I take your point about whether or not it’s F1. I suppose the real question is what’s really F1? I mean, F1 in it’s original form from the 50′s had changed considerably from decade to decade as new mechanical and aero developments came along. So what is F1? Now we’re racing in the mass standardised/homologated component era which may have contributed to cost reduction and benefited some of the teams on the grid but what I really want to see is McLaren’s Ferrari’s and Williams’s have technical freedom in the classic spirit of F1 and go at it wheel to wheel. I worry that by only making small changes to the rules we’re playing into the hands of the very very clever men and women working for the teams who will always find new ways to claw back down force and put the cars back in the position where they’re ever more sensitive to travelling in the aero wake of the car in front.

Perhaps KERS was the solution. Of course if everyone has it then it rather neutralises the advantage. How about a limited use function….say 20 times a race and with a considerably larger or longer horsepower increase to give the pursuing car the grunt it needs to circumvent the aero deficiency? Not sure if that would be F1 in the classic sense either, might add excitement though.

So would it be so bad to try changes that aren’t traditionally F1 but add to the excitement rather than changes that don’t eg single lap qualifying.

Not shortcuts though….for goodness sake NOT SHORTCUTS!

Thank you for your reply.

I take your point for sure, but isn’t it the FIA’s job to police this through Charlie Whiting and Co?

Yes the engineers are already finding ways around the regs, however surely this way would help on the racing front; the core element of RACING surely not?!

I’m advocating the DD be removed anyway.

Got to be better than the current situation?

mate its only a suggestion , it does not mean all the cars are the same all it means is every team will have a basic front and rear wing ( this will reduce aero downforce)
then you would make the tyres much wider,
maybe even go back to steel rotors in place of carbon brakes to lengthen the stopping distance this will encourage late brakers and produce passing !

your comment that bridgestone should make less durable tyres will never happen either as bridgestone will never allow its name to be associated with tyres that dont last !

Sadly there is no incentive for F1′s designers to even contemplate making their cars easier to overtake due to the total focus on aero-grip and the inherent desire to win for their teams, sponsors et al!

Only the FIA can do something about this, let’s face it, the cars are designed to THEIR regulations!!

Maybe the FIA should bring in a set of mandatory wings, then and ONLY then will we see F1 designers focussing on upping their mechanical grip if the wings are 100% the same!

Would level the playing field in one fell swoop.

I can see many teams not liking this idea, but at least it would give the drivers a chance to prove their racing abilities and the designers a chance to show us what they can do on the mechanical-grip side as aero development (front/rear wings)would no longer be the prime area for improvement!!

Costs for the teams would surely drop dramatically at the same time, achieving something that is necessary for many teams.

Racing and over-taking would come to the fore and the fans would be happy, as would the drivers and sponsors if the sport pulls in more viewers both at circuits and tv etc.

Anyone think this has any merit, James?

Thing is about all this is that just possibly, even with all the problems it might bring, limiting the teams budget and removing technical restrictions might be the way to go….

All ideas are welcome, in this case I think we are suffering from too much structure and rules around a formula that has been built on innovation and the rewards that this can bring.