configuration allowed as well as turbo or normally-aspirated engines.

3. Ditch Hybrid Technology
Its hugely complex and expensive and means drivers have to spend time worrying about battery charging and various other things, which detract from their main job of driving the car.

4. Reinstate Refuelling (and remove fuel limits)
Not having cars start the race with full tanks and not having to conserve fuel, would mean they can race at their optimum level of performance from when the lights go out. Also, the fuel of choice would be LPG, which is both cheaper than conventional fuel and produces fewer harmful emissions. Ideally it would be compressed hydrogen, but this obviously has safety issues.

5. Ditch Multiple Tyre Compounds
To me it seems insane that when F1 is trying to save money, they request the manufacturer to make multiple compounds in an effort to make the racing more competitive. It obviously hasn't achieved this, so go back to the days of a single slick, intermediate and wet tyre. Also allow more than one manufacturer, so teams can have a choice (a bit of competition also ought to help tyre technology evolve).

6. Ditch DRS
While its a necessity with things the way they are, more freedom of car and engine design, as well as increased strategy choices with fuel and tyres, should lead to more competitive cars and easier overtaking. As well as making the cars less mechanically complicated, it also places more emphasis on driver skill for overtaking and helps make the spectacle less artificial for fans.


I would still have limits on in-season testing and development, to stop teams spending silly amounts of money.



Would be interested to read your thoughts on what you would do, if you were given the power to change F1...

I know cost cutting is one of the reasons for making changes, but I would do away with the restrictions on number of engines and gearboxes over a year. Cars are too reliable, because they are not running on the knife-edge of max performance v blowing engines - bring back the 1980s turbo era where drivers had the boost button that could be a bit of Russian Roulette: push for more power or hold for a fraction too long to leave bits of your engine all over the track.

Simplified aero and larger tyres, so that there is a balance between the mechanical grip of the tyres and the downforce from the aero - currently too far to the aero side of the balance, which makes it difficult for cars to corner close to one in front and so why the artificial overtaking aids like ERS and DRS were needed. In particular, reduce the reliance on the front wing to prevent understeer.

I'm against the re-introduction of refuelling, as too many races were decided in the pit lane and there was no necessity to overtake on track. Agree though that fuel limits and fuel flow limits are not the stuff of F1.

I quite like the tyre rules in the GP2 feature race - two compounds and you have to run one set of each (other than if affected by punctures etc). Both the GP2 races have been decided by a balance of speed and tyre degradation, with Vandorne winning both but firstly by starting on the harder tyre and charging through the field after a late change, beating a guy who had run the reverse strategy, and second by running well on the hard tyre late on and holding off charging drivers on the softer tyres (who ended up burning them out a lap or two from the end).

Great post dyre wolfe.

Hmm where do I start? Well like you the restrictions on design should go. Let the car designers have a free reign to a far greater degree than they have at the moment. If teams want to go for double deck wings or triple deck then let them. Wing widths as well should be up to the designer (within reason) and allow say a maximum of four aerodynamic parts on the car wherever they want to put them.

The engines, like you drye wolfe, I'd have as wide an option as possible and leave that up to individual teams and I'd also agree on the tyre side of things to a point. Bring in more tyre manufacturers as this adds more performance variations. I would NOT want refuelling introduced though for the same reasons dummy_half says.

Perhaps to encourage new engine manufacturers to join F1 have an engine constructors title up for grabs as well. Also I'd limit a lot of the in-car gadgetry as well.

Thanks for the contributions guys...some good points there.

Particularly like the idea of limiting the amount of things the driver can adjust in-car. I think engine modes and various other things should be set-up pre-race then thats it and changes can only be made when the car is in the garage. Again it frees the driver's concentration for the race.

The reason I'd bring refuelling back is purely so the cars don't start races heavy with fuel, which slows them down and increases tyre wear early on.

TBH I don't think it has as much of an impact on races as some people think. We still have pit stops for tyres in any case, which can decide the outcome of races, or avoid overtaking on track...so why not have slightly longer stops where cars can take on fuel too?

dyrewolfe wrote:

The reason I'd bring refuelling back is purely so the cars don't start races heavy with fuel, which slows them down and increases tyre wear early on.

TBH I don't think it has as much of an impact on races as some people think. We still have pit stops for tyres in any case, which can decide the outcome of races, or avoid overtaking on track...so why not have slightly longer stops where cars can take on fuel too?

I can recall at least two occasions as well in the refuelling days when fires occurred due to faults with equipment and other times when fuel hose was still n when the car drove off. Faults with the refuelling hoses as well resulted in elongated pit stops harming somes races.

Two other options:
A return to steel brake discs, to lengthen braking areas and increase the chance of mistakes
A return to manual gear shifts - increases the requirement on the driver and again another possibility of mistakes.

OK, both are technologically backward steps, but would place more emphasis on the driving of the cars and less on the engineering.

Overall, I would want the cars to be faster on the straights but slower in the corners, so bigger engines and grippier tyres but less aero overall. Like Craig's suggestion of allowing a specified number of aero parts but it being up to the designer how to use these (within reason - no fan cars for example)

To be honest, these discussions always miss the main issue for me.

F1 is boring because its been a single team competition for the best part of a decade now. Its not going to be anymore exciting without DRS or Pirelli tyres if one team flies off into the distance again.

The only way you'll ever likely achieve that is a budget cap. Which the main players will never go with.

You can wish all these exciting things & getting budget caps, however the reality will be vastly different, no doubt. We will probabaly get a new cheaper, louder engine regulation for 2017, however it's being reported that from yesterday's F1 strategy group meeting, the main agenda was of introducing or contemplating going with customer cars. All these meetings are labelled 'agenda to fix the sport this & that', when in reality, it's a meeting between Bernie & the top six teams, talking about how to increase their own positions of power within the sport & ridding the sport of the small constructors.

^ This is the majority of sports nowadays in a nutshell. Uncompetitive bore fests. In order to make it competitive again you need to rid the sport of one thing - greed.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

The reason I'd bring refuelling back is purely so the cars don't start races heavy with fuel, which slows them down and increases tyre wear early on.

TBH I don't think it has as much of an impact on races as some people think. We still have pit stops for tyres in any case, which can decide the outcome of races, or avoid overtaking on track...so why not have slightly longer stops where cars can take on fuel too?

I can recall at least two occasions as well in the refuelling days when fires occurred due to faults with equipment and other times when fuel hose was still n when the car drove off. Faults with the refuelling hoses as well resulted in elongated pit stops harming somes races.

Me too, but as far as I can recall, no-one was seriously injured in the fires.

Plus faults with wheel nuts & guns have resulted in 20-second pit stops (instead of 2-3 secs) and even retirements after the car has left the pits and a loose wheel has come off. And I'm sure Alonso's and Grosjean's front jack men will testify that tyre stops are not risk-free...

liverbnz wrote:
This is the majority of sports nowadays in a nutshell. Uncompetitive bore fests. In order to make it competitive again you need to rid the sport of one thing - greed.

Totally agree with this too. Somehow the power monopoly(?) of the top teams has to be broken so that its a level playing field for everyone. Once again I would include fairer distribution of prize money in this.

You can complain about unfair distribution of payment, that's what Bob Fernley was probably asking for yesterday & being totally ignored. The top teams are not stupid, they know their value & as Bernie states, the contracts are set in stone until something like 2020.

I do find it quite funny how Red Bull are sitting at these agenda meetings & discussing the future of the very sport, they are currently threatening to quit.

Apparently, re-fuelling is coming back in 2017

I think for practical purposes, very few contracts are ever "set in stone". You can bet the ones in F1 are full of various clauses.

I bet if Bernie wanted to offer the top teams even more money, before 2020, they wouldn't complain about a re-write.

Okay so the top teams know their value to the sport, but I bet if it came to a game of chicken, they would blink first. Somebody just needs to stand up to them.

We've already had Ferrari and Renault threatening to quit over engines and other issues. I think we are perhaps underestimating the value of F1 to them. As much as the sport needs them, they also gain a hell of a lot of prestige from being associated with it (and money).

I think this is perhaps the one thing I would back Bernie on...and he is the only person I can think of who could do this.


Happy to hear re-fuelling is to be brought back, but on its own its not going to change anything...not by a long shot. It should at least prevent the opening stints of races being a boring fuel burning / conservation exercise.

FIA Statement

The Strategy Group members have debated a number of levers aimed at improving the show. An initial series of measures has been voted:
For 2016:
- Free choice of the two dry tyre compounds (out of four) that each team can use during the race weekend

For 2017:
- Faster cars: 5 to 6 seconds drop in laptimes through aerodynamic rules evolution, wider tyres and reduction of car weight
- Reintroduction of refuelling (maintaining a maximum race fuel allowance)
- Higher revving engines and increased noise
- More aggressive looks

A few other measures have also been discussed but require further investigation before they can be implemented:
- A global reflection on race weekend format
- Measures to make starts only activated by the driver without any outside assistance

Furthermore, in light of the various scenarios presented by the independent consulting company mandated by the F1 Strategy Group, at the initiative of the FIA, to work on the reduction of costs and following a constructive exchange, a comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged. The Strategy Group member Teams have committed to refine it in the next few weeks, in consultation with the other teams involved in the championship.

On the engine side, it has been decided that stability of the rules should prevail in consideration of the investments of the manufacturers involved in the sport and to give visibility to potential new entrants. The allowance for a 5th engine to be used during the 2015 season has been rejected.

This constructive meeting between the FIA, FOM and the Teams has allowed paving the way for the future of the championship. All parties agreed to work together with an intention to firm up these proposals and submit them to the approval of the F1 Commission and the World Motor Sport Council of the FIA as soon as possible for implementation.

Refuelling will have no real effect on improving the racing spectacle, we've had that era before & many of the races were processional, hence the change in the first place. Why do these meetings skirt around the actual problematic issues & not directly sort them out. Was re-fuelling drastically required or wanted? No. Does this alter the aero packages, that create the dirty/turbulent air, that minimise overtaking? No.

I'll be interested to see how "more aggressive looks" will improve the racing.

Honestly, for the most part, these new rules aren't going to change anything. They're a sticking plaster for a gaping wound.

Okay, so the cars will be faster and noisier, but nothing is being done to address the most fundamental problems, (huge performance gaps between the teams, leading to lack of true competition, exacerbated by unfairly weighted financial rewards and stifling of innovation in design), because its not in the best interests of the big teams or CVC.

It would seem that refuelling will not now be returning to F1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32857685

I personally am glad as it never changed the overtaking dynamics. All teams used to do was change tyres and fill up with fuel so the stops were just slightly longer but the same for everyone. Apparently, all of the teams were against bringing back refuelling.

Refuelling is needed for the future of this sport. Faster lap times in lighter cars is a necessity. If we go any slower then GP2 cars will be faster than the Premier formula. (If they're not already).

But if they bring back the stupid rule where you have to run the car in Q3 with the same amount of fuel you are to start the race with, then I swear I'm going to punch my wife in the face.

Q3 = track record obliteration.

The future of the sport is about changing engine & aero packages, to improve the sport visually on track, in terms of racing & in a audio sense. Refuelling completely goes against current F1 values of taking the sport into a greener future & improving technology, which as the pinnacle of F1, it needs to showcase. The regulations are also about cutting costs, refuelling does the opposite & so bringing refuelling back, sends out the complete wrong message. Refuelling also brings about concerns over safety, one of the reasons it was removed in the first place. Also, refuelling doesn't single handidly improve wheel to wheel racing, as agreed by many people who witnessed it previously.

So the future lies in under fueling cars and continuing the economy run?

The multiple leaders of F1 don't know what values or path they want to take. Bernie wants to bring back the engines of old for crying out loud.

The only thing F1 needs to show case is fast, exciting racing. Saving the polar bears isn't really F1s problem considering the size of its carbon foot print as it travels around the world.

John wrote:The future of the sport is about changing engine & aero packages, to improve the sport visually on track, in terms of racing & in a audio sense. Refuelling completely goes against current F1 values of taking the sport into a greener future & improving technology, which as the pinnacle of F1, it needs to showcase. The regulations are also about cutting costs, refuelling does the opposite & so bringing refuelling back, sends out the complete wrong message. Refuelling also brings about concerns over safety, one of the reasons it was removed in the first place. Also, refuelling doesn't single handidly improve wheel to wheel racing, as agreed by many people who witnessed it previously.

Generally agree with you, but re-fuelling allows cars to perform optimally from the start of the race and allows teams a greater range of race strategies.

Also, as David Coulthard pointed out, teams ship their massive mobile hospitality centres around the world, which are way bigger, heavier and more expensive than refuelling rigs...so that blows the economic viability argument out of the water.

Its just another example of F1 looking to cut costs in all the wrong places.

Also, if they were serious about being greener, they would use engines designed to run on LPG, or maybe even think seriously bout adopting hydrogen fuel cells, as they've started to do at Le Mans.

Roberto Baggio wrote:The only thing F1 needs to show case is fast, exciting racing. Saving the polar bears isn't really F1s problem considering the size of its carbon foot print as it travels around the world.

As the pinnacle of Motorsport & with it's global audience, it is the sport's problem & had to fall in line with the global demand & pressure to become greener, like everyone else. Back in 2013, McLaren became the first motor sport organisation in the world to receive the FIA Institute’s environmental award for the achievement of excellence. As part of the FIA’s determination under current president Jean Todt for the sport to become greener and reduce its environmental impact, the governing body has introduced the award as part of a wide-ranging initiative.

You can't suddenly abandon the global issue of becoming more environmentally friendly & greener. This new era was agreed & the regulations showcase a desire to become more efficient, reduce costs & strive towards greener racing & innovative technologies, that will in turn, become essential in everyday road cars. Bringing back re-fuelling is a massive contradiction to those guidelines & is not a direct guarantee to improving the racing.

F1 is not about full throttle racing, it never has been. Tyre, fuel & general management of the car has always been a integral part of F1, enhanced nowadays, with the need to stay in touch with global issues as protecting the environment & cutting costs.

The stupid thing is F1 was 'green' before it was so popular: since 1997 the FIA has bought carbon offsets for both the racing itself and the transport to the track of personnel & equipment for F1 (and the same for WRC since 2001). They just don't shout about it!

pob wrote:The stupid thing is F1 was 'green' before it was so popular: since 1997 the FIA has bought carbon offsets for both the racing itself and the transport to the track of personnel & equipment for F1 (and the same for WRC since 2001). They just don't shout about it!

FYI buying carbon offsets isn't actually being eco-friendly...all you're doing is shifting the burden elsewhere. Its just a licence to pollute because someone somewhere else isn't.

LiamB wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:The only thing F1 needs to show case is fast, exciting racing. Saving the polar bears isn't really F1s problem considering the size of its carbon foot print as it travels around the world.

As the pinnacle of Motorsport & with it's global audience, it is the sport's problem & had to fall in line with the global demand & pressure to become greener, like everyone else. Back in 2013, McLaren became the first motor sport organisation in the world to receive the FIA Institute’s environmental award for the achievement of excellence. As part of the FIA’s determination under current president Jean Todt for the sport to become greener and reduce its environmental impact, the governing body has introduced the award as part of a wide-ranging initiative.

You can't suddenly abandon the global issue of becoming more environmentally friendly & greener. This new era was agreed & the regulations showcase a desire to become more efficient, reduce costs & strive towards greener racing & innovative technologies, that will in turn, become essential in everyday road cars. Bringing back re-fuelling is a massive contradiction to those guidelines & is not a direct guarantee to improving the racing.

F1 is not about full throttle racing, it never has been. Tyre, fuel & general management of the car has always been a integral part of F1, enhanced nowadays, with the need to stay in touch with global issues as protecting the environment & cutting costs.

True, but its gone too far in that direction and now races are dominated by fuel and tyre conservation, to the point that the racing is almost secondary.

Cars start races laden with fuel and can't race flat-out without trashing their tyres (and ruining their race strategies) and how often have we heard drivers told to use fuel-saving modes later in the race, so they have enough left for post-race scrutineering?

F1 has become too much of an engineering and conservation excercise and some drastic measures are needed to bring the excitement back...as the generally declining global audiences attest to.

The sport could still save money, help save the environment AND be a lot more exciting, if everyone just stopped thinking only about themselves for a moment and tried seeing the bigger picture.

------------
EDIT:
While I've been typing this, I've just thought of another way F1 could be more environmentally conscious.

Instead of the current ridiculous calendar which requires the teams to criss-cross the globe multiple times, why not simply hold the races so that they generally travel east to west as the season progresses.

Keep Australia as the first race, but then have China and Singapore, followed by Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, then Russia, followed by the European races, with Canada, the USA, Mexico and Brazil?

From a travel and carbon footprint point of view, surely that has to make far more sense?

dyre

I think your points have some merit, and the issue of rapidly deteriorating tyres early in races is particularly significant. Push too hard and the tyres can be gone in 5 laps, which is ridiculous (and totally goes against the 'green' credentials that the fuel limits and hybrid engines are supposed to be about).

A question though - do fans want to see the cars going as fast as it is possible to design them, or do they want to see good racing?

Refuelling will get us closer to the first, but far from guarantees the second - indeed during the refuelling era there was a tendency to just rely on fuel strategy to get you past the car in front rather than looking to pass on the track.

Agree dummy.

Re-fuelling on its own won't solve everything - not by a long shot. But it would hopefully make for better racing at the start. It also gives teams greater strategy options.

As for the off-track overtaking thing, I think you could also say the same of tyre stops...more so, in fact, as teams can switch between harder (slower) and softer (faster) tyres, whereas taking on fuel actually makes cars a bit slower.

But yeah, overall a hell of a lot more needs to change.



Also couldn't agree more about the tyre situation. F1 is supposedly trying to save money and be more environmentally-friendly...so what do they do? Introduce multiple tyre compounds, the softest of which only lasts a dozen laps or so, depending on track conditions! You couldn't make it up!

Great article dyrewolfe.

Common sense, good ideas.
Just a random point. I really miss the old engine noise.

How about 4 cars per team?

Wellington wrote:Great article dyrewolfe.

Common sense, good ideas.
Just a random point. I really miss the old engine noise.

How about 4 cars per team?

Well you'd probably get a whole range of engine noises, if teams had the freedom to use whatever engine they liked (with a fixed capacity, of course). Different rev ranges, turbos or non-turbo etc.

4 cars per team would make the track too congested (and imagine the traffic snarl-ups during quali) unless there was a maximum of 6 teams.

Doubt the teams would fancy the cost of building 4 cars or paying 4 drivers either...even if they could find additional sponsorship.