Big concept change, the kind that tends to lead to futuristic thinking, the likes of which we saw from Renault earlier in the week with its imaginative RS 2027 Vision concept (pic below) during the Shanghai motor show, or those produced by Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes over the past 18 months, have long since become a thing of the past.
I was lucky enough to grow up through a period of rapid evolution in the sport. I was born when wings were still a relatively new concept. So I followed the downforce era, with its elongated sidepods, skirts and fan cars, as the technology was mastered. Then came the turbo era, with 1500bhp qualifying monsters wielded by globally recognised gladiators on super-sticky qualifying tyres and Bernie Ecclestone growing F1 into a world-leading sport. After that came the aerodynamic era, with its huge expense, minimal gains and precision performance, as F1 shifted into digital development and industrialised factories with wind tunnels as standard.
But somewhere along the line, high-concept thinking became stunted.

Alain Prost: Formula 1 should ditch V6s and DRS
F1, for all the competing manufacturers’ boasts of complex technical advancements through hybrid, tyre and aerodynamic development, is also ever more conscious of its place in the world. Pioneering, to an extent, has been replaced by protectionism, with a need to fit in not only with the values of its perception of its audience, whether that be through ecological concern or political, but also with an obsession to artificially curate the perfect entertainment package through devices such as the drag reduction system, introduced as an attempt to stimulate a synthetic form of overtaking.
There are some very good reasons for all of this.
The world has become saturated with different ways to occupy a consumer’s time, so F1 has competed by ‘improving the show’, experimenting with ways to close off the opportunities clever engineers seek in order to steal a march on rivals, thereby avoiding dull racing (how’s that one worked out over the past three years?). Experiments, by their nature, go wrong more often than not, and there is a case to be made that F1 is no more or less exciting than it ever had been to the true fan.
Another reason is the vast amount of money it costs the paddock to go racing each season (more than £750 million, at a rough estimate). There is an argument frequently made that if you free up development, so you open the doors to a spending war, potentially killing off a number of teams. But back in the days when he was a team chief, F1’s now sporting boss, Ross Brawn, used to say that if teams have access to money and you limit what they spend it on, they’ll just find other ways to spend it. In other words, the chances are they are going to spend it anyway.
Join the debate
eseaton
Yet another new contributor
But I agree with what he says. Trying to fit in with a perception of the public's perception of what Formula 1 should be has been stultifying for all.
I recall David Coulthard suggesting a G-Suit formula, ie just let them get on with it.
Ravon
In the olden day's...
Peter Cavellini
Well,what?
Peter Cavellini.
Thekrankis
Oh I dunno.....
Tropi
Tyres are at the root of the problem.
What a useless comment. Of course they are fast and they always were!
I have considerable strong opinion about some of the stupidities of Formula 1 but I'll limit myself to the single most outstanding fault that still exists and has for far too many years.
TYRES.
Tyres cost a fortune to make, stock, transport and change. It seems that a single season uses up about £50 million worth of tyres and, while F1 authorities bleat about excessive costs, they do damn all about this one.
Every in-race tyre change needs at least fourteen mechanics to carry out, whose salaries and other associated costs create another unnecessary expense. Apart from the sheer cost, the situation is equally insane where races can be won by STOPPING the car to change the tyres rather than just RACING the damn things!
Now consider that every single tyre change has the innate potential to create accidents and serious injury.There is a very strong case for totally banning tyre change stops, other than for punctures.
The very best single thing that could happen to F1 would be the ruthless rationalisation of tyre regulations. Sorting this out properly would have a hugely beneficial effect on the sport with regard to cost, safety and entertainment value.
There should be ONE single rubber compound per complete season and every tyre should be capable of lasting a complete race with no changes at all. This would force the use of much harder compounds, which would have a similar effect to, but be more consistent than, wet races which most people seem to agree are hugely more unpredictable AND entertaining. Of course, ultimate speed is then reduced, not by a huge amount, but by enough to reduce the serious aerodynamic problems currently involved in overtaking.
In the meantime, banning tyre warmers would make people think a bit harder about whether it's better to race a car than to stop it and change its tyres.
There is much more to be said on the subject, but sorting out the current idiotic tyre regulations is a most obvious and serious need.
Just a final word - who was the lunatic responsible for the moronic rule forcing teams to use two tyre compounds even when there is absolutely NO practical need to do so? The mind boggles at the sheer stupidity of this so-called "thinking".
sierra
Great race at Sochi....
bowsersheepdog
Formulaless One
The only condition is they have to deposit the season's money in an account under FIA scrutiny (to assist smaller teams it doesn't necessarily have to be in one go, but the total is limited) and pay for everything from that account. Caught cheating on the money once, two hundred point fine for team and drivers, caught again, team and both drivers disqualified from the championship, but still obliged to turn up and race, they just can't score any points or go on any podiums. In other words their cheating will be on exhibition at every remaining race of the season.
All of the money currently spent on formulating technical specifications and scrutinizing cars for legality would be put towards monitoring spending.
The different solutions chosen would likely lead to results varying greatly from track to track, some being immensely quick where it's fast and open, others grippy and agile on twisty street circuits. Smaller teams could even design specialist cars which could be strongly competitive on just a handful of tracks, but sacrificing performsnce elsewhere, to get exposure they don't currently.
I don't need to put my name here, it's on the left
Add your comment