How do you make F1 more exciting? Here are your answers

A few weeks ago, we asked readers how they’d make Formula One more exciting. Your replies ranged from inspired to downright crazy, and were many in volume.

And no wonder. F1 is faced with a number of problems that have been widely documented. Things like uneventful races, one-team domination, unreliable engines, predictable grids and superficial technologies.

The powers that be know it, too. Last month commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone and FIA President Jean Todt were given special powers “to make recommendations and decisions” within the sport, though what effect that might have remains to be seen.

We know there are changes already planned for 2017 with the aim of making cars much faster than they are now, but there are concerns that the proposals don’t do enough to properly address the issues which hinder wheel-to-wheel racing.

So, before that happens, here’s how you lot would fix F1. We asked you ten questions, and here are the results...

You voted: cost cap (24% yes), restructure funding (76% yes)

“The big teams can spend millions on developing the cars, and have access to millions of pounds worth of wind tunnels and computers to analyse the results. The end result is the gulf between the top, middle and bottom teams gets bigger.” – Andy Parker

As many of you pointed out, a cost cap would limit the grid’s ability to keep developing faster cars, and would be perilously tricky to enforce on the top teams.

Far more popular is the idea of restructuring prize money in F1, especially given that the sport brings in about £1bn every year. Part of the problem is that more than a third of that figure goes straight to owners CVC Capital Partners, with the rest skewed in favour of the grid’s biggest names.

Excitement verdict: Fairer prize money would create a more even grid, leading to closer races.

You voted: yes (55%), no (45%)

“The change from the V8s to the V6 turbo hybrids was a big step forwards, probably a bit too big.” – sam

Interestingly, a slim majority of people appear to favour F1’s new hybrid engines despite the problems with cost, reliability and noise. You lot clearly recognise that the sport needs to drive forward new technologies that will eventually trickle down to everyday vehicles.

Perhaps the most unhelpful thing for the hybrid era has been Mercedes’ dominance over everyone else. Yet on the rare occasions where the races have been great (Bahrain 2014 and Hungary 2015 spring to mind), everyone was transfixed by the action and engine noise was far less significant.

Excitement verdict: Hybrid performance will come good, but please, please improve the noise. Vuvuzelas were better than this...

You voted: more (54%), fewer (46%)

“People want to be involved and they want to be entertained. And while some of us might love it, ours is an era where a procession of cars driving around for two hours falls way, way short of the mark.” - Tim Grimley

“F1 needs to go back to its roots: the fastest cars driven by the best drivers. And much more important: it is a sport. Not an entertainment or a show-business.” - Heavy Jaws

Another close vote, which suggests that the number of races on the calendar at the moment is about right from the viewers’ point of view.

Beyond questions of quantity though, one of F1’s many dilemmas is ‘what should grands prix actually be?’ When Guiseppe Farina won the inaugural F1 season in 1950 there were just seven races, but that was in an era where people were content to simply watch new-fangled motor vehicles drive in circles at speed.

Excitement verdict: 20 races is plenty, but fewer deserts and more classics would be good.

You voted: yes (52%), no (48%)

“Active aerodynamics. Not just the little flap they use for DRS, but full-on active aerodynamics. Flaps that come up to assist braking. Flaps that come up on one side of the vehicle to assist turning.” - Alan Emerson

Another surprise result considering DRS has made overtaking ‘too easy’ in the eyes of many.

While it may be a bit of a gimmick in its current form, adaptive bodywork is something that could grow in the future. McLaren’s MP4-X concept heavily featured active aero, and if the technology can make road cars a little bit faster in years to come then be in no doubt that it will be explored eventually.

Excitement verdict: Active aero is the future, but it needs to be adapted properly.

You voted: yes (75%), no (25%)

“I've been a lifelong fan of F1 and the best races usually come from someone doing a charge through the field (Button in Canada, Fangio in Germany, etc). This is what is exciting, not drivers saying "I can't get too close or I'll lose grip.” - Michael Dunbar

Well that was fairly unanimous. A stonking three-quarters of you believe that short-life tyres are not the way to go, presumably because the lifespan of rubber is not particularly exciting. Nor do they allow drivers to push for very long.

F1 cars used to be difficult to drive because they were monstrously powerful, whereas today the skill lies in making them go the distance. The difference is massive.

Excitement verdict: Fans want to see drivers push. Use other methods to make races unpredictable.

You voted: yes (76%), no (24%)

“Most people's rose-tinted spectacles clearly aren't on straight seeing as many of the greatest drivers had minimal to no experience of re-fuelling.” - matt90

Another clear result, although perhaps we should have asked what people thought about refuelling as well as the 100kg limit.

Many of you would actually like to see refuelling make a return, and while organisers briefly toyed with the idea of bringing it back earlier last year, they eventually decided that overtaking would diminish on track as a result.

The fundamental question should be: ‘Does it improve racing for fans?’ And the answer to that would probably be ‘no’. Rather than hinder different teams at different times, the restrictions are just a constant consideration which do little to shake up the grid.

Excitement verdict: Let WEC deal with the efficiency stuff and leave teams to find their own fuel balance.

You voted: yes (46%), no (54%)

“We're missing some important races. Like the French Grand Prix. The FIA is based in Paris, and you're telling me the French wouldn't want a Grand Prix?” - Ross Pendleton

“An open paddock and cheaper tickets would be a start.” – Dave

This ties in with the question we asked about the length of the calendar, where again people seemed fairly happy with the status quo.

European bias might be a factor here given that the sport originated on the continent, hence why its most historic venues are classics like Italy, Germany, Belgium and so forth.

The German Grand Prix is due to return in 2016 after dropping out this season, although the fact that it needed to skip a year shows just how vulnerable the best tracks can be. It would be good if certain races had ‘protected status’ to ensure continuity going forward, although the likelihood of this ever happening is extremely small.

Another good idea would be a price cut at the gate. F1 races are expensive for circuits, which means expenditure inevitably has to be recouped from spectators. The situation is so bad at Silverstone that fans will have to pay £135 for a three day pass in 2016, but the circuit will still make a loss.

This needs addressing. And soon.

Excitement verdict: History trumps ‘emerging markets’. Familiar tracks give F1 heritage.

You voted: good (64%), bad (36%)

“The engine isn't the problem in F1, if you think the engines are the problem you don't know racing. The key to improving F1 is making the passing manoeuvre both brave and possible w/out DRS.” - Marco Grimaldi

Red Bull’s struggle to find an alternative engine supplier was a major theme last season, with the works team eventually sticking with Renault despite losing faith in their long-term partners.

Bernie Ecclestone and Jean Todt attempted to push through plans for a cheap, competitive third party power unit to alleviate the situation, but the move was voted down and Mercedes and Ferrari continue to hold all the cards at present.

Many readers believe that a Cosworth-style supply deal would prevent non-manufacturers from being backed into a corner in the same manner as Red Bull, and in theory they’d be right.

There are issues though. The first is that the timescale for the proposals was unworkable, and even a 2018 introduction would have left potential suppliers in a race against time.

The second is cost. The only way to keep prices low would be to use tried and trusted tech, creating an equivalency formula that would be difficult to implement as well as happens in LMP1 cars, for example.

The other option would be a tender for hybrid engines, but Honda have shown they are almost impossible to get right straight away, never mind on the cheap.

Excitement verdict: Customer engines would aid works teams. A viable solution, but only if given adequate development time.

You voted: yes (25%), no (75%)

“No radio. No driver aids. Less technological regulations. This would open up for more technological diversity and still keep focus on the driving and tactical skills of the driver.” – Bigfek

Team radio is another aspect of F1 that has been given the backing of TG readers, and in truth getting rid of it would be sacrificing one of the few innovations that puts viewers in the cockpit with the driver.

Where else would we get such wonderful insight from Kimi?

Excitement verdict: Radio is here to stay. Make cars less complicated, and focus on emotion instead.

You voted: yes (78%), no (22%)

“Being fast or not doesn't make it more entertaining. What you should really want to see is a close battle. Slow cars can have very entertaining battles.” - Alistair Langstaff

The final question we asked you, and the most one-sided result of the lot.

It’s the one we disagree with too. Yes, it would be great if cars were faster than they are now, up there with the peak of 2004 and 2005. And yes, the sport should always aim to be incrementally better than it was the previous year.

But there are a couple of problems. The first is that no matter how fast the cars are, there’s no guarantee of great racing. Ok, they’d be more of a challenge to handle and so the top drivers would stand out more, but if one team dominates as is the case now then the difference would hardly be noticed.

The second problem is safety. The faster cars go, the more difficult they are to stop, and the more dangerous it is for the drivers. Jules Bianchi’s accident showed that F1 can still be deadly in certain circumstances, and it would be unfair to start making cars massively quicker until improvements with helmets, survival cells and barriers are in place.

Close up the gap between the lead cars and the backmarkers, sit back and watch the entertainment unfold. If only it were that simple.

Excitement verdict: F1 should be the fastest motorsport around. It should also be the safest.

With the serious stuff out of the way, here’s a selection of lighter comments which made us chuckle in the office.

“Add in other non-F1 drivers, like Vin Diesel or Aaron Paul.” - REDLINE_ThatDAMNGuy

This idea was piloted in the film Iron Man 2. It didn’t end well.

“Build underground tunnels as racetracks. Allow (assuming tunnel is smooth) F1 cars to race inverted. They have the downforce. I understand though that that will cost ALOT.” - speedometer111

Can you imagine doing Eau Rouge upside-down? The stuff of nightmares.

“Have the drivers change teams after every two races.” - David Warren

20 race season, 10 teams on the grid. It makes perfect sense.

“Invisibility cloak instead of DRS.” - Speedometer111

TV viewing figures might take a hit. Maybe.

“No political disputes.” – Bogumil

This might be difficult to enforce...

“Surround the track with marshmallows for safety then let them drive fast!” – Johnny Blue

The Candy Crush Grand Prix?

“Add some jumps and a joker lap. Also a dirt section.” - A. Smith

So basically Rallycross? In an F1 car? YES.

“Allow a co-pilot with a spear to fight back as your opponent tries to overtake you. As it is a weight penalty, you are free to have one or not. Double-decker designs are authorized to match this.” - Alistair Langstaff

Now that’s just ripping off Mad Max: Fury Road. Pastor approves.

“Just go back 40 years.” - Holger Tammik

Time travelling cars would make F1 a bit boring. Real-world application would be immense though.

“Where are the reality shows? We should have wannabe designers falling over themselves for the right to craft next seasons McLaren overalls.” - Tim Grimley

Fernando and Jenson strutting down the cat walk. That is all.

“Limit the car's value to $500, except safety equipment a la 24 hours of Lemons.” – Schm

As cost caps go, that’s pretty extreme.

“Bring back KERS for one. One of the few changes in modern F1 that I really liked.” - Drunken_Hobo

Good news! It never left. It’s just called ERS now.

 “Get rid of the stupid no fuel rule...” - Black Reign

If this actually existed, it would indeed be quite stupid.

“The problem with F1, as shown by the variance in comments here alone, is that no one can agree on one right answer of how to fix F1.” – Chris

Nail on the head. Oh well.