How to Make Formula One Awesome Again...

[Mickdrs]

Limit the budget to 100m

 

[mopro]

F1 is a top of the mountain of car racing, so we need totally free regulation of which car can you build, but funds to build it must be highly limited. Build whatever you want but for something like $4kk, for example. And just a little help from car manufactures. So it could both engineers and drivers.

I think this is very doable concept. Restrict the fund, not technology. It doesn't have to be small fund, the important thing is that every team will have the same amount for entire season. I don't think we should restrict the involvement of car manufacturers though.

 

[dud]

Letting teams go crazy with aerodynamics is a good thing, for the following reasons:

• You need some other technical aspect where you can deploy talent and ideas, other than the engine. Right now the power unit regulations allow dominance by whoever is front with the engine, for years. You want to give teams who employ creative people in the aerodynamics field to make up for engine weakness. Right now you can employ Adrian Newey and it gets you nowhere.
• Aerodynamics are not particularly expensive, anymore. Computer simulations are pretty good now, you can even run them at home. Wind tunnels are much more available today than some decades back, because so many people do so many computer simulations first.
• If you allow suspension with ride height adjustment this becomes even more effective. There is not enough time between seasons to make an aero package that is not only good, but also robust against ride height changes. Even Adrian Newey repeatedly ran into problems of having awesome downforce but instability on some surfaces. This is dangerous, and not necessary.

Of course you limit speed and control a few other parameters by aero size, minimum height, bounding boxes etc.

 

[Enthilzha]

Letting teams go crazy with aerodynamics is a good thing, for the following reasons:

• You need some other technical aspect where you can deploy talent and ideas, other than the engine. Right now the power unit regulations allow dominance by whoever is front with the engine, for years. You want to give teams who employ creative people in the aerodynamics field to make up for engine weakness. Right now you can employ Adrian Newey and it gets you nowhere.
• Aerodynamics are not particularly expensive, anymore. Computer simulations are pretty good now, you can even run them at home. Wind tunnels are much more available today than some decades back, because so many people do so many computer simulations first.
• If you allow suspension with ride height adjustment this becomes even more effective. There is not enough time between seasons to make an aero package that is not only good, but also robust against ride height changes. Even Adrian Newey repeatedly ran into problems of having awesome downforce but instability on some surfaces. This is dangerous, and not necessary.

Of course you limit speed and control a few other parameters by aero size, minimum height, bounding boxes etc.

The main problem is not the increase in performance of the car but the effect the aerodynamics have on the car behind which now cannot possibly overtake without the use of DRS etc.

 

[dud]

The main problem is not the increase in performance of the car but the effect the aerodynamics have on the car behind which now cannot possibly overtake without the use of DRS etc.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

Good aero means limiting drag in addition to creating downforce. Reducing drag is to a large part about avoiding vortexes. The vortexes are what ruins the air for the car behind.

The major threat here is allowing "too much" power so that some teams can afford high drag. This happened at the end of the turbo era where the turbo teams just went all downforcy with cars that were half sailships, and the naturally aspirated teams had to slip through.

 

[Tberg]

Soon we'll all be playing Wipeout in our simrigs.

 

[Monstro]

1986's rules, low downforce, no assistance, V6 twin turbo 1.5 liter 1400 Hp limited to 4 bar (they sound like nothing else ), let those gentlemen fight .
And the entire planet will watch Formula One

 

[formidable]

-Ground effects. Faster cars, because you can decrease the drag, increasing the top speed.

-More aerodynamic freedom. With what will the teams surprise us in the next race?

-Engine freedom. If a team can only afford a V10, instead of a hybrid v6, why not? Different ways, to achieve the same goal. The victory.

-Eliminate the circuit of Sochi, Sahkir and Yas Marina from the calendar. That is, boring circuits.

-Return to the refueling. This, coupled with the freedom of the engines (there would be a maximum displacement, depending on whether it is turbo or NA, as well as cylinders), because it would make very exciting races.

-Wheels that hold and last long enough. Saving in a race, it's boring.

-Remove the limitation of engines per season, as well as freezing to its development.

-Better reward teams with less budget.

 

[NtsParadize]

Drivers have one qualifying lap each only which is on an empty circuit - balance of risk and reward, no room for errors and some different looking grids...

It was already proven unfair due to track rubbering and in case of rain.

 

[Fabrice Bourguignon]

10 disagrees for my post "steel brakes" so look the difference of show between F1 and champcar, indycar or F1 before carbon brakes. It's obvious to me. And I'm not talking about these hybrid engines. Cheers.

 

[Haiden773]

I agree with less down force, FIA standard wings, longer braking distances, and gravel traps. H-shifters not all, though. Engine variety would be nice, but not if it requires refueling.

 

[TheGrunt]

Be more like Indycar... period.

Exactly this. It offered terrific racing before, but this year will be even more stunning. It was simply awesome to watch healthy 24 car grid in St. Pete and how twitchy and difficult the cars were to drive now that 30-40% of that gigantic downforce was removed with the 2018 aerokit. And how relatively easily cars were able to follow each other. One of the best decisions ever made for techical regulations in any series as it also cut costs for the teams and brought new cars to the grid.

Now, currently at least, Indycar is very much a spec series and everything isn't just applicable to prototype series like F1, but F1 could learn a lot from indycar. The problem is that currently F1 is at the same time combating rising costs and yet it is cursed by the idea, that it needs to be 'state of the art' everywhere. This leads to a problem where it is next to impossible to provide level playing field to both gigantic manufacturer teams and small privateers.

F1 would need to return to more simpler approach like Indycar is doing and if not using spec aerokit, then limiting it a lot more lower levels and to return to simpler power powerplants like basic NA or turbocharged engines and perhaps even to steel brakes. But F1 and big teams don't want this, because F1 "needs" to be the top-of-the-crop in every way and big teams, who have a lot to say in the series, want to maintain their edge which larger budgets inevitably will give them.

F1 would need to experience a sharp decline in popularity and a financial disaster resulting from it which again would drive the series to a reboot. I think it is possible, but still unlikely. NASCAR is currently heading that way, albeit for different reasons and Indycar experienced the same with the AOWR civil war and is still just recovering. I really can't see the same happening with F1 at least in the near future because of the reasons which are the true drivers behind the series' ideology (technology and manufacturer teams).

 

[Zuffenhausen Weiss]

Engine - Normally aspirated, no turbo or hybrid / KERS etc. Also I'd have it open to V6, V8, V10 and V12, but limited to no more than X number of each type allowed on the grid each season. So in effect engine manufacturers would have to preference their chosen type pre season, and allocation be distributed out by the governing body. These engines would be basic mechanical engines with emphasis on excessive torque with no electronic throttle control, just a sweet right foot. In my vision due to the relative lack of complexity, this would open the door to customer engines the likes of Cosworth, Hart, Judd and other one man bad type of operations. Increasing variety, increasing supply and enticing variation.

Engines should be restricted by fuel allowance (not to the level where fuel saving applies of course), but enough to make it possible for example to go flat chat in a slower V6 but have to apply caution in a powerful V12. Think (although not a great example I admit) the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix, where thanks to rain Mika Salo brought home his V6 Tyrell in fifth positon due to not requiring a fuel stop, whereas faster V10 and V12 cars had to come into the pits. This sort of thing, where drivers can go for multiple strategies such as running the V12 rich and stopping for fuel 3 times, V10s stopping twice, V8s once and V6 straight to the flag, how exciting would that be?

No turbo? You couldn't go wrong with the 1984-1988 turbo era

Tyres - Open the rules to any manufacturer, but keep the compound hard as a rock. In my opinion tyres are necessary to keep the car off the floor, but shouldn't have any impact in the outcome of a race and shouldn't be a talking point during a Grand Prix weekend. At all. They should last easily for a full race distance, but a "joker" set that are quick but last for a maximum of 10 laps should be available, for those wishing to roll the dice..

Sounds too WWF for my liking. Modern rallycross has this "joker" lap and I don't find it appealing at all plus (see video) did I see joker lap in rallycross before 2000s

Less compounds, less front aero dependence, more competition and Ferrari winning

Edit: For the disagree people who do not share their opinion why they disagree with me, F1 was awesome for me when my favourite team was winning and I'd like it back. I don't see why this would be a controversial opinion. Replace "Ferrari" with your favourite team and you should not have a problem with it.

About the other points... I don't like a gazillion compounds with their asymmetric naming convention and less front aero would mean smaller dirty air effect which would make following another car easier. Competition is always welcome, I want my favourite team to fight and deserve their victory.

I'm going to give you a zero word-one one-video response

Be more like Indycar... period.

If I want to watch spec racing, I go watch Porsche Supercup

 

[dud]

10 disagrees for my post "steel brakes" so look the difference of show between F1 and champcar, indycar or F1 before carbon brakes. It's obvious to me. And I'm not talking about these hybrid engines. Cheers.

I don't think it matters much. While you are screwed if you use up your ceramic brakes on your street Porsche ($20,000 just for disks) those brakes are not that expensive by the standards of even basic-teams' F1 cars.

Ceramic brakes only brake better (have more friction) than iron when they are hot, and I think with strong aero in current open-wheel racing you have a risk of brakes getting very hot. Iron brakes might get hot to the point of failing, or they might get into a state where they need to cool down.

From what I have seen here most of us would like to avoid car states where you have to go slower to preserve a resource such as tires or brakes, as it distracts from exciting full-out driving, and it messes with driver skill making a difference in an uninhibited manner.

 

[dud]

What happened to grooved tires, BTW?

On paper that looked like a great idea. Limit traction, increase brake distance. At the same time stay with almost the same lateral grip, and "improve" spinning car's behavior (comparing straight-driving grip to side-sliding grip the latter is less catastrophically lower than the former when you have grooves).

Did they get rid of them because they couldn't make them robust enough under the power and downforce conditions present?

 

[Glaurung]

I would start banning all radio comunications and real time telemetry data as well.
Then bring back refueling mid race and allow more tyre manufacturers.

 

[jonelsorel]

Variable geometry is a very nice idea.

And Track Bite.

Braking is what modern F1 is all about. You should not remove that by using steel and removing aero.
More downforce generated by the underfloor could be the answer to the aero problem.

Asphalt run off areas can actually add to the racing by exorting the drivers to take gambles in overtakes like in Spain 2017.

Nice. Can you give a motorsport example in which the blue or green line is actually faster than the red? Maybe a clip or two?

Your suggestion desn't even hold water for MotoGP, where multiple lines are possible, yet don't actually aid much. Nevermind high-aero car racing.

One way to make F1 great again, even if just on paper because it goes against its core present politics, is to identify what made it great in the past and what makes other forms of motorsport great. I would say competitiveness should rank among the most important ingredients. First way you do that is by enforcing a realistic budget cap for all the teams. Not 300 million euros. Bring it down to 50. At the moment one single engine costs around 14 million, and you need a few during the year.

Quote:

An IndyCar complete with chassis, engine, transmission, brakes, and tires costs about $3,000,000. A top tier Formula One car can cost as much as 50 times more. Formula One teams never disclose their actual costs, but numbers north of $200,000,000 have been bandied about in the sport for years.
https://gas2.org/2016/05/28/difference-indycar-formula-one-money-lots/

Hand in hand with reducing budgets should be making regulations truly complete and exhaustive for once, and stop leaving holes open for teams to exploit. Maybe FIA should hire a few engineers that can actually think at least as much as a team engineer. These two things can ensure that the range between the least and most powerful engine on the grid and worst and best chassis/aero aren't where they are today, where you can have a gap of 5-8 seconds in qualifying. Seconds. Comparatively, the full indycar grid fit inside 2 seconds at Watkins Glen in 2017.

You want overtaking? No need for retarded push to pass buttons and DRS to bring people to their feet. Arnoux and Villeneuve proved that pretty well, Senna and Mansell too, and there were probably a few others that did in the last 60 years. And cars in their respective seasons surely didn't have the level of aero of a present day f1. Aero always tends to reward the most powerful engine on the grid by allowing that car to run even more downforce, thus making it faster around the track and even more difficult to pass. FIA surely know that. And there's a good reason why ground effect got banned when it did.

 

[Andrew Harper]

Exactly this. It offered terrific racing before, but this year will be even more stunning. It was simply awesome to watch healthy 24 car grid in St. Pete and how twitchy and difficult the cars were to drive now that 30-40% of that gigantic downforce was removed with the 2018 aerokit. And how relatively easily cars were able to follow each other. One of the best decisions ever made for techical regulations in any series as it also cut costs for the teams and brought new cars to the grid.

Now, currently at least, Indycar is very much a spec series and everything isn't just applicable to prototype series like F1, but F1 could learn a lot from indycar. The problem is that currently F1 is at the same time combating rising costs and yet it is cursed by the idea, that it needs to be 'state of the art' everywhere. This leads to a problem where it is next to impossible to provide level playing field to both gigantic manufacturer teams and small privateers.

F1 would need to return to more simpler approach like Indycar is doing and if not using spec aerokit, then limiting it a lot more lower levels and to return to simpler power powerplants like basic NA or turbocharged engines and perhaps even to steel brakes. But F1 and big teams don't want this, because F1 "needs" to be the top-of-the-crop in every way and big teams, who have a lot to say in the series, want to maintain their edge which larger budgets inevitably will give them.

F1 would need to experience a sharp decline in popularity and a financial disaster resulting from it which again would drive the series to a reboot. I think it is possible, but still unlikely. NASCAR is currently heading that way, albeit for different reasons and Indycar experienced the same with the AOWR civil war and is still just recovering. I really can't see the same happening with F1 at least in the near future because of the reasons which are the true drivers behind the series' ideology (technology and manufacturer teams).

Totally agree my friend. IMSA and Indycar have got it so right at the moment. Both St. Pete and Sebring we just brilliant races.

F1 has lost it's way a little. However I think it depends on what you watch and why you watch. If you support a driver you probably wouldn't care about the racing, you just want your driver to do well. If you are a motorsport fan and just want to see lots of good action that's a different requirement.

There are lots of F1 fans who love F1 "for what it is" rather than it offering any action. I have a few friends (both male and female) who love F1 but refuse to watch anything else, simply because it doesn't offer the glamour F1 provides and it isn't F1, etc. As long as Lewis wins, it's the best thing ever, etc.

I think my main goal for F1 would be to simply reduce costs and make it easier for new teams to get in. Maybe reintroduce single car teams and allow teams to run a third car as well if they wish.

From a racing point of view, yes reduce the wing levels of downforce and maybe try and switch more to underfloor aero. Finally Pirelli had the right idea when they first introduced large performance differences between the tyre compounds, get back to that as well. If a driver can strap on a set of tyres and go two seconds a lap faster for a shorter stint then go for it. You need that level of difference to make a pass these days, even with DRS.

F1 is in transition though, the new owners haven't been in charge for long now and apart from the odd bad decision I like the way they are going in trying to get F1 back to the fan-base more.

 

[tlsmikey]

-Simplify and reduce aero (so we actually have passing)
-Eliminate KERS, hybrids, electrics and all the other nonsense

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

I already disagree with the statement that there are no wrong opinions.
There are, that is when people propose changes that go greatly against the core of said sport.

It is not wrong that you have a different idea of an ideal racing series, but the changes you portrayed here have next to nothing to do with Formula 1.
There are some racing series that should have more raw cars, thinking that touring cars have paddle shifts, just why?
But at the same time an old-school approach is frankly wrong to Formula 1. It needs to be high tech, high power and high downforce.

Don't like it? Just drop it already. One big issue with the following of Formula 1 is that a lot of people just don't appreciate what this series is about. They know it because it is the biggest racing series worldwide and therefore feel like they need to follow it and somehow also have the right to complain about everything.