New F1 rules - have your say... the response.

F1's governing body - the FIA - announced a number of regulation changes last Monday and we at Crash.net wanted to know what you, the reader thought of them. Well most of you thought that while they were a step in the right direction, they just didn't go far enough...

Indeed in the Crash.net poll we asked: "Are the new F1 regulations radical enough?" - 60 per cent of you answered 'No' and a further 10 per cent were 'Not sure'. With only a mere 30 per cent thinking 'Yes' they are radical enough it seems the FIA has once again failed to respond to the fans.

Here then is what some of you had to say...

"That's funny, I didn't notice it was April Fools Day. But it must be if the powers that be think that these unbelievably minor changes to the rules are going to reactivate F1 and turn it into a sport with actual racing. The F1 circus is once again shown its disdain for the public that supports it through the audience and their purchasing power. Sponsors be warned the crowds will drop, particularly on TV - just where it will really hurt. There was more racing in the last CART race at Surfers Paradise, a whole 6 laps due to the rain, than F1 provided all year and no doubt the next. Another wasted opportunity - please get it through your heads. It's boring, boring, boring. Crowds do go to events for the party, the atmosphere. But put on a show. Put on some racing. Or rue the day!"

Chris Gardiner - Australia.

"What a typical fudge! The only significant change is to the qualifying procedures. Also even the testing change is optional. There was no worthwhile change to the car regulations either (apart from the long-life engines - and fancy an engine that lasts a whole weekend!). Why not? They're a lot more interested in their own pockets that the spectacle.

"Also the worst part is that even Rallying is being altered to suit TV and the operators pockets.

"Why not simply shrink the overall size of the cars, absolutely flat floors, standard (small) wings, engines must last 3 months/6 race meetings, tyres two sets per meeting (wet and dry/intermediate), non-carbon brakes. That makes overtaking easier (less turbulence, less track taken up, longer braking zones) and puts more emphasis on driver than car. Don't expect it to be a sport again, but they should at least make it look as though they were trying. It hasn't been worth buying tickets for a decade or so, and doesn't look as though it will be again."

George Grazebrook (54) - Britain.

"I have carefully read the statement and it is desperately disappointing, it does not address any of the key issues. It does nothing to ease the chronic problem of a closely following car losing downforce, hence grip in an attempt to overtake - no changes at all. No cuts at all in downforce. It does nothing significant to reduce competitor cost - the magnitude required is in the order of 50%+. It does nothing to level down engine power to give anyone outside the top 3 teams any chance whatsoever. It does nothing to remove driver aids both physical and mental and voice and data links to the pits. It does nothing to lengthen the braking zone. It does nothing to widen circuits at key points to stop lines being protected and assist overtaking chances. No mention of the much-needed abolition of the ?30m new team entry fee. Nothing to help new teams start. Nothing to reduce staffing levels. No reduction of the 107% rule to require more competent drivers and cars to 105% for closer racing and much else that is so needed.

"This was a once in a decade opportunity to make much needed improvements and its been squandered. Today's measures are unacceptable, it seems there is broad agreement in the direction that the rules should take by 99.9% of the motorsport community - the 0.1 % who steadfastly refuse are the people who collectively run the sport. I think these measures will be very badly received by the viewing public, more teams will fall by the way side, next year the racing will be just as lacklustre as before, viewing figures will continue their rate of descent, advertisers will withdraw from both teams and TV networks, Major Motor manufacturers will remove backing, its quite possible F1 could sink still further to 5 teams with no factory engines, and no sponsorship worth the name. The changes announced are tiny and do not relate to the problems.

"This is a very sad day, those in charge should seriously consider their positions. It ought to be possible to make courageous decisions without having to wait for mass media pressure brought about by catastrophe. FIA think again and announce a comprehensive regulation change plan phased in over the next 3 seasons - this just will not do."
Richard Hinton - England.

"Will qualifying be better now there are two sessions and one-car runs? - At least cars won't get baulked but I bet it'll be pretty difficult to conform to a timetable. The maths are 22 cars x 3 laps x 1.5 minutes per lap = 99mins per session that is just for one three lap stint per car!

"Is it better to give the top eight finishers points, as opposed to the top six? - Definitely yes, as a club racer a wider points allocation evens up the field and gives more motivation and success factors.

"What do you think of the new testing proposals? - Testing is expensive and should be limited so that everyone gets and can afford equal track time.

"Was the FIA right to ban team orders? And will they be able to enforce it? Definitely not enforceable too easy for someone to lean off the mixture or claim brake fade etc, etc - more comedies in store for us here.

"Should more have been done to cut costs? Definitely yes, F1 was much better when smaller teams such as Hesketh, March, etc. could come in and play. The problem depending on too much big money is that in the next recession the thing can financially collapse just like a pack of cards. If Minardi, Sauber and a few others go bust next year there won't be much of a circus left and the show will die a natural death?

"The FIA will allow tyre companies to custom-make tyres for each team they supply in 2003 - a positive step? Mixed feelings - for some it will work well for others it won't, restrictions on testing would negate any benefits. I think it would be better if a single control tyre was introduced, one compound for slicks, intermediates and wets. It would just be something else to level the field. However one big name would have to disappear! After we all know F1 is now all about advertising not racing, or is that back to front?"

Ray Hill (49) - Britain.

"From my point of view. New rules are step forward, but not radical enough. We will have more or less the same F1 as it is now.

"Qualifying is the area that has seen the most change and this will improve the show. First of all, we will be able to watch on TV every driver. And secondly, and more important, not always the quicker driver will be the first in the grid, so he will have to make his way up.

"The new point scheme is far from being better. In one hand, it will let teams not used to get points to get some, and will harden the fight in the middle of the field. But the difference between first and second is not enough, and a driver might not fight for victory when is looking for a championship. I agree with having eight drivers with points, but the difference between first and second should be larger.

"I completely agree with the new testing proposals. It is a good point for reducing costs and most of all, will let the test drivers run with the same car and in the same track as current official drivers. This will help their promotion.

"The decision to let tyre suppliers supply with special rubber to special teams is for me a step backward. This will make more differences between the top teams and the rest. Thanks for your great website, I am a daily reader!"

David Cristobal (30) - Spain.

"Here are my thoughts on the new rules: 1. TESTING - THUMBS UP. I believe allowing more testing at the track is a great idea. Gives teams the opportunity to get things set-up for real race conditions, not just computer simulations.

"2. QUALIFYING - THUMBS DOWN. One lap? That's it? They have gone too far on that one. I can see limiting it to three laps or something but you should have at least have two so you can get your tyres up to temp and get into the rhythm. Also, the reverse order for Saturday qualifying is backwards. Everyone knows that the tracks get faster and faster as the rubber is laid down. So, the person going last will always have a faster time. So having the guy that runs fastest on Friday go last on Saturday is just helping him ensure he gets the best run. This is completely backwards. If you want to level the playing field, then the fastest guy on Friday should go first on Saturday. That way the slower cars get the advantage of the better track conditions later in qualifying. What were they thinking?

"3. TEAM ORDERS - THUMBS UP. Yes, there should be a ban on team orders that affect the outcome of the race. Sure, there will be ways for teams to make it appear otherwise, but at least it stops the blatant atrocities that occurred this year by Ferrari.

"4. CUSTOM TYRES - THUMBS UP. Great. If the tyre companies want to spend the extra money, let them. Can only help the other top teams."
Tony Stribling (44) - United States.

"The new rules aren't so bad, but the real show will start only on 2004. I liked the original qualifying better. I like it when all the cars are on the track together. The new point system will be ok (especially for the middle teams). The testing ban is ok, it should be stricter (less testing) - 12 days a year should be ok. Banning team orders is ok, but look at what happened at for example Monza or Hungary. It is impossible to prove the fact, that they were using team orders. There should have been definitely more efforts to cut costs. The tyre thing is very important, and a good idea. At last McLaren can have a softer compound.

"My personal idea - 2 points for pole-man, and fastest race lap driver. Also let there be for 5 of the 16 races, where the drivers start at reversed order, but the fact that the actual race is such a one would be announced only after the qualifying. It would be nice to see Yoong start on pole!

"F1 really needs more cost saving ideas though. Your site does a good job, keep up the good work."

Istvan Jaloveczki - Hungary.

"Are the new regulations for 2003 and beyond radical enough to improve the spectacle? This issue of improving the spectacle is to pander to those who have latterly latched on to F1 and also the TV people. After all, this is not the first time one team has been utterly dominant (Mercedes, McLaren) - albeit before the time when F1 was a truly global event. And good luck to them, that is down to sheer hard work and innovation.

"The changes to qualifying and practice seem sensible, even if some will complain they are unfair. But at least they are equally unfair to all, and so equitable. F1 is by its very nature a spectacle, but unfortunately, rule changes in recent years have dampened the ability of the sport to show its true potential.

"While I accept costs need to be contained, F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport because it is the most technologically advanced and I do not understand why Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley have considered measures which will simply negate the effects of that technology: we may as well just ditch the lot and have everyone racing in the same car. Of course, that would render F1 redundant, as we could then just watch F3 or Formula Ford.

"There is less excitement now because it is difficult for drivers to dice with each other. Reduced grip from grooved tyres was a retrograde step. The cars are too reliant upon aerodynamics, which only work effectively when in the lead, as the car becomes very unsettled when approaching another car from behind. This also makes the drivers overcautious about damaging their car because each little wing or gurney flap has such a massive impact on their ability to drive the car at a competitive rate.

"As something of a purist, I would like to see the removal of traction control and launch control electronics. However, the root of the problem lies deeper, so F1 should return to slicks, thereby giving drivers more confidence for overtaking. There should also be restrictions upon aerodynamics - maximum aero areas for each part of the car, perhaps - with reduced wing size and maximum angle. After all, aerodynamics came into their own when cars did not refuel and so such technology assisted in achieving greater fuel economy in addition to downforce. We are now quite used to refuelling cars - safely - during races, so the need for such economy is diminished. By reducing the effect of the car and increasing the contact zone of the tyres, we will return control of the car to the driver. I believe this can only be good for the sport and could lead to the kind of racing we used to see between Nelson Piquet, Nigel Mansell, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, etc. This still allows for technology to blossom, but in mechanical development of the car rather than the aerodynamics.

"Ideally, we would have no changes to F1, but allow it to develop at its own pace. Even putting aside the question of safety, in these lean times that is no longer possible, so there must be change for the good of the sport. I only hope that the authorities do not replace the current procession, with a farce which leaves F1 emasculated, its existence only justified by satisfactory revenue streams."

Padraig Floyd - UK resident.

"Personally I think the rule changes were way off the mark if the goal was to improve the spectacle of F1 and to reduce costs. Qualifying was often the most exciting part of the race weekend with drivers and teams attempting to time their run to allow for optimum track conditions (traffic, Tarmac temperature, grip levels). The only change that may have been required to the qualifying session, was perhaps to shorten it to 45 minutes to eliminate the practice of teams waiting for the session to be 20 or 30 minutes old before taking to the track. Changing the format to a one lap shootout may help to mix the grid but it will most likely reduce or eliminate the excitement of the qualifying sessions. I may be wrong, but I do believe that in every race where Juan Pablo Montoya qualified on pole during the 2002 season, he did not get provisional pole on his first run. This change definitely favours Michael Schumacher as he's one of a very small group of drivers if not the only driver who is consistently fast right out of the box. Race fans will be robbed of the back and forth battle of fastest laps that we have experienced over the last few years.

"As for the mixing of the grid due to the new qualifying format. While on the surface this seems like a good thing, with overtaking being prohibited by many circuits on the calendar by their very design, I do believe that this will not be the great fix that it's envisioned to be. The first thing that should have been addressed in the name of improving the spectacle should have been to demand changes to the layouts of several circuits on the calendar. Even if the drivers were in the same cars, we'd probably get very little if any passing at the Hungaroring. When a driver cannot overtake a car that is two seconds per lap slower there is a real problem and it needs to be addressed. To add insult to injury one of the few circuits that does permit overtaking is being removed. Personally, I don't think I will derive any enjoyment from seeing a Williams or Ferrari stuck behind a much slower car for 10 to 20 laps for no other reason than the circuit does not permit overtaking, and I think that this will be the result of the new qualifying format.

"While I like the idea of giving points to teams who finish 7th and 8th, I don't particularly like the fact that the points spread between 1st and 2nd will only be 2 points. The 4 point spread between first and second put a premium on winning. I fear that this change will give more drivers an incentive to just take the second place finish rather than going all out for the win. I think the first place points should have been increased as well to keep the focus on winning.

"The banning of team orders is ridiculous. The FIA allowed electronic devices to be used because they could not police them and now they are banning something that they can not police. It makes no sense at all. A lame PR move to protect themselves from the next "Austria".

"While allowing the tyre manufacturers to make specific compounds for each team, I think that this rule most definitely favours Ferrari (by the way I am Tifosi). I doubt very much that the smaller teams would be able to dedicate the resources necessary to determine the specific tyre compound that would be best for their car from race to race. Ferrari already have a team of people dedicated to tyre development so it would not be a stretch for them to be able to identify which tyre compounds would be best for them. Here is also the question of who is going to pay for these special tyres and whether the tyre manufacturers could supply each team with it's own tyre.

"In order to cut costs, I think the FIA should first have considered the no-brainers first, like putting together a calendar that would require teams to cross the Atlantic once. Three trips to the Americas must tax the budgets of the smaller teams. Well, that's my rant."

Bruce Ford (37) - Canada.

"The team bosses have hailed this as something wonderful, when in reality - its the Emperor's suit of new clothes - there is nothing there! What they should have in mind is the falling TV ratings, lest it be forgotten very few GP's were televised during the middle 70's like many other sports before, if public tastes change the TV companies show something else altogether.

"Friday is not broadcast on terrestrial TV anyway so what happens then is meaningless. You will never stop team orders - they just will not be so blatent about it - so that instruction will have no effect. On Saturday now there will be only 20, 80-second laps to watch in a one hour broadcast that's 27 minutes - worse than what we have now.

"The present points system with a 4pt gap 1st-2nd was to stop drivers becoming champion by just settling for consistent second places - as many did. Custom made tyres will put the tyre companies costs up so much, one or even both of them will probably pull out altogether.

"All the casual viewer (who is the advertisers lifeblood) cares about is seeing breath taking three abreast in to corners, neck and neck, death defying dicing, slipstreaming thrilling racing from the start light to the chequered flag without pause for breath - the quality of the actual racing - nowhere in these new rules has this been addressed. So, now we need a packet of real changes for 1st Jan. 2004. But for some people that may be too late."
Richard Hinton (52) England.

"The new regulations for 2003 are radical enough to improve the spectacle, but what I would like to see is a re-structuring of the payments to teams of the TV rights money. Firstly, the rights should be spread ONLY between the teams, and maybe an administrative organisation, but they should only take a small amount, not the billions that Bernie gets! Secondly, the money should be spread more evenly between the teams - this would have two objectives: 1) giving the lower teams more money to spend so they can invest more and not fall so far behind the bigger teams and have the possibility of getting more competitive, the bigger teams would lose money, of course, but with their huge sponsorship deals, it shouldn't effect them that much; 2) it also means that it would encourage teams to join the grid, or at least not leave it, because there would be more money in it for them.

"Qualifying will be better now there are two sessions and one-car runs because David Coulthard and Jacques Villeneuve will stop their moaning about being blocked!

"It is not better to give the top eight finishers points, as opposed to the top six because it is rewarding consistency, not winning.

"The FIA allowing tyre companies to custom-make tyres for each team they supply in 2003 is a positive step because each car can have tyres individually tailored to them and can get the best out of their car, rather than just Ferrari for Bridgestone and Michelin concentrating on Mclaren and Williams and having to compromise!"

John Straton (19) England.

"I think the new regulations are radical enough to improve the spectacle, however the effect is only good enough to last through next year. We have to recall that there have been many years in the past where Formula 1 racing has been boring except for its overall spectacle, both on and off track. Rules changes generally bring back interest in the sport and further changes will need to be made in future as well, to maintain interest.

"Qualifying will be better under the new rules, and I am now looking forward to watching Friday's TV coverage live, instead of taping and fast forwarding through most of it. However, I am adamantly opposed to retaining the 107% rule, as there is no way of enforcing it properly and without favouritism with changing track conditions.

"Giving the top 8 finishers points and narrowing the points gap between positions is one of the best changes they made in terms of increasing spectator interest.

"I think the testing rules are great however I'm not sure I fully understand if options are available to each team to decide on and commit to for the season. If they can choose one or the other (few outside test days + lots of practice at each venue, vs. virtually unlimited testing but all away from the race venue), then I agree with it. Although the advantage of testing at the venue is lessened by today's computer technology and the top team's databases from the past. Therefore it would have truly worked as a cost saving measure only if this was introduced in conjunction with radical changes to the cars.

"Banning team orders after this year's experience is good but its only cosmetic. Ferrari will easily mask what they want to do to avoid penalty. It's just a public relations exercise.

"More should have been done to cut costs. This is where they failed with these changes and it will come back to haunt Formula 1 when tobacco sponsorship ceases, if not before. How this could have been done is a difficult answer, however. One suggestion I have is to mandate both cast iron brake rotors and pads from a single supplier for each of those parts, as the braking distances are too short to allow human comprehension for a safe passing move as things stand now.

"Regarding: custom-make tyres, its a two edged sword with the net effect through the field being a negative step. Obviously it was done to benefit McLaren and Williams compared to Ferrari. The reality however will be that the other Michelin teams will get whatever is made for the top two and the gap between them will grow. And Bridgestone is unlikely to respond for its other teams unless one of them happens to get somewhat competitive with McLaren and Williams by using Ferrari's tyres (in which case Bridgestone may feel there's no need to make a special tyre for them anyway!). Thanks for asking for our opinions!"

Doug (55) - Canada.

"Until Monday [28 Oct 2002] there were two categories of regulations, Sporting and Technical, but after the commission's announcement, they should add a third, Viewership. The changes announced this week will add little to the racing and are designed only to extend the number of events the television audience might tune in to watch.

"Formula 1 needs changes, not the ridiculous ones proposed in the 9-point plan, and not the lame TV friendly ones added Monday, but real corrections to ensure better racing. The Commission has once again failed to meet these requirements, but no one should have thought that they would. Look at their track record: we didn't want traction control and we got it, we didn't want narrow chassis and we got them, we didn't want grooved tyres and we got them, we didn't want mickey mouse tracks and we got those too.

"The Commission's decisions Monday, and the statements made during the season by team principals like Jean Todt (that there is nothing wrong with F1), are indicative of one very sad thing, as a business, Formula1 has the mindset of a monopoly. The excuse that it's too late to make changes to the technical regulations (reduced down force, steel or smaller brakes, removal of driver aids, etc) when the series is in such desperate need of repair could only be made by a business operating as if it did not have to concern itself with customer satisfaction. The F1 principals have demonstrated not just a lack of interest in the needs of the fans but an outright contempt for them.

"I've been a fan of F1 for more than 30 years, but I suspect that most fans, like me, watch not because of what Formula 1 is, but what it was. If the 2002 season had been F1's first, would you be watching next year? Formula 1 is quickly becoming a joke and the Commission's mistake is that it can't see this, or must believe that F1 is immune from the pressures of the marketplace. The fans (Customers!) of Formula 1 have put up with a lot in the last decade, but if the F1 Commission believes that the fans will continue to buy a product they don't like, they are mistaken. In this 500-channel world, there are lots of places for the viewers to go and already they have begun demonstrate they will go.

"How critical will the fans be and how quickly will they tune out if the 2003 season is just as lacking in real racing? Sadly, I believe this is the primary question facing us looking to next year and not what sort of competition we can look forward to seeing on the track."
Steve Crisp - Canada.

"As an American fan of F1, I have a keen interest in making the sport more appealing to the US race-watching public. I'm sick of having to make excuses for why I like F1. It has become increasingly difficult to do so, especially this year.

"The powers that be in F1 have made another mistake by not squarely addressing fundamental issues of competition and overall image, while at the same time trying to expand into newer markets. If people in the US find it boring, uncompetitive and elitist, what are the masses in Asia going to think?

"Regarding rule changes, they do not go far enough. The question of aerodynamic vs. mechanical grip was not addressed, and this appears to be a big factor in the lack of overtaking. Also, to that end, I'd like to see the drivers do more of the driving and computers do less. F1 needs to look back at what made great seasons great and model the new rules after the old.

"Regarding overall PR/perception problems, F1 needs to get its head out of the stratosphere and back to their bread and butter...the fans. OK, the sport is flashy and international, but it has gone too far. The leadership appear to be out of touch with the common man and the drivers (with the exception of maybe Eddie Irvine and Jacques Villeneuve) are becoming robots whose personalities are smothered by the careful choosing of every word in order to keep those holding the purse strings happy and politically correct.

"I am disappointed, and fear that I may no longer get up at odd hours to watch every minute I can of these beautiful cars. Its just too dull."

Tom Throckmorton - United States.

"The new rules, in general, seem to make sense (as compared with the inane proposals latterly proposed), with one exception. That exception is the ban on team orders. I believe that to be unenforceable in any practical sense. All a team has to do to reverse the order of their two drivers is have a minor cock up in the "number 2" driver's last pit stop. How can the FIA possibly prove that the "error" was not legitimate? Overall, the other changes are not negative for the sport, because they do not reduce F1 to a giant marketing machine at the expense of being the world's premier competitive automotive engineering arena. NASCAR may be a commercial success in the USA, but there are few forms of "serious" motorsport that are more boring.

"The flap and flail over declining attendance has, I believe, more to do with general economic conditions (not to mention the exorbitant cost of tickets) than with domination by any one team."

Keith Toepfer (57) - Native-born USA national.

"I don't understand new F1 rules at all, at best, they will make Michael Schumacher start further back. They are designed to treat the symptoms, not the disease.

"It's no secret that big budget teams have a significant advantage over modest team, therefore Ferrari's advantage is not because of their superiority engineering, but because they can afford to test and test, and constantly make adjustments. Only half of the other teams can afford to do that, so here is the killer: tyres. Ferrari has almost exclusive relationship with Bridgestone, unlike any other team. The biggest gains in speed over the recent years can be attributed to tyres, not engines, and not aerodynamics. I see little changes in the standings from the upcoming season."

Robert Keller (37) USA.

"I used to be a very big F1 fan watched all the TV coverage live knew all the drivers team managers etc... but then it just got boring and predictable. I do not believe the new regulations will change this situation at all. How can they say whether team orders have been given? Qualification means nothing to someone like Ferrari/Shumacher after all once he has pitted does he then not have to overtake people further down the field? How about giving all teams a maximum budget? If the wealthier teams feel the need to spend all of their ill-gotten gains they could support the smaller teams, this could be part of the price they pay for success. Max Mosley is quoted as saying that there has never been overtaking in F1, has he only been watching it for the last 5 or 6 years? He also thinks that no one watches 125 racing well I've got news for him and its exciting and guess why because people do overtake one another and the result is never predictable, not until the winner crosses the finishing line and this applies to all classes and is never boring. So until all these so called experts get out of their yachts and apartments in Monaco and ask the public what they think, then in my humble opinion the sport will continue to sink probably into oblivion. I certainly will not return until the competition is more evenly matched."

Paul Holyoake (45) - English.

"I have little faith in the new rules for 2003. The only rule I agree with is the tyre rule, because this will level out the playing field and see the advantage between Ferrari Bridgestone less apparent. Williams and McLaren won't receive a compromised tyre but custom tyre compounds, which will help them claw back some time.

"But the qualifying rule is ridiculous. It's the race that needs to be affected not the qualifying sessions. Qualifying this year was the most exciting part of the GP weekend. I see why they did it though - drivers will get caught out by mistakes or weather and it will force them down the grid. But passing opportunities remain the, same which are few and far between, and how long do you think it would take Schumi to carve through the midfielders to reach the front? All of 5-6 laps then we're back to square one.

"The testing ban is also not very intelligent, I can't see many teams opting for the Friday practice - 10 testing days rule. They should have implemented a great suggestion from the past. Give the smaller teams more testing time before GP weekend to find a better setup. An extra session on Thursday perhaps or simply excuse the top teams from one of the Friday practices.

"I don't know why they bothered re-introducing traction control, it should be removed again. Separate the men from the boys, I'd like to see more driver input rather then computer input. Remove automatic transmissions, these are not Cadillac's on a Sunday stroll. It's not like they have a clutch pedal and stick shift.

"The team orders rule is fine because I think it was merely designed not to allow teams to be so transparent when executing team orders. The FIA couldn't police traction control why should team orders be any different.

"Aside from the tyre rule, the rules are not going to stop Ferrari in their tracks. Myself being a Ferrari fan I don't necessarily wish that. But I'd like to see the other teams competitive. In the end rules will only do so much, it's the other teams that have to perform."

John Tuccitto (23) - Canada.

"How are these changes going to make the racing on Sunday better? Qualifying was the best part of the F1 weekend and now they have ruined that as well. If you have ever had to endure superpole at a bike race you will know how boring that type of qualifying is. I have gone to the British GP for the last seven years and will not even consider it this year and I get in free with a press pass. If Bernie Ecclestone and co ever left the high security paddock long enough to see what the paying punter sees at a race they would make changes to make racing exciting for the fans, and not lick up to the sponsors by ensuring they get at least one lap on the television coverage. I was an avid F1 fan but now on Sundays I cut the grass once I've seen the start of the GP and seen Michael Schumacher 3, 4 or 5 seconds ahead of the field on the first lap. Boring, boring, boring."
Malcolm Bannon (43) - British.

"What a waste of time. Proves the meeting at Heathrow was just a load of crappy hot air. None of the 'exciting' rule changes will have any effect on what really matters, or maybe it doesn't, the racing on Sunday.

"Changing the points system won't suddenly make Minardi race winners. Qualifying used to be based on the best of Friday and Saturday a number of years ago. What happens if a Williams, McLaren or Ferrari blows an engine on either of the two qualifying laps? This seems to be very much like World Superbike Superpole. Now there's racing for you, MotoGP likewise. Surely testing has a safety element that can only be solved by as much testing as teams want. There are far too many silly rules...

"...The problem with F1 did not just arise in 2002. For 10 - 15 years the actual racing has been boring. Even in the days of 26 cars there was limited excitement. Perhaps if costs were slashed, it would allow for a bigger grid, the present 20 or 22 cars is too small, using safety is just a smokescreen - maybe bigger grids would reduce all the team incomes."

Maurice Wilson.

"Copying Superbikes superpole is a great idea - now all we have to do is get F1 to get rid of two wheels and the stupid wings and we will be well on the way to great racing!"

Mark Davey (42) - England.

"The FIA has not so much banned team orders, but the appearance of team orders. In other words, drivers and teams will be penalised for bad acting and for looking shonky on TV, which is fine by me, because team orders is a part of the tradition of F1. The introduction of a single flying lap to determine grid position should be popular, since it is a race to be enjoyed in itself. It has been successful in World Superbikes, while the "Top Ten Shootout" for Aussie V8 Supercars at Bathurst is better viewing than the race itself, and shorter too! It is a skill in its own right, since some riders and drivers excel at putting in one hot lap."
Mal McPherson (59) - Australia.

"The qualifying will be improved... The new points system will help more teams... The testing proposals will benefit the smaller teams... ...and the final result will be that the races will be as boring as ever and will drive me (and thousands of others) away from watching anymore F1 races. F1 - you've got to be kidding. In another 2-3 years Speed Channel will be showing "NASCAR race re-runs" instead of your product! And rightfully so!"

Tom Vollmer (36) - USA.

"I'm not sure the changes due to be implemented in the beginning of the 2003 season will really result in better racing and more entertainment for racing fans. I would have really liked to see some changes to allow more wheel-to-wheel racing and passing. The cars need less aero downforce to allow cleaner air. For tyres, they could have made it so there was one tyre supplier; I don't know how anyone could force Bridgestone into making tyres for any other team than Ferrari - tyre manufacturers want to win too. As long as Ferrari is up front, any other team that uses Bridgestone tyres will get leftovers. It would be nice to have one tyre supplier, go to slicks and tighten the aerodynamic specs so there is less dirty air.

"As far as qualifying goes, I like to see the drivers improve their time as the session goes on. I think having two sessions would be great and award a front row spot to the fastest driver in each session with the fastest driver on pole. I think this would make Saturday mean something.

"Team orders will just be more subtle now. Have less testing sessions and more races. The weekend could be used for testing as well as setup. I think F1 also needs to figure out how to make the drivers more accessible to TV viewers. Here in the US we get Speedvision, which is usually just a feed with some announcers watching the race and adding commentary. I'd rather get the live feed from the UK or the official F1 feed. I would gladly pay to view the races without commercials/

"Anyway, we'll see how the sport fares. I'll still watch but my expectations are much lower. CART is looking better as time goes by..."

Dave Glenn - USA.

"I think all the changes made will be good for the sport. I would have liked to have seen a Tyre Championship brought about to increase better customer service to the middle and lower teams. To me if Michael with Bridgestone won a race and Michelin runners took all the rest of the points, then to me Michelin won the weekend because they had 16 points to Bridgestone's 10."

Jack Auckland (33) - British.

Finally Crash.net would like to thank all those people that replied to our story "New F1 rules - have your say..." - regretfully we cannot publish every letter, but we would like to a say a 'BIG thanks' to ALL those who sent in comments.