Four Ways To Improve Formula One

The 2008 F1 championship hasn't even concluded yet, but the 2009 season gets closer every day, and many F1 teams are already focusing their energies solely on it.

This includes preparation of KERS, working out the best way to adapt to the new aero rules, figuring out what to do with their drivers, etc.

There's been a lot of talk about it all. People feel very strongly about some things; many feel the aero rules are going to completely destroy Formula One.

Come on! If Spygate and Spanky haven't destroyed F1 already, it's going to take a lot more than some aero tweaks to bring it down.

I've got my own views on these. But why should I bother? It's been discussed TO DEATH! I'll touch on it later, but first let's look at some other, less obvious, ideas that could improve F1.

First off, let's touch on the engine freeze. Most feel that any kind of engine freeze is a bad idea, but honestly it's a good idea applied horribly. Think about it. What's wrong with freezing engine development over the course of the season? JUST the active season.

People point out that it locks poor teams with bad engines into a bad position for the season, but keep in mind their supplier is put in the same boat because of it.

With the backmarker teams all getting the big-power engines from Renault, Ferrari, and Toyota (yes, Toyota is believed to have an exceptionally powerful engine), a single-season engine freeze has minimum impact on them.

Next up, I might as well be asking to be killed, but I do support a form of Customer Car. Yeah, I know what you're thinking: "NO TEAM SHOULD GET TO BENEFIT FROM ANOTHER TEAM'S HARD WORK!!!!" 

THINK ABOUT THAT for a second: That's what you're getting when you buy your engines from Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, or Renault. You're benefitting from another team's hard work on the engine. For the above argument to hold weight, you'd also have to ban getting engines from an active F1 team.

And that's the big detail of my support, anyway: Why would a customer car have to be supplied by an active F1 team? Why can't third-party companies like Lola, Panoz, Dallara, etc. design chassis for F1 teams?

"But you're not a real a Constructor if you get a customer chassis!" Then don't award Constructor's Championship points. Simple as that.

Although personally, I think just requiring them to develop the chassis on their own over the season, with no assistance from the original supplier, should be sufficient to award Constructor's points.

But that's another thing... Why does a customer chassis have to be a pre-manufactured chassis? Why can't the third-party company just sell them...A DESIGN?

How about a design the team must build themselves and develop on their own? That would certainly meet even the broadest SENSIBLE interpretation of the Constructor definition.

Place limitations on what the supplier can do to ensure their design will work; no full-scale mockups. Maybe half-scale wind tunnel models at most. Or maybe no wind tunnel models at all; only allow the CFD computations to influence the design.

Some of you out there already want to kill me for even suggesting something as anti-F1 as customer cars. Many of you are likely adhering to the "principles" of F1 (such as innovation) so strongly you dismissed my arguments without even thinking.

Well, first off lets make something clear: INNOVATION IN FORMULA ONE IS DEAD. KERS is the first innovative idea to be implemented since traction control and active suspension, and it's taken 15 years to come along.

If they can't be innovative, then they need to be an entertaining sport with plenty of entries capable of winning races. To do that, you need closer racing and lower costs of running.

That's what the aero tweaks are for, and that's what my ideas are for. I make it a point to try and make my ideas coincide with what little of F1's core principles remain, but nothing can please anyone.

Why did I stop in the middle of this to explain all that? Well, simply because anyone who DOESN'T yet want to kill me likely will after I give my next, and final, idea for close racing. That is, you will if you're not THINKING. So I need your brains turned onto FULL POWER for the next bit.

Its all about the aero revamp. I think the FIA has taken very much the wrong way with the aero revamp. The only reason they've gone this way is because if they take the wiser route, it'll make them look like idiots.

You see, ground effects have been banned since the 1980s in F1 on safety grounds. However, in 2007 the Champ Car World Series proved that ground effects can be applied safely, and in a manner that promotes close, exciting racing.

"But Champ Car used a spec chassis!" Yes. Yes, they did. Your point is...? We can still learn a lot from that thing. Most importantly, the front wing and undertray.

The front wing wasn't meant to produce downforce as much as "clean up" the turbulent "dirty" air that followed the car ahead for use by the underbody aerodynamics, which provided 70 percent of the car's grip at 160 MPH.

Now, I'm about to use a word that F1 fans around the world absolutely despise. But please continue to use your brains. F1 needs to mandate a SPEC front wing and undertray. JUST THOSE TWO PIECES. Leave the rest of the aero package open.

The Champ Car was originally meant to reduce the amount of dirty air behind the car, but the new chassis had a much smaller than hoped for effect on it. The front wing and undertray did almost all of the work, and it showed thanks to uber-controversial Power-to-Pass system. Or rather, Power-NOT-to-be-Passed.

The significant detail of the effectiveness of the 2007 Champ Car DP01 chassis was that it made Power-to-Pass almost useless for overtaking. Drivers used it primarily as a defensive measure.

So why won't the FIA apply it? To avoid giving a (potential) rival series any level of validity? Well, Champ Car's dead, and the Superleague Formula, sanctioned by the FIA, is using a car based on the 2007 Champ Car.

It uses an identical aero package, modded primarily to accept the big V12. So that argument's out.

I honestly believe that the FIA just doesn't want to get any egg on its face over banning what turned out to be something that can save the sport. They feel they MUST prove they don't need the ground effects.

Yes, it sucks to have to spec up ANY part of Formula One. But the effort to control costs and increase the quality of the racing is eventually going to turn the series into a semi-spec series eventually regardless. Either that, or it'll die out completely.

Its better to spec up a part or two than run the risk of completely destroying the series, isn't it? I certainly think so.

So what does F1 need?

1: Single-season engine freezes

2: Third-party customer chassis designs

3: Spec front wing and undertray

4: Budget caps

Whoa, whoa! Put the pitchforks down. Yes, I support the idea of the budget cap. Why? Because it does EXACTLY what its intended to: it LOWERS THE COST OF RUNNING AN F1 TEAM.

Toyota's shown that throwing MORE money at a problem doesn't always help, but on the other hand you can't hope to be competitive if you don't have a lot of money to sink into development.

By limiting the budgets of the teams, they're forced to be cautious, and focus their developments. It certainly will allow more teams to enter and have at least a shot at being competitive, and that's always good.

The problem with budget caps is reliably enforcing them. I will admit that no one, not even me, has worked out a way to do it. And until such a way has been thought up and can be implemented, we shouldn't implement the budget cap.

If we don't have a reliable method of policing it, the creative teams will find ways around it and gain an advantage over the more honest teams. Budget caps are a good idea not yet ready to be implemented.

And that's all I've got. I'm going to go hide in a secret nuclear bunker to avoid death by angry F1 fans.