F1 rule changes don't go far enough

For a long time, I have been saying that the regulation stating "the driver must drive the car alone and unaided" is not enforced to the level it should be.

The recent technical directive, which comes into effect for next month's Belgian Grand Prix, explaining how the starts will return to the control of the driver, is one small example of this problem being tackled.

But it's also an important one. As we saw at Silverstone, if you don't get the start 100 per cent correct, it can have serious consequences.

The driver normally does an automatic clutch bite-point learn as they are leaving the garage. This can still be carried out under the modified rules, as it is after that that the technical directive stating no changes to the clutch bite point can be made.

Currently, the driver will go to the end of the pitlane, do another clutch bite-point learn and another practice start. They will then do a lap discussing with the engineer what the start was like and will probably come through the pits and repeat the process.

At the back of the grid, they will do another clutch bite-point learn and then proceed to the starting position. There, if required, the electronics engineer can alter many of the start parameters, or at least check in detail how the practice starts went and instruct the driver to adapt what they are doing.

Drivers will now have more control over the start of their race © LAT

Even under the new rules, the driver and engineer can discuss what they want. So banning radio communication on the way to the grid relating to the practice starts or grip level is a very small change to what happens now.

Not being able to alter the clutch set-up as much as before will mean that the engineer must give more instructions to the driver about how to adapt. This will be interesting, because in my experience some drivers are very reluctant to change the habits of a lifetime!

The fact that this kicks in at Spa is also interesting - it's one of the most difficult starts of the season as it's uphill.

For several races, I suspect we will see some less predictable starts. But in F1, it never takes long for teams and drivers to adapt.

I don't think the FIA has done enough with this rule change. But at least it opens the door to further changes to what counts as "driving the car alone and unaided".

So it's a start.

SATURDAY RACES

Changing the race-weekend format is something that both the FIA and FOM have previously wanted to avoid on the basis that it will transform the traditional face of F1.

But I'm glad this is now being treated as a serious talking point for improving the show.

The big question is, what needs to be changed? I suggested a few weeks ago what I would do - but there are always other opinions and there seem to be alternative suggestions on the table.

One is to change qualifying into a qualifying race. But I wonder what that would actually achieve, if anything.

Could F1 drivers contest a race on Saturday after qualifying? © LAT

Yes, Saturday afternoon might be a little more exciting. Without knowing the precise detail of what's being proposed, I can only assume that the idea is whoever wins that race would start Sunday's grand prix proper on pole.

So what does that really change? Not a great deal. The fastest car/driver combination would usually start from the front, and what would follow would not be any different to what we already have.

Another suggestion is to have a race with third drivers. Assuming all the teams currently competing survive into 2016, and Haas F1 makes it, that would mean an 11-car race.

That would give an up and coming hotshoe in one of the top teams the chance to show their worth. As for the smaller teams, they would hunt for a few more pay drivers. There's nothing wrong with that, but the top teams with the better drivers would win most of the time.

Let's say the winner - or to be more generous the top three - go into the main race on Sunday. What would happen to the potential points they would score?

Any they get would be taken from the smaller teams. Perhaps the powers that be have forgotten that the whole point of extending points down to 10th place was to make sure the smaller squads scored some points and had more to sell to sponsors.

I've been around long enough to remember that you could have a great season and finish seventh in every grand prix, but not score a point.

If they just do it for fun and don't score points, but finish in points-scoring positions, then that really will confuse the fans - and frustrate the record-keepers!

I still think my proposal - a Saturday sprint with grid positions set based on fastest laps from the previous race to dictate the grand prix grid - would work. But then I would, wouldn't I?

FREE TYRE CHOICE

If drivers are given freedom of choice on tyre compound, then Pirelli needs to widen the gap between each one.

Freeing up the choice of tyres for teams may not be straightforward © XPB

Currently, we hear talk of it being from 0.8s to one second per lap in qualifying, but it's usually not as much as that.

If a car is well-balanced on both compounds and the track temperature is correct for both, then I'm pretty sure we would not see more than half-a-second between any of the compound steps we currently have.

When you go from a harder to a softer compound, the car will normally understeer that little bit more, so if the car has understeer on the hard tyre it will increase on the softer tyre.

If the car has a little oversteer on the hard tyre then it will be well-balanced on the softer rubber, so depending on the car balance the end result can be very different.

Over the weekend the track temperature can change a lot, and for any team predicting this change around a month in advance, in order to allow Pirelli to manufacture and ship the tyres, would be very difficult.

If it's a serious suggestion, and the teams are offered the opportunity to choose which compound to use, then I assume the 'having to use the two available compounds' rule would go out of the window.

But for safety reasons, Pirelli needs to be allowed to put into the equation a maximum amount of laps that a car can do at each circuit on each compound.

Let's take some figures as an example of what I mean: if you use the hardest compound then you can complete the full race distance without stopping, medium tyres 80 per cent, soft tyres 60 per cent and the supersoft 40 per cent.

This means you would have fairly different laptimes until the softer tyres started to cry enough. It would alter the pitstop sequence for any car on a different tyre. But again, will that make the racing any better?

I don't think so, it will just add to the overall confusion that this batch of changes is trying to address.

GRID PENALTY REVISIONS AND ENGINE NOISE

At least one sensible decision has come out of the last Strategy Group meeting, but if a grid penalty is to be applied, it needs to be applied at the end of each qualifying segment.

Further changes could be made to the grid penalty system © XPB

If you qualify 14th after the first session and you have a three-place grid penalty, you immediately drop back to 17th and are out of the second session.

This would at least allow a driver who has, say, qualified 16th in the first session to move up to 15th and participate in the second session. Who knows what might happen if the weather is changeable - you might get a Sauber on pole!

As far as the engine noise is concerned, I hope they don't decide on anything gimmicky.

I went around the track at Silverstone and I didn't think it was too bad. It's definitely an improvement on last year, and to get it any better they need to force the teams to use higher RPM for gearchanges.

They can achieve this very simply by throwing away the fuel-flow meter.

EXTRA POWER UNIT PER DRIVER FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS

It's always debatable as to whether a new manufacturer (engine or chassis) coming in benefits from more time to prepare the project or has not got the experience to make the best of it.

This extra power unit is only necessary if reliability is a problem, but it doesn't help if performance is the issue. Something needs to be done to close up the engine-performance differential.

I'm not saying we need to handcuff Mercedes. In reality, we need to pat them on the back for the job they've done, but Formula 1 should not be an engine formula - it needs to be primarily about the driver and secondly the team.

The FIA allows this extra engine for Honda, so should Hass get some extra windtunnel time? After all, they're a new team and might just need it.

I don't believe this is the way to go. I would try to put together a token allocation to allow struggling engine manufacturers more development.

This could also be done when allocating windtunnel time to the teams; let the points and points difference define the amount of windtunnel hours a team can use.

FASTER, MORE AGGRESSIVE CARS

Tweaks could enhance more than just the look of F1 cars © LAT

I've been around F1 for a long time and the quick cars have always looked quick.

If you look at what we have currently, the laptime at the start of the race is about five seconds slower than in qualifying. You really need a good eye to spot this.

Yes, the cars look that bit heavier and a little more cumbersome, but they are all the same so it sort of fades away.

Make them not only look but be more aggressive with bigger/wider tyres. But don't do it for a visual effect - do it because it will all add up to better racing.

REFUELLING HAS BEEN QUIETLY DROPPED

I think it would be great if refuelling came back, but it needs to be done differently.

Perhaps each driver should have to do this on his own, refuelling from a 25-litre jerrycan and funnel from Halfords. This way you could save a lot of money and if the car wasn't performing as he wanted, he could accidentally spill some around the exhaust and burn the thing to the ground.

If this was in the rules, I wonder how many McLarens would have gone up in smoke his year?

More seriously, we have had refuelling - don't just keep going back through the same old, same old.

We want the racing to be done on the track by the drivers.