Grand Prix Rejects

Ban kerbs.

Adrian Sutil wrote:So no KERS?

No, kerbs, kerbs, as in the side of the circuit.

If the FIA is determined to have acres of run-off at circuits, let's at least have it made of the stuff they have at Paul Ricard so that cars are penalised for leaving the circuit.

I'd scrap qualifying altogether and make the grids go in reverse championship order. Minnows get a chance to shine, big guns have to fight through the pack.
Why put the fastest men at the front then complain when nobody overtakes!?!

I'd also include yearly driver drafts rather than long term contracts with drivers picked in such away that the team that gets first pick gets last pick for the 2nd driver.
Of course, drivers can set their own wage so the likes of Alonso and Vettel wouldn't be picked by the slowest teams, but then they would risk not getting chosen at all.

But most of all, I would cut the cancer that is CVC out entirely and makes sure the money actually goes to the teams. (Though this isn't really a rule change.)

I suppose that the additional question would be what existing rules would be retained alongside the ones that are being thrown about.

Personally, for what it is worth, I feel that the FIA's compromise to slightly relax the rules on mid season testing - replacing the straight line tests and photoshoots with two day test sessions following on the back of a race - is probably the best compromise that could be organised in the situation. Perhaps the minor tweak that could be made to those tests would be to, in some way, encourage teams to use test drivers - therefore making the position relevant again and giving drivers a chance to work their way from a testing role into a frontline seat - by, perhaps, providing them with a separate engine allocation for the test driver, but any testing with a race driver would have to be done with the engines allocated to them for the races.

Wallio wrote:
I say:

Lower the Minimum Weight by 50 Kilos:

Stop trolling Nico Hulkenberg

More gravel and/or less run-off areas. Punish mistakes more.

Only one change needed, contact nintendo to make a real life working Blue turtle shell.

What I would change about F1:

-Introduce a workable budget cap The F1 world has seen before, that unfettered spending has only a limited sustainability, and it is becoming clearer than ever by the precarious financial position of most of the teams that a budget cap needs to be introduced. Somewhere around $100 million-150 million USD could be an amount that would be attainable for all involved, whilst not stifling innovation.
-Scrap the FIA's pay-per-points scheme I understand that the FIA needs to generate revenue to stay solvent as a sporting organisation. But this is not the way to do it. A smarter way to do that in my view, is to have a yearly competition fee, that would be 1/100th of a teams budget. So for example, if the budget cap were implemented at $150 million, teams like Red Bull and Ferrari would raise that easily, and therefore pay $1.5 million. Smaller teams like Force India and Sauber, might only be able to raise $100 million for example. So they would end up paying 1 million. And a really small team, for example HRT(if they were still around), who allegedly had a budget of only around 38 million would only pay $380,000. The big teams would pay more, the small teams pay less, but everyone pays the same proportion, the FIA generates revenue, so theoretically nobody should be hurt. While you could argue "Teams that don't score don't pay now, why should they be made to pay under your idea? Wouldn't that hurt them?" Fair point, but that leads me to my next point. A portion of the total funds would be put into an in season testing fund, where the FIA uses that money to hold 2-3 inseason tests and 1 Young Driver Test. That way, everyone benefits from the money, and it wouldn't drive up costs. Though this point may be flawed, because I have no idea how much a test costs to run in total(track, marshals, travel, petrol, tyres, etc.) and perhaps the fund would be exhausted in only one test. Though on another tangent, revenue could be generated by opening to spectators on test days.
-Introduce a rotating venue schedule where possible This may seem like blasphemy to some, but the reality of venue owners also being in precarious financial positions, is all too evident. It could also do well to spice up the show, because it would introduce less year-to-year predictability, and data collected two or three years ago for an event is far less useful than a year before, because the cars would be developed in a much different direction than the year before probably.

Anyway my ideas for the venues:

Australia: Year 1-Albert Park, Year 2-Adelaide, Year 3- Surfer's Paradise. I would say Mount Panorama, but making that circuit safe for a GP would ruin it.
Malaysia: no known suitable circuit to rotate with Sepang
Bahrain: rotate with Abu Dhabi and possibly Qatar, call it the Persian GP or something like that
China: Year 1- Shanghai, Year 2- street circuit in Hong Kong or Beijing(not the A1GP one!)
Spain: Year 1- Catalunya, Year-2 Circuit Ricardo Tormo, Year 3- Jerez..
Monaco: no rotation, pretty self-evident why.
Canada: Year 1- Gilles Villeneuve, Year 2- Mosport
Great Britain: no venue currently suitable to rotate with revamped Silverstone. Though Brands GP would be cool, probably wouldn't happen because of pit space, noise restrictions.
Germany: no suitable venue to rotate with due to the Nürburgring's financial woes.
Hungary: No suitable venue to rotate with known.
Belgium: no rotation.
Italy: Year 1- Monza, Year 2- Imola. May seem like blasphemy because Monza is the last of the proper high speed, low downforce circuits.
Singapore: no rotation, maybe just year to year reconfiguration of portions of the circuit?
Japan: Year 1- Suzuka, Year 2- Twin Ring Motegi full road course.
US: Year 1- Austin, Year 2- Indy, Year 3- Road America
Brazil; Year 1- Interlagos, Year 2- Sao Paulo street Circuit, Year 3- Jacarapagua.

Scrap tyre manipulation We all have seen what happens when the tyre manufacturer is ordered to create excitement.
Scrap DRS it was a cool gimmick for a season, but the novelty has worn off.
Introduce a standardised diffuser that could be a potential solution to the overtaking problem, plus it would cut costs because teams wouldn't be spending millions of dollars developing it just to get a few tenths of a second.
Create an Elite Panel of Race Stewards and introduce a standard of consistent rules application. Like cricket's Elite Panel of Umpires, only the very best would be selected to it, two would be at every GP, etc. Hopefully this would also lead to the elimination of draconian penalties as well.
Create a higher standard level of marshalling Some of the marshalling seen this year and in years recent has been quite shocking. Introduction of a higher standard would make racing and marshalling much safer and would benefit motorsport at large, not just F1.

tzerof1 wrote:Year 3- Jacarapagua.

I'm afraid that wouldn't be possible even if the FIA wanted to. The circuit's being torn up to make way for the Olympic Village for 2016...

tommykl wrote:

tzerof1 wrote:Year 3- Jacarapagua.

I'm afraid that wouldn't be possible even if the FIA wanted to. The circuit's being torn up to make way for the Olympic Village for 2016...

That's incredibly lame. I guess that is what is called progress, though.

tzerof1 wrote:-Introduce a rotating venue schedule where possible This may seem like blasphemy to some, but the reality of venue owners also being in precarious financial positions, is all too evident. It could also do well to spice up the show, because it would introduce less year-to-year predictability, and data collected two or three years ago for an event is far less useful than a year before, because the cars would be developed in a much different direction than the year before probably.

I agree that a rotating venue schedule would be interesting, especially considering the financial implications of organising and hosting a race. It could work basically the same way that Germany (and other countries) alternated between Nurburgring and Hockenheim, but the reality is that it could end up like the rotating rally fiasco of the World Rally Championship between 1994 and 1996, which did incalculable damage to the sport and was considered a gigantic blunder.

Faustus wrote:

tzerof1 wrote:-Introduce a rotating venue schedule where possible This may seem like blasphemy to some, but the reality of venue owners also being in precarious financial positions, is all too evident. It could also do well to spice up the show, because it would introduce less year-to-year predictability, and data collected two or three years ago for an event is far less useful than a year before, because the cars would be developed in a much different direction than the year before probably.

I agree that a rotating venue schedule would be interesting, especially considering the financial implications of organising and hosting a race. It could work basically the same way that Germany (and other countries) alternated between Nurburgring and Hockenheim, but the reality is that it could end up like the rotating rally fiasco of the World Rally Championship between 1994 and 1996, which did incalculable damage to the sport and was considered a gigantic blunder.

There have been some circuit owners who have indicated that they would prefer to hold the race on an alternating basis - Spa Francorchamps was in talks with the owners of the Nurburgring before they hit financial trouble, and the owners of Hockenheim have indicated that they would like to continue alternating their race if possible. There was a suggestion that Valencia and Barcelona should hold the Spanish GP in alternate seasons, although Valencia's problems appear to have put paid to that idea, and there was a suggestion that, if the French GP were to be revived, that it might alternate with Spa.
As you say, it is a situation that could be potentially beneficial for the track owners as a way of stemming their losses from holding a GP, but at the same time I agree that it could go awry if badly handled.

I do agree with the suggestion that some other posters have made for a permanent panel of stewards to be elected - although there inevitably will be decisions made by them that are not to the liking of the public, having the same figures from week to week might at least reduce some of the variation in interpretation of the regulations that is so frustrating.

The other thing that I would like to see is actually a case of seeing an existing regulation enforced consistently rather than a new one, and that is the topic of drivers abusing the limits of the track. Whilst the use of large tarmac run off areas is a contentious issue, it would at least be less of an issue if the drivers were not abusing them in the way that, for example, they were abusing the track limits in the Indian GP. It is very frustrating that the FIA's own regulations clearly define what the limits of the track are and state that a driver should not deviate from the track unless it is for a legitimate reason (e.g in order to retire a car or to avoid a collision) and definitely not to gain an advantage - only for the FIA to then excuse the behaviour we saw in the Indian GP by claiming that it wasn't giving drivers an advantage.
As Eddie Jordan pointed out in that race, the drivers wouldn't be doing that unless they believed that they could benefit from it - and even if there was no benefit, the principle that the track limits should be obeyed should still be the overriding objective.

mario wrote:The other thing that I would like to see is actually a case of seeing an existing regulation enforced consistently rather than a new one, and that is the topic of drivers abusing the limits of the track. Whilst the use of large tarmac run off areas is a contentious issue, it would at least be less of an issue if the drivers were not abusing them in the way that, for example, they were abusing the track limits in the Indian GP. It is very frustrating that the FIA's own regulations clearly define what the limits of the track are and state that a driver should not deviate from the track unless it is for a legitimate reason (e.g in order to retire a car or to avoid a collision) and definitely not to gain an advantage - only for the FIA to then excuse the behaviour we saw in the Indian GP by claiming that it wasn't giving drivers an advantage.
As Eddie Jordan pointed out in that race, the drivers wouldn't be doing that unless they believed that they could benefit from it - and even if there was no benefit, the principle that the track limits should be obeyed should still be the overriding objective.

This. I fully understand and agree to this. This is a perfect explanation to how the FIA is inconsistent and how the track limits are a pressuring issue on the sport in terms of action off track. One thing I'd like to see is a definate outline as to where the track limits are, that way drivers won't use the areas off the road to boost themselves off a corner.

With this issue, I remember reading that drivers are allowed to use kerbs, but they are not "part of the track." I look at the kerbs F1 uses, and I see that most of them are the same width or wider than an F1 car itself. If drivers are allowed to use kerbs despite them not being part of the track, then that means the drivers can launch themselves across the kerbs being as flat as they are, and they can get away with not being within the track perimeter. The kerb at turn 8 at Interlagos is about 1 1/2 average F1 cars wide, and drivers constantly use all of the kerb there to get through the corner. What is that? That's not an official safe zone?! That's rough stuff and grass! Why do they get away with that?

So, maybe another thing I'd like to see is the removal of kerbs alltogether, and then remove the asphalt runoff back about 4-6 meters so drivers can't use anything to get an unfair advantage. This would be much better.

MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:
By the way, I'll say this right now. I think a pink F1 car would be cool.

I present...

Just wanted to add this article to some relevant debate on the forum...

Ban traffic light systems in the pits - I think these things are really dangerous and have created too many near misses as teams go for sub 2 second stops. Instead teams should have a standardised lollipop based on the late 1990's/early 2000's Ferrari with a huge mirror on the reverse so the driver can clearly see the pit lane before being released

Make double points a one-off driver gamble - Instead of the last race being double points in a totally arbitrary way, have it so drivers have between race 2 and race 17 to use this at a grand prix of their choice, that they must nominate at least one race prior to it being utilised. It would add that extra variable, drivers in lesser teams who may sneak points due to reliability may go early, while a leader being chased down may want this extra ace to use as a potentially title-winning mind game. It also means it can go wrong, imagine someone playing it and doing a Jenson Button in 2012 at Montreal? Could be really quite brilliant.

Reverse layout for two grand prix at random each year - Yup, have it so the circuits have to be configured so they go in reverse, tracks chosen are given subsidies by the FIA and Teams. Imagine getting drivers to go downhill through Eau rouge? Through casino square and downhill into St Devote? Uphill through the Senna esses and round downhill towards Juncao? Even Abu Dhabi with the underground pit entry could be made interesting!

sswishbone wrote:Ban traffic light systems in the pits - I think these things are really dangerous and have created too many near misses as teams go for sub 2 second stops. Instead teams should have a standardised lollipop based on the late 1990's/early 2000's Ferrari with a huge mirror on the reverse so the driver can clearly see the pit lane before being released

... why not just add a mirror to the traffic light system, and have the traffic lights automated by the FIA? Going back to the lollipop system just means there's one more person there to potentially screw up and cause a dangerous incident.

sswishbone wrote:Make double points a one-off driver gamble - Instead of the last race being double points in a totally arbitrary way, have it so drivers have between race 2 and race 17 to use this at a grand prix of their choice, that they must nominate at least one race prior to it being utilised. It would add that extra variable, drivers in lesser teams who may sneak points due to reliability may go early, while a leader being chased down may want this extra ace to use as a potentially title-winning mind game. It also means it can go wrong, imagine someone playing it and doing a Jenson Button in 2012 at Montreal? Could be really quite brilliant.

Basically, a "joker" option? Kinda like the Predicament Predictions have.

Exactly like Predicament predictions!

And yeah a mirror to traffic lights would be pointless all they'd do is pay attention to the lights, a stickman may mean an extra body but it gives us back control

Ideas rolling around in my head (apologies for the length of this post) - obviously some may not be workable, some may even conflict with each other in some way, but here goes:

Entries:

-No limit on number of teams, with the pre-qualifying system of 1988-1992 to be used if ever necessary.
-Abolish permanent driver numbers replaced with semi-permanent team numbers. Initially based on constructors championship order from previous year, then going forward based on the 1974-1995 system of swapping numbers to give the champion #1 where required.
-Single car teams permitted.
-Teams must be constructors (i.e. no full-blown customer cars), but I'd look at relaxing the list of parts a team must build/own the IP themselves to be classified as a constructor (without enforcing standard parts, rather allowing them) but things like the actual tub and bodywork must still either be built or outsourced from a unique supplier.

Financial:

-Increase teams' share of FOM income.
-Split team money evenly across x number of teams (where 'x' is a number such as 10 or 13, but the entry list is not capped here, new teams outside this have to race their way into the even money split). Teams finishing outside this get less income.
-If the number of teams entered is less than 'x', rather than increasing the slice of the pie between the remaining teams, the spare money goes into a pot that will be used to financially assist any future team(s) that may enter.

Engines:

-Keep ERS, but make its use unlimited (i.e. the car can deploy as much as it can harvest, none of this x seconds per lap rubbish)
-Keep fuel flow limits, but don't specify capacity, cylinders, layout (similar to WEC rules)
-Engine freeze abolished. Look into implementing some system whereby smaller teams can be supplied with older spec engines with a strict (and relatively low) cost cap (this might require some form of homologation for the older units)

Tyres:

-Multiple tyre manufacturers allowed.
-Free choice of compounds throughout weekend, allow cars to run on mixed compounds at each corner of the car if they wish.
-Abolish rule around starting on the set you qualified on.
-Abolish rule around using two different types of tyre during the race.

Circuits:

-Stole this idea from Luca Filippi during GP2 commentary - where pure asphalt runoff exists, place a strip of a few metres of grass immediately at the circuit edge, with the asphalt kept between this strip and the barrier.

Race Weekend:

-Get rid of grid penalties. Anything requiring a penalty to be served in the race, whether it stop-go, drive-through, or 5/10 seconds added to first pitstop. (I would have been in favour of qualifying time penalties, e.g. 0.5, 1, 2 seconds added to time, but 3-part qualifying kind of messes with that)
-Once two laps have been completed - then in the event of either a safety car or race stoppage/restart, it becomes a two part race with aggregate timing re-introduced. I'd also monitor the WEC's FCY system and see if that could be implemented (although I understand there'd be instances where you want the cars not only slowed down but bunched up to give the marshals plenty of time of clear track).

Misc:

-DRS either abolished, or freed up to be used by any car at any point of the circuit (i.e. as a pure performance aid rather than overtaking aid).
-Double points to be consigned to the rubbish bin of history.
-Anyone heard uttering the phrase "spice up the show" in anything other than a derogatory sense to be chemically castrated.

sswishbone wrote:And yeah a mirror to traffic lights would be pointless all they'd do is pay attention to the lights, a stickman may mean an extra body but it gives us back control

Thanks for ignoring my other suggestion, of having the lights be automated by the FIA, which would do far more to prevent dodgy pit releases than anything else.

Make tyre changes and refuelling completely optional, allowing for a whole range of different strategies. There could be drivers who may be able to go the whole race without making a pitstop.

FullMetalJack wrote:Make tyre changes and refuelling completely optional, allowing for a whole range of different strategies. There could be drivers who may be able to go the whole race without making a pitstop.

This.
Without it, we wouldn't have an Onyx podium!

Salamander wrote:

sswishbone wrote:And yeah a mirror to traffic lights would be pointless all they'd do is pay attention to the lights, a stickman may mean an extra body but it gives us back control

Thanks for ignoring my other suggestion, of having the lights be automated by the FIA, which would do far more to prevent dodgy pit releases than anything else.

The issue with having the lights controlled by the FIA is that it would probably necessitate remote monitoring of the pit stop - whilst some older circuits might allow for monitoring from the pit wall (if there are places for a marshal to stand or sit), at some circuits (such as the newly revamped Silverstone) there is a sizeable gap between the pit box itself and the pit wall.

The other question is what would happen in a situation where you have multiple drivers pitting simultaneously - for example, during a safety car period or if it suddenly rains heavily. It's worth noting that, in a number of those situations, the teams tend to switch to manual control of the lights, which does sometimes increase the chances of errors creeping in, so you would need a fairly robust system to prevent the nominated official from releasing a car prematurely. It also raises an interesting question - what would happen if the FIA official got it wrong and released a car at the wrong time?

mario wrote:

Salamander wrote:

sswishbone wrote:And yeah a mirror to traffic lights would be pointless all they'd do is pay attention to the lights, a stickman may mean an extra body but it gives us back control

Thanks for ignoring my other suggestion, of having the lights be automated by the FIA, which would do far more to prevent dodgy pit releases than anything else.

The issue with having the lights controlled by the FIA is that it would probably necessitate remote monitoring of the pit stop - whilst some older circuits might allow for monitoring from the pit wall (if there are places for a marshal to stand or sit), at some circuits (such as the newly revamped Silverstone) there is a sizeable gap between the pit box itself and the pit wall.

The other question is what would happen in a situation where you have multiple drivers pitting simultaneously - for example, during a safety car period or if it suddenly rains heavily. It's worth noting that, in a number of those situations, the teams tend to switch to manual control of the lights, which does sometimes increase the chances of errors creeping in, so you would need a fairly robust system to prevent the nominated official from releasing a car prematurely. It also raises an interesting question - what would happen if the FIA official got it wrong and released a car at the wrong time?

Well, the FIA know the positions of all the cars - it should be a relatively simple matter to implement a system where the team signal that they have completed their stop, and this system checks the pitlane behind to make sure that there is enough of a gap to safely release the car before doing so.

Refuelling was never mandatory between 1994 and 2009. All teams did it because it was generally much faster to go through the race with fuel stop. Two drivers made the race without stopping, but both were shortened races (one with two-hour rule, one with red flag)

mario wrote:

Salamander wrote:

sswishbone wrote:And yeah a mirror to traffic lights would be pointless all they'd do is pay attention to the lights, a stickman may mean an extra body but it gives us back control

Thanks for ignoring my other suggestion, of having the lights be automated by the FIA, which would do far more to prevent dodgy pit releases than anything else.

The issue with having the lights controlled by the FIA is that it would probably necessitate remote monitoring of the pit stop - whilst some older circuits might allow for monitoring from the pit wall (if there are places for a marshal to stand or sit), at some circuits (such as the newly revamped Silverstone) there is a sizeable gap between the pit box itself and the pit wall.

The other question is what would happen in a situation where you have multiple drivers pitting simultaneously - for example, during a safety car period or if it suddenly rains heavily. It's worth noting that, in a number of those situations, the teams tend to switch to manual control of the lights, which does sometimes increase the chances of errors creeping in, so you would need a fairly robust system to prevent the nominated official from releasing a car prematurely. It also raises an interesting question - what would happen if the FIA official got it wrong and released a car at the wrong time?

Salamander wrote:Well, the FIA know the positions of all the cars - it should be a relatively simple matter to implement a system where the team signal that they have completed their stop, and this system checks the pitlane behind to make sure that there is enough of a gap to safely release the car before doing so.

The position of the cars is, I believe, based on GPS data - however, there is the issue that the accuracy of the systems available for use might not allow for sufficient accuracy for such use in a crowded pit lane.

Remember, for example, the penalty that Hamilton picked up in the 2010 European GP for passing the safety car? The issue there was that Hamilton was close enough to the safety car that the FIA could not tell from the GPS data whether Hamilton had been in front of, or behind, the safety car when the safety car crossed the pit lane exit line because the distance between the two cars was within the margin of error of the positioning systems. There are also occasions where those systems can break down completely - for example, in the Chinese GP all of the FIA's onboard monitoring systems failed on Bottas's car during the race, so you would need to have a fail-safe back up system in position.

With that error margin in mind, my concern is that, if you had a very busy pit lane with multiple cars entering and exiting all at once, GPS positioning data might not be enough on its own for an automatic system to make an informed decision.

This is my theoria:


Engines:
-Remove engine freezing
-Everybody can use whatever type of engine they feel

Cars
-Ban ERS and DRS
-Manual Gearboxes
-Ban Radio between Drivers and Teams
-No strategy,they can do whatever they feel like it
-The comeback of Ground Effects or Fan Cars
-Allow Single-driver teams
-Allow unlimited teams
-Remove those noses

Qualifying and Race
-Allow Pre-Qualifying if necessary
-Ditch the 107% Rule - almost every time they let them race,so,whats the point?
-Ban Tyre Change
-Allow Refueling

Tyres
-Multiple tyres - they are god awful right now.

Circuits
-Ditch the Tilke circuits - seriously,they are unpopular and yet he still makes?
-Ban multiple circuits of the same country that year (ej:Grand prix of America)
-An oval circuit
-A calendar;
Australia - Melbourne or Adelaide
Qatar(instead of malaysia) - Losail
China - Zhusai
Spain - Catalunya or Jerez
Monaco - Montecarlo
Canada - Gilles Villeneuve
England/GB - Silverstone(any layout) or Donington Park
Germany - Nurburgring (GP,it will be a little too dangerous with the Nordschielfe)
Hungary - Budapest
Belgium - Spa
Italy - Monza(GP or Oval)
Japan - Suzuka or Fuji
US - Indy(GP or Oval),Long Beach,Daytona(same as indy)
Brazil - Interlagos (i miss jacaparegua )

AxelP800 wrote: - Have a race like a 'wildcard' race. Example: We have Imola as European GP, then the next year we have Brands Hatch as European GP. Then the next year we go to other countries, not have to be the country that already have a GP. We can have Scandinavia, Rijeka, Portugal and etc,

I like this idea. It would be great to see some old circuits making a one-off appearance during a season. Imola, Estoril, Jerez, Fuji, Buenos Aires, all at FIA standard for F1 but lying unused - and who wouldn't want to see F1 at Adelaide again?

My (half-jokey) rule change would be an instant black flag and 1 race ban for any driver moaning about the conditions being "undriveable" over the radio when a few spits of rain are falling Hamilton most guilty of that one, before him Heidfeld.

Bring everything back to 1991 rules and circuits and never change the rules ever again.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Bring everything back to 1991 rules and circuits and never change the rules ever again.

But then teams such as Red Bull/Mercedes would develop stuff like active suspension/traction control and F1 could become a duopoly or at least very hierarchical. And of course you wouldn't the same type of F1 philosophy forever. I agree with you a little on the 1991 tracks, it would be great for the original Mexico/Hockenheim tracks to return.

Give every team GP2 cars with GP2 engines. They seem to produce better racing, anyways. Allow other engine manufacturers in after the following season.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:Bring everything back to 1991 rules and circuits and never change the rules ever again.

No, 1988 rules. Best season ever, and if they ran F1 to those exact rules, everyone would be happy, every team would have money, no-one would have smelly feet and everything would be rosy with the world.

I can't come up with anything that doesnt have its origins in my own nostalgia.

Normal32 wrote:This is my theoria:


Engines:
-Remove engine freezing
-Everybody can use whatever type of engine they feel

Cars
-Ban ERS and DRS
-Manual Gearboxes
-Ban Radio between Drivers and Teams
-No strategy,they can do whatever they feel like it
-The comeback of Ground Effects or Fan Cars
-Allow Single-driver teams
-Allow unlimited teams
-Remove those noses

Qualifying and Race
-Allow Pre-Qualifying if necessary
-Ditch the 107% Rule - almost every time they let them race,so,whats the point?
-Ban Tyre Change
-Allow Refueling

Tyres
-Multiple tyres - they are god awful right now.

Circuits
-Ditch the Tilke circuits - seriously,they are unpopular and yet he still makes?
-Ban multiple circuits of the same country that year (ej:Grand prix of America)
-An oval circuit
-A calendar;
Australia - Melbourne or Adelaide
Qatar(instead of malaysia) - Losail
China - Zhusai
Spain - Catalunya or Jerez
Monaco - Montecarlo
Canada - Gilles Villeneuve
England/GB - Silverstone(any layout) or Donington Park
Germany - Nurburgring (GP,it will be a little too dangerous with the Nordschielfe)
Hungary - Budapest
Belgium - Spa
Italy - Monza(GP or Oval)
Japan - Suzuka or Fuji
US - Indy(GP or Oval),Long Beach,Daytona(same as indy)
Brazil - Interlagos (i miss jacaparegua )

Banning tire changes was tried in 2005 and it didn't work.

My ideas:

Teams:
-Max teams: 20.
-Strict cost cap. Limit: 50 millions per season.
-Decrease of downforce.
-Single car entry option.
-Teams can use all the 4 Tyre compounds in a race weekend, if desires.

Qualify changes:
-2003-2004 system. Just one lap.

Race changes:
-GP2 format: Sprint and Feature race.
-Removal of blue flags.
-Removal of obligation to use 2 types of tyres.

Circuits:
-Decrease the number of circuits (due GP2 format).
-No nome tilkedromes, like Hungaroring (I know this circuit wasn't made by him, but...) etc.
-Half of circuits of the season must be high speed circuits.

Points System:
-Indycar Series format: Everyone scores points,if finish the grand prix.
-5 points for the pole position.
-5 points for the driver who lead most laps.
-5 points for the driver with most overtakes.

Misc:
-Removal of penalty points system.
-Tyres for extreme wet conditions.
-Cockpit cover, for more safety.
-Better money division, giving more money for lower teams.
-No money for Ferrari, since the team value is bigger than F1 itself.

FMecha wrote:

Normal32 wrote:This is my theoria:


Engines:
-Remove engine freezing
-Everybody can use whatever type of engine they feel

Cars
-Ban ERS and DRS
-Manual Gearboxes
-Ban Radio between Drivers and Teams
-No strategy,they can do whatever they feel like it
-The comeback of Ground Effects or Fan Cars
-Allow Single-driver teams
-Allow unlimited teams
-Remove those noses

Qualifying and Race
-Allow Pre-Qualifying if necessary
-Ditch the 107% Rule - almost every time they let them race,so,whats the point?
-Ban Tyre Change
-Allow Refueling

Tyres
-Multiple tyres - they are god awful right now.

Circuits
-Ditch the Tilke circuits - seriously,they are unpopular and yet he still makes?
-Ban multiple circuits of the same country that year (ej:Grand prix of America)
-An oval circuit
-A calendar;
Australia - Melbourne or Adelaide
Qatar(instead of malaysia) - Losail
China - Zhusai
Spain - Catalunya or Jerez
Monaco - Montecarlo
Canada - Gilles Villeneuve
England/GB - Silverstone(any layout) or Donington Park
Germany - Nurburgring (GP,it will be a little too dangerous with the Nordschielfe)
Hungary - Budapest
Belgium - Spa
Italy - Monza(GP or Oval)
Japan - Suzuka or Fuji
US - Indy(GP or Oval),Long Beach,Daytona(same as indy)
Brazil - Interlagos (i miss jacaparegua )

Banning tire changes was tried in 2005 and it didn't work.

Also, the 2005 season had the lowest average overtake of modern era.