The flaws of the NASCAR Chase for the Sprint Cup

Now I'm writing about a series I am not so familiar with. NASCAR, I mean. But I'll write anyway, sometimes it's easier for an outsider to see flaws (or an outsider just can't see why they really aren't flaws).

The Chase for the Sprint Cup will get its conclusion next Sunday at Homestead-Miami. Or should I rather call it the Sprint for the Chase Cup as after 26 races, the title is decided in the last ten races. Anyway, I spotted this interesting statistic:

Qualified for the Championship round:
Logano - 5 wins - 15 times in top 5
Harvick - 4 wins - 13 times in top 5
Hamlin - 1 wins - 7 times in top 5
Newman - 0 wins - 4 times in top 5

Eliminated after the Eliminator round:
Keselowski - 6 wins - 16 times in top 5
Gordon - 4 wins - 14 times in top 5
Edwards - 2 wins - 7 times in top 5
Kenseth - 0 wins - 13 times in top 5

So, it seems like the eliminated drivers form a stronger lineup than the Championship round lineup. I think that highlights the biggest flaw of the current Chase system. It's just crazy that after 26 races, the advancing drivers are decided in three-race elimination rounds, and in the end, the title is decided in one race. I'm not saying the Chase is a bad system; I rather think it could be a great system. Extending the title battle to the last race and eliminating four drivers after every third race makes the end of the season exciting and keeps the title battle more open. It may not be the fairest system but it's balancing between having a fair and an entertaining system. That's why team sports have the playoffs and so has the PGA Tour, too, and those systems work.

I think the Chase system should reward the entire season's success more. Somebody with Gordon's season shouldn't be out of the title contention while Newman is in the final four with no wins. So, instead of resetting all drivers' points to the same amount between the elimination rounds, don't reset them or reset them so that the best drivers of the season have a significant advantage but even the last qualifier has a chance to win the title.

Also, I don't like how the title is decided in the final race. While winning the title by finishing 7th with even 11th place being enough while the main rival wins would be anticlimatic, winning the title just by finishing ahead of the other contenders doesn't feel right if they've had a better season until then. Have it like in the previous elimination rounds, you're through if you win, otherwise points decide.

So basically, give more importance for the entire season's performances. For example, don't reset the points but allow advancing to the next elimination round and winning the title by winning a race if a driver doesn't otherwise have enough points for that. That kind of a system would reward having a great season but would also reward winning.

Thoughts about IndyCar schedule

The IndyCar season ended over two weeks ago, which is very early given that e.g. NASCAR's Chase for the Sprint Cup started only last weekend and will finish in mid-November. IndyCar wanted to have the season finale in late August to get the season finished before the American football season begins.

The early season finish has been criticized a lot but I can understand the reasons behind it. One can say the IndyCar fans would watch IndyCar also after the football season has started but that argument doesn't take casual fans into account. Once the football season has started, it is harder to make casual fans watch IndyCar as well as it is harder to get attention for IndyCar. The season ending in late August can help to get more attention for the season finish.

But the early season finish has also its disadvantages. Even if it enabled to get more attention for the season finish, it means the offseason will be longer than the race season if the next season begins in March.

I think the season should be seven to eight months long. Usually that means a season from March to October or November. But I think the season could also begin earlier to shorten the offseason after an August finish. In that case, even a February start would be too early but the season could begin in January or December. A longer season would allow more time between races. I think two weeks is ideal for the gap between races. A race every week feels too often; a race doesn't feel so special when there was one in the previous week and another in the following one. A race every two weeks feels right; it would feel more special yet the races would be often enough to keep the interest up. Yet, a winter start wouldn't completely be without problems. There are IndyCar drivers participating the 24 Hours of Daytona so a January start would be problematic. Besides weather would rule out many tracks for races in winter.

Weather leads to another topic. Should IndyCar expand overseas? There could be races e.g. in South America during winter.

I think IndyCar should concentrate on the USA, their key market is there. But there could be some overseas races to increase the series' international recognition. I think Latin America would be a good option for international races. The races would be in the same time zones as the USA so it wouldn't make much difference for an American TV viewer. Brazil had a race in Sao Paulo until last year and next year there will probably be a race in the city of Brasilia. Another Latin American country where I would like to see a race is Colombia as they have three drivers in the series. Mexico as the USA's neighboring country would also be quite a natural option for an abroad race. Yet, the former Champ Car venue Autodromo Hermanos Rodrigues in Mexico City will be hosting F1 starting from the next year, so that track obviously isn't an option for IndyCar.

As for overseas races, I think Australia and Japan could also be good additions to the calendar. Surfers Paradise and Motegi have already previously hosted IndyCar and CART races. Those races' time zones might be somewhat problematic for the American TV audience but I am pretty sure late Saturday night is better than early Sunday morning. Because of the difficult time zone, I don't think IndyCar should consider expansion to Europe. Another reason is that IndyCar isn't very popular in Europe and I doubt the races would draw enough audience to be worth flying the cars to Europe.

All in all, I think the season ending in late August may have some advantages but the long offseason has its disadvantages. Starting the season earlier could be a solution to avoid the long offseason of the August finish. Yet finding tracks for a winter start might be more difficult than extending the season until October or November with a March start. My opinion is that the offseason must not exceed five months. If you cannot do it with an August finish, then extend the season into October or November.

Should F1 go to three-car teams?

Yesterday there was an interesting tweet by Adam Parr:

"This is the last year of F1 as we know it. In 2015 eight teams will contest the championship, with several teams entering three cars."

There were also other tweets confirming this possibility. (link 1, link 2) Of course, I am not sure how credible that F1 Paddock Pass is but Adam Parr would feel pretty credible a source. I would say "no smoke without fire".

F1 going to three-car teams feels like a major change as there has been no three-car teams since the 80s, and since the 90s, there has been no one-car teams. Two-car teams have been the standard of F1 for about the last twenty years. The grid reducing to eight teams isn't completely out of question after this year. Caterham is stuck on the back of the grid and isn't doing financially well. The Caterham Group of the team founder Tony Fernandes sold the team earlier this year, and the future prospects of the team don't look good. Marussia is another of the new teams of 2010 and still stuck to the back of the grid, despite scoring two points this year and being ahead of Sauber in the constructors' standings. Besides, Marussia's road car business is now defunct so running an F1 team might not make so much sense for them. Sauber is a team that has struggled financially in the last years, yet the rumoured takeover by the Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll would secure the future of the team. Lotus have also had financial issues in the last years, so one cannot be sure about their future. And if F1 went to three-car teams, I am not so sure Red Bull would like to continue Toro Rosso as their main team would already have three cars.

Meanwhile, there are new team projects aiming to join F1 in 2016, so a plan to reduce the number of teams sounds surprising. Then again, I doubt those teams woud have a lot to give to F1. We saw in 2010 how difficult it is to come to F1 as a brand-new team. Caterham and Marussia have struggled throughout their entire existence, HRT went bust after three seasons, and the USF1 team never made the grid. It seems like to start from scratch and be competitive in F1, a team must have the resources of a big car manufacturer, Toyota as an example. Even they couldn't make it to the top during their eight-year stay in F1 but at least they were competitive. Still, most of the time they were competing in the midfield against teams with smaller budgets but more experience.

Entering F1 has got very difficult. It is hard to get the financing to have a competitive budget. Besides, the lack of other resources makes it hard for new teams to be competitive in F1. But how to make it easier to enter F1? Reducing the costs would make it easier to join the series as well as it would be easier for the midfield teams to challenge the top teams. A budget cap has sometimes been proposed but it would be difficult to police. Car manufacturer affiliated teams could have their R&D done in the road car division to hide it from the F1 team's budget. Restrictions like engine development freeze have been introduced to reduce costs. But even if engines didn't cost so much, teams can use the saved money to something else. With enough standardization in components, teams could save money but developing F1 towards a spec series would be bad for the series. The competition between constructors has always been a part of F1 so it must remain like that. Also, teams with better resources would oppose more standardization and might leave F1 because of it. Also, the richer teams might not even like to cut their budgets enabling financially less strong teams to challenge them more easily. That would be another reason for them to leave F1. And with big teams leaving F1, there might be a possibility of another series surpassing F1 as the most important series in car racing. Because of that risk, F1 couldn't afford losing its top teams.

So, I think there is little to be done to reduce the cost of new manufacturers entering F1. But is there then any way to help new teams entering F1 as well as to reduce the performance gap between the better and worse teams? Is going to less teams with more cars the only way to make the back of the grid more competitive?

To be honest, I think less manufacturers with more cars would make the competition tighter. The backmarker teams don't have the resources of the big teams and the big teams won't voluntarily give up their advantage over the smaller teams to make the competition tighter. But I wouldn't go to a grid of three-car teams. A three-car team withdrawing from F1 would be a bigger loss than a two-car team. Two three-car teams withdrawing would be disastrous for the series, there would be six cars less. Instead of three-car teams, I would allow buying components from other teams and even customer cars. Privateer constructors like Williams have opposed the idea of customer cars because a team with a customer car of a dominant team might beat them with a fraction of their budget. But customer cars could also be a way of financing the operations of privateer constructors by selling their cars to customer teams. To ensure more constructors having customers, each constructor could be allowed only one customer team. Of course, customer cars could enable some teams practically having four cars by entering the series as two teams. To prevent teams from having financial advantage by operating as two teams with the same car, teams with customer cars, or cars mostly consisting of customer components, could be excluded from the constructors' championship and thus from getting their share of the series' revenue. That would also protect constructor teams from losing to customer teams in the constructors' championship, being an incentive for the teams to have own cars. After all, I think allowing customer cars would make the competition tighter. But I also think F1 needs more constructors than only the top teams. In case of customer cars being allowed, F1 should ensure own cars being the preferred option for midfield teams.

Why is IndyCar getting more interesting than F1? What could F1 learn from North America?

Current IndyCar and former Formula One and NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya has said F1 should copy American racing to re-engage fans. Actually, I must say my motorsports interest has been switching from F1 to IndyCar in the recent years, so maybe Montoya has a point.

Why I have started to get interested in IndyCar is that it offers better entertainment than F1. Actually, I preferred F1 when it didn't go too far with its attempts to be entertaining. Back then it seemed like American racing was the one going too far with attempts to make races more entertaining with excessive use of pace car, push-to-pass in IndyCar, or green-white-checker finish in NASCAR. But in recent years in F1, safety car rules have been changed to make safety car periods spice up the race more as well as the DRS is even more artificial than push-to-pass in IndyCar. The use of push-to-pass in IndyCar is in the driver's discretion plus one can use it also to defend, yet one can use it only ten times in a race. In F1, a driver can use DRS always when he is within one second of the car ahead in the DRS zone, yet one cannot use it to defend. That produces more exciting wheel-to-wheel racing in IndyCar as opposed to F1's DRS passes that can hardly be called overtakes. Another thing I dislike in F1 is the amount of tarmac run-offs. Tarmac is more forgiving compared to gravel, taking away challenge as going wide isn't punished the way it used to be. Instead going wide may even gain some time, leading to uncertainty if a qualifying lap is valid or if an overtake happened withing the track limits. In North America, tarmac run-offs are still quite uncommon with run-offs being mostly gravel or street circuits having no run-off between the track and the wall like in F1. IndyCar also provides more variety with tracks by having races on not only road courses and street circuits but also on ovals. Also, I dislike F1 having double points in the final race of the season. IndyCar also introduced that for this year but I prefer their system. They give double points in the 500-mile races of Indianapolis, Pocono, and Fontana which is the final race of the season. That makes more sense as they are the longest races of the season whereas in F1 the Abu Dhabi GP isn't any different to the other Grands Prix.

But what could F1 learn from North America in that regard? I think F1's overtaking aids have gone too far. Just introduce similar rules like with push-to-pass in IndyCar; first you try to overtake without push-to-pass, then if you are still stuck behind a slower car, you can use push-to-pass, yet cannot do it lap after lap. Of course, I am not sure that would make racing in F1 as tight as in IndyCar; also cars play a role here and I will return on that later. As for run-offs, there is no return to gravel in fast corners where it would be dangerous. But I think there shouldn't be tarmac runoffs in slow corners where gravel traps or grass wouldn't be dangerous. When it comes to oval racing, I think it is a nice addition to IndyCar but has no place in F1. Ovals haven't been a part of F1 excluding the series' early years when Indianapolis 500 was a World Championship race and the Monza circuit also included the oval section. Besides, given the high emphasis of safety in F1, it would be difficult to see F1 racing on dangerous ovals.

One major difference between F1 and IndyCar is F1 teams designing and building their own cars whereas IndyCar teams use single-make cars. The difference between IndyCar teams is which engine they use plus there will be different aerokits starting from the next season. The single-make chassis is obviously one reason for the tighter racing in IndyCar. And of course it means much lower costs. Then again, I think each team having their own car has become an essential part of F1 and is a part of the series' attractiveness as it is unique among single-seaters. In that regard, IndyCar will never be like F1, yet I would like it to be more like CART in the 90s with multiple different chassis and engine manufacturers. More manufacturers would mean more technical competition. But F1 shouldn't go for customer cars, each team having their own car has been a part of the series for such a long time. One aim of F1 regulations should be to enable tight racing but not to limit teams' technical freedom. That is challenging; too much freedom and the differences between teams can get too big. But too restrictive rules take away the attractiveness of technical competition in F1, even if that enabled tighter racing.

Montoya spoke about American series being more fan-friendly. I cannot speak a lot about the fan experience at the track as I have never been to a race. Also, I don't know about IndyCar's televising in its home market in the USA. In Europe, it is mostly a pay channel sport but so is also F1 these days. But a big difference is the use of the new media. F1's Twitter account is just links to articles on the series' website, IndyCar and NASCAR, on the other hand, tweet photos and videos on the series' Twitter accounts. Of course, teams tweet actively in F1 so there isn't so much need of an active series account. There is also a difference in the series' YouTube policy. F1 removes videos from YouTube in order to protect their material. IndyCar and NASCAR don't remove videos and even have own YouTube accounts, in order to promote the series. Exclusive TV rights may be a problem for F1 but their approach still seems outdated.

One more thing I prefer in IndyCar is how everything seems more relaxed there. It is hard to describe but I think there are less controversies in IndyCar than in F1. Maybe it is just because I haven't followed it as much as F1. Controversies obviously help to keep F1 in headlines between races but I am tired of them. And maybe it is that more relaxed attitude why tough racing leads to less complaining in IndyCar, making it more enjoyable to watch.

But to the main question, what could F1 learn from North America? I think completely copying North American racing wouldn't work. Not all existing fans would like American-style F1, and for people liking American-style open-wheel racing, there is already IndyCar. F1 has always been more about sport and less about show than American racing. That is what it should be like also nowadays, even though DRS, double-points final race, and proposed standing restarts are even bigger show elements than what there is in American racing. Also, F1 must not lose the aspect of technical competition that makes it special. F1 could copy some elements from American racing or other series as long as it doesn't lose its own nature. For example, I think DRS in the way it is used in F1 has not been a good addition whereas IndyCar-style push-to-pass would be an improvement. To retain the existing fanbase, F1 must retain its essence as well as improve the fan experience, e.g. with new media, to comply with the standards set by other series. A better fan experience would also help to get new fans. And American series could be a model of the use of new media.

Rule changes in F1 in the past ten years and my opinion on them

Niki Lauda has suggested that the rule changes of the last ten years should be reconsidered. (Original article in German) The article lists the 77 rule changes of the last ten years. 45 of them were in the Technical Regulations and 32 in Sporting Regulations. Here are the changes and what I think about them.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2005

• The engines must last 2 Grand Prix weekends (instead of one)
• The front wing must be at the height of 15cm (instead of 10cm)
• The rear wing must be moved 15cm closer to the car
• The diffuser may be at maximum 12.5cm high

The longlife engines have been something I have never really liked. In my opinion, racing cars should be build so that they can just finish the race but could hardly last any longer. Finishing the race should be a technical challenge. As the engines are nowadays build to last multiple races, technical retirements have become quite rare in recent years. I would really like to see the return for new engines for each GP weekend but that is obviously very unlikely to happen. That would increase costs too much.

As for the aerodynamic changes for 2005, I don't have much to say. Obviously they were intented to help overtaking as the cars' aerodynamic sensitivity has made following another car so difficult.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2005

• The qualification consists of two single laps the times of which will be aggregated
• Tyre changes during the race are banned
• Teams from the fifth place in the Constructors' Championship may run a third car on Friday

The single-lap qualifying didn't work too well in F1. The previous format with 12 laps in 60 minutes didn't have much action early in the session but the single lap qualifying lacked the intensity of the last minutes in the previous format.

Banning tyre changes was a bad decision in my opinion. Having one set of tyres for the race forced drivers to look more after their tyres, and I don't think that kind of tyre management belongs to F1.

Allowing a third car for lower-placed teams wasn't a good rule in my opinion. After a weak 2004 season, McLaren had a third car for Friday practices whereas their title rival Renault didn't have one. That sounds like un unfair rule.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2006

• Engines with 8 cylinders and 2.4 liter capacity

That was obviously not a very popular rule change back then after 3-litre V10s. But now people are missing even those V8s and their sound.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2006

• Qualification with a three-phase knockout system
• Tyre changes are again allowed

The single-lap qualifying wasn't very popular as it lacked the intensity of the former qualifying format. The three-phase qualifying brought that intensity back but the knockout system means there is action on track already early in the qualifying.

Reintroducing the tyre changes was a good thing in my opinion. As I wrote above, I think one set of tyres for a race required too much tyre management.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2007

• Maximum RPM of engines 19,000, development frozen

I was sceptical after 2006 about how the engine homologation will work out. I was afraid that one manufacturer will have a better engine than others and the others can't catch up in the following seasons. Well, the same engines in 2013 were pretty equal in performance, even though Renault had been given a permission to develop their engine before 2009 because they were behind others because of a different rule interpretation. But now there are new engines and their development for next seasons is restricted. My fear from 2006 may happen now; it is unsure if other manufacturers can catch Mercedes as they can't design a completely new engine.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2007

• The Friday practice consists of two 90min sessions (instead of two 60min sessions)
• During a Safety Car period, the pit lane remains closed until all cars are in queue behind the Safety Car
• Single supply tyres: During the race, both tyre compounds must be used
• Maximum of 14 tyre sets per driver per race
• Maximum of 30,000 testing kilometers per team

Costs have been tried to cut by limiting testing outside race weekends and the practice sessions were made longer to offer more testing during the race weekends.

I have had mixed feelings about single-supply tyres. On one hand, I think the tyre war belongs to F1. On the other hand, tyres may have played a bit too big role. In 2006, there were some obvious Bridgestone races and some obvious Michelin races. That was a bit too predictable. When it comes to the mandatory use of both compounds, I am not completely sure it improves racing. Most drivers will have the same optimal tyre strategy, even though it enables some gambles with strategy. But it means there are some drivers with different tyre compounds so that should create some overtaking. I wouldn't say the mandatory use of both compounds is such a bad rule. The limited number of tyre sets per weekend obviously helps to cut costs.

The Safety Car rules for 2007 were changed to prevent the race to pits during yellow flags before the Safety Car. The downside of those rules was that you can't exploit the lead you had before the Safety Car to have a pitstop plus if you had to pit for refuelling before pitting was allowed again, you got a penalty. Luckily that rule isn't anymore in effect.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2008

• Introduction of standard electronics, no more traction control
• Gearbox must last 4 GP weekends

A reason for introducing the previously banned traction control in 2001 was that it was impossible to police. Standard electorics enabled banning it again. I think the ban of traction control is a good thing. You can hear how people say that today's F1 cars are too easy to drive, the lack of traction control makes them at least a bit more difficult.

My opinion on longlife gearboxes is similar to my opinion on longlife engines. In my opinion, no components should be required to last more than one weekend. But the longlife gearboxes are to restrict costs so they are there to stay.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2008

• Spare cars are banned

Not a big deal in my opinion. That may have reduced the number of mechanics needed so would cut costs a bit.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2009

• The big aero reform with 180cm wide front wings (instead of 140cm)
• 75cm wide rear wings (instead of 100cm)
• 95cm high rear wings (instead of 80cm)
• Diffuser height 17.5cm in center, 12.5cm outside
• Winglets and fins on the bodywork banned
• Return of slick tyres
• Maximum RPM of engines 18,000
• Maximum of 8 engines per year
• KERS allowed, 82 hp for 6.7 seconds per lap

The new aerodynamics rules were aimed to help overtaking by enabling to follow a car ahead closer than previously. Unfortunately it is still difficult to follow a car ahead in fast corners where you could gain more time than in slow corners, so overtaking is still difficult. One downside of the 2009 regulations was that in tight racing, the wide front wings got easier damaged than previously. The return to slicks was aimed to compensate the loss of downforce by having more mechanical grip.

As it has became obvious, I don't really like the idea of longlife components but I have preferred the rules for engine life since 2009. Now you don't automatically get a penalty from an engine change unless you have used too many engines during the season or the car is in Parc Ferme after the qualifying.

The introduction of KERS was obviously something F1 had to do. They had to bring some eco aspect to F1, even though the road relevance of F1 KERS is debatable.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2009

• Pit lane during Safety Car periods again open, delta time for the inlap
• Maximum of 15,000 testing kilometers and 20 test days
• Maximum of 60 wind tunnel hours per week, 60% models at maximum, maximum of 40 teraflops computer capacity

The pit lane could again be kept open during a Safety Car period as with the delta time for pit stops, drivers were prevented from racing to the pits under yellow flags.

In order to cut costs, testing as well as the use of wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics has been restricted. Personally I must say, I don't miss in-season testing so much. The downside of restricted on-track testing is that it favours teams with better wind tunnel and CFD facilities whereas smaller teams would be more in line with the big teams in on-track testing. On the other hand, unlimited track testing would mean that the richest teams could spend huge amounts of money in developing the car what smaller teams couldn't do.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2010

• Tyre width restricted to 245mm (front) and 325mm (rear)
• Minimum weight 620kg (instead of 605kg)
• KERS voluntarily abandoned

The front tyres were too wide in relation to the rear tyres in 2009, so they were made narrower. But as a reason to return to slicks was to provide more mechanical grip, why did the FIA make the front tyres narrower and not make the rear tyres wider? Wider rear tyres would have brought more mechanical grip and made the cars less aero-dependent.

In 2009, KERS didn't bring much advantage; the two best cars of 2009 didn't even have KERS. The weight of KERS affected to the weight distribution of the car and to reduce that disadvantage, the minimum weight was increased, even though the teams had agreed not to use KERS in 2010.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2010

• New points system 25-18-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 (instead of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1)
• Refuelling banned
• 11 tyre sets per driver per GP weekend (instead of 14)
• Maximum cost of customer engines €9 million
• 15 testing days (before the season) + 3 (after the season) with 1 car per team
• At a restart after a Safety Car period, overtaking allowed after the SC line at pit entry (instead after the start/finish line)
• Maximum of 47 staff members per team at track

The aim of the new points system was to increase the value of race wins. The previous system had the opposite aim, to reduce the points difference between winning and finishing second, in order to reduce team orders. But the problem was that the incentive to risk a second place for a win was too small. Now there is more incentive for that. Also, given the great reliability of the cars, getting points had gotten harder, so it is justifiable to give points to two more cars.

Refuelling was banned for safety reasons. I must say, I miss refuelling. It brough more tactical aspects to racing, even though that may have meant less action on track as the drivers were relying on the pit strategy.

Once again, costs were tried to cut with some rules: reduced number of tyre sets, cap on engine price, restrictions on testing, and restrictions on staff.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2011

• Double diffuser banned. Maximal diffuser height over the whole width 12.5cm
• F-duct banned
• Introduction of the Drag Reduction System. Free use in practice and qualifying, in race in certain places
• KERS again allowed
• Minimum weight 640kg (instead of 620kg)
• Fixed weight distribution +/- 1%
• Gearbox must last 5 GP weekends

Unintented loopholes in aerodynamic regulations were removed, like double diffuser and F-duct. KERS was introduced again, and with the higher minimum weight, carrying KERS wasn't anymore such a disadvantage but an advantage because of its extra horsepowers. Gearboxes must last one more race longer, obviously to cut costs.

Drag Reduction System was an easy solution to increase overtaking. When you are close enough, you get a speed advantage helping you to get past the car ahead. But that kind of passing isn't very spectacular. I would have regulations that would make the cars such that you can overtake with them more easily, without aids like DRS. And if there must be an overtaking aid, I would prefer IndyCar-style push-to-pass. You can use it only for a certain number of times during a race, so you must manage push-to-passes, and you can use it also to defend.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2011

• Team orders allowed

Ferrari's team order at Hockenheim in 2010 showed that the ban on team orders doesn't work so there is no need for that ban, even if team orders aren't good PR for the sport.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2012

• Chassis height at the front axle 55cm (instead of 62.5cm)
• Regulations for the position of the exhaust tailpipe
• Retarted ignition with all 8 cylinders banned

The FIA wanted to prevent teams from using exhaust gases to improve downforce. Quite understandable when the series aims towards fuel efficiency.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2012

• Race duration with breaks 4 hours at maximum
• When overtaking, both drivers must leave a car's widh space
• Unlapping during Safety Car periods

I don't like the unlapping rule during Safety Car periods. People were complaining when there were lapped cars between cars fighting for the same position preventing the driver behind attacking at the restart. But why should he be able to attack at the restart; he was so much behind before the Safety Car that there were some lapped cars between. This seems like a rule intented to improve the show. Of course, there was a safety aspect, some slow lapped cars might have been dangerous at restarts. But this unlapping also takes some time, why do those lapped cars have to unlap themselves, why couldn't they just be told to let the cars behind lap them? That would take much less time.

With standing restarts in 2015, it seems like Safety Car periods are being used to bring some action. I much prefer how they do at Le Mans where they try to avoid safety car periods with yellow flag zones where you must slow down noticeably. Le Mans wants the Safety Car to affect to the race as little as possible, F1 as much as possible.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2013

• Double DRS banned
• DRS use also in practice and qualifying only in the DRS zone
• Minimum weight 642kg (instead of 640kg)

An obvious reason to allow the use of DRS only in the DRS zone also in the practice and qualifying sessions was to avoid using it in dangerous places. On the other hand, less opportunities to use DRS may lead to teams going for shorter gears. Then the advantage from DRS in the race is smaller.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2013

• Maximum of 12 testing days (instead of 15)
• Maximum of 60 staff members at track

These regulations were obviously aimed to control costs.

Changes to the Technical Regulations for 2014

• The big engine reform with 1.6-litre turbo V6, direct injection, and  two electric units MGU-K and MGU-H
• Maximal fuel flow of 100kg per hour
• 8-speed gearbox (previous maximum 7-speed)
• Maximum of 5 engines per driver per year
• Exhaust position central in rear, only one exhaust
• Maximal nose height 18.5cm
• Front wing width 165cm (instead of 180cm)
• Rear wing with two elements at maximum (previously three)
• Minimum weight 691kg (previously 642kg), brake-by-wire allowed
• Gearbox must last 6 GP weekends
• Introduction of a standard side crash structure

The new engins have been criticized a lot, mostly because they are too silent. I can imagine it takes something away from the live viewing experience. But I think the new engines were a step to right direction. Hybrid technology is getting more and more important for car manufacturers, and for them to participate in F1, F1 must have some road relevance. But I think the fuel flow maximum could be abolished, I don't think saving fuel belongs to F1.

Changes to the Sporting Regulations for 2014

• Maximum of 100kg of fuel for a race
• Double points in the season finale
• Introduction of penalty points: with 12 points during 365 days a race ban
• Personal numbers for drivers for their entire career
• Ban of FRIC?

The double points in the last race are another rule to improve the show. I don't think that belongs to F1. F1 has always been about who is the best driver throughout the season, not who is the best driver at the end of the season. I'm afraid F1 may be going towards a NASCAR-style Chase for the Championship where the last races decide the champion and early races don't have much importance for the outcome.

The personal numbers aren't such a big deal but I would have preferred assigning the permanent numbers to teams. In car racing, the numbers usually belong to the car owners, and the number system used in F1 until 1995 basically had semi-permanent numbers for teams, so there would have been legendary numbers like 27 and 28 for Ferrari or 5 and 6 for Williams.

How would I change regulations?

As for the Technical Regulations, I would go for more road relevance, that would bring more car manufacturers to F1. Maybe more freedom in the regulations. At Le Mans, Audi, Toyota, and Porsche have completely different engines. If you think about F1, Ferrari and Renault are completely different car manufacturers. What is relevant for one of them is not necessarily for another of them. Allow more freedom and F1 would be more attractive for car manufacturers. As for the Sporting Regulations, I would prefer less gimmicks to improve the show and I would like the rules to promote more pure racing.

And moreover, I would prefer more stability with the rules. At the same time, F1 wants to cut costs but is constantly changing rules, which brings costs to teams. More stable rules would make F1 more attractive for new teams and engine manufacturers.

The future of Williams?

A front row lockout and finishing third and fourth at last weekend's Austrian Grand Prix was a great result from Williams whose last years have had lots of ups and downs. They fell from a top team to a midfield team once their partnership with BMW ended after the 2005 season. 2011 was their worst season in decades, ninth position in the constructors' championship with only five points. After that, one could wonder if there were any hope for a better future for Williams. That's why their good form in the 2012 season was a positive surprise. Pastor Maldonado won the Spanish Grand Prix for the team, their first win since Juan Pablo Montoya at the 2004 Brazilian GP. Yet they couldn't finish higher than eighth in the constructors' championship; Maldonado was way too inconsistent and Bruno Senna didn’t have the pace.

2013 was again a difficult season for the team. Just like in 2011, they finished ninth in the constructors championship with five points. After the season, Maldonado, with his PDVSA sponsorship, left the team for Lotus. Valtteri Bottas, who had replaced Bruno Senna after 2012, stayed in the team, and a former Ferrari driver Felipe Massa became his new teammate. The team also had to end their engine partnership with Renault and they switched to Mercedes engines.

The switch to Mercedes engines was probably the best thing that could happen to Williams. Mercedes has built the best 2014-spec engine, as shown by their own team dominating the series. That's why also Mercedes' customers have had good results this year. But you can't explain Williams' good form with only the Mercedes engines. They are ahead of McLaren, an established top team. Force India are two points ahead of Williams but they gained lots of points compared to Williams in the early season. Williams seem like the only team besides Red Bull that might have pace to challenge Mercedes, even though Williams doesn't perform everywhere as well as at Montreal and the Red Bull Ring.

But can they repeat this season's results next year and re-establish themselves as a top team? That is hard to say but I am a bit sceptical. I believe that at least some of Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren will be stronger next year and will be able to challenge Mercedes. This season is for Williams a bit like the 2012 season was for Williams and Sauber. Suddenly a midfield team has a car capable for podium results, yet they couldn't repeat the success in the following year. One advantage for Williams is the Mercedes engines, though. If Mercedes could retain their advantage for the next year, Williams might find themselves fighting against usual top teams like Red Bull, Ferrari, and McLaren.

The Mercedes engines may have helped Williams to become again a team that can race for podium results but if they are to become a true championship contender, they may need to have another engine partner. After all, Williams are Mercedes' customers and I am not sure they would get full support, especially if that might cost Mercedes' own team a title. McLaren could have stayed as a customer team for Mercedes who are probably the best engine manufacturer in F1. Instead they start a works engine partnership with Honda. Being a customer team isn't an ideal position if you want to race for the titles.

Williams need results like they have had this year to convince some car manufacturer to enter into a works partnership with them. What I think is good for Williams, is that they seem to be financially more stable than other midfield teams, making them more attractive for a long-term partnership. Besides, their non-F1 engineering services might make them an attractive partner for a car manufacturer. Still, at the moment there isn't much talk about potential new engine manufacturers, so having Mercedes customer engines is the best they can have at the moment. Those are the best engines available and help them to establish themselves as a strong midfield team. That is where they need to be to have a chance to become a works team for a new engine manufacturer.

To establish themselves as a strong midfield team, they need also a strong driver line-up. Bottas and Massa is a good pairing, especially Bottas has had some very impressive race performances. But Bottas has been so good that I expect him to leave Williams for a better team in few years unless Williams becomes a true top team. Having at least one excellent driver is necessary for a team. Williams' 2012 season is an example on that. The car had lots of potential, as shown by Maldonado's win in the Spanish GP. But Maldonado was very inconsistent and Bruno Senna lacked pace. With a stronger driver line-up, they might have finished a couple of positions higher in the final standings.

Finding good drivers is difficult for a midfield team, especially as they aren't able to pay much but would rather have drivers who would bring some sponsors. But Williams aren't here alone. The likes of Lotus, Force India, and Sauber have this same problem. One can hope that the good results of this year would bring some new sponsors for Williams to be able to have a strong driver line-up as well as engineering department. Unfortunately we have seen in recent years that good performances don't guarantee new sponsors for midfield teams. Lotus was strong in last two seasons and Sauber in 2012, yet those teams have had financial difficulties.

Williams are having a great season but they still have a long way to become a real top team. They need results like this to attract new sponsors and maybe some car manufacturer to enter into a works partnership. More sponsor income and works engines are in my opinion what Williams need to become a championship contender again.

My report of the 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans

This year's 24 Hours of Le Mans is now behind. For me this was the second Le Mans I really followed. I followed as much of last year's race as possible and enjoyed it, and this time I wanted to see the entire race, and it was a truly great race.

This year marked the return of the works Porsche team to Le Mans. I was happy to see Porsche going to Le Mans; they are such an iconic brand in racing and one of my favourite car brands. I really hope they will have success at Le Mans, yet this year I was actually hoping them not to win. I didn't want them to humiliate Audi and Toyota in the first year after their comeback, especially as Audi is another of my favourite brands.

Audi has dominated Le Mans since 2000 winning all but two races, 2003 and 2009. That's why it is understandable many people wanted to have a new winner. Still, my sympathies were on Audi's side, partly because of their difficult week. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Loic Duval crashed badly in Wednesday's practice session. Duval didn't injure himself badly in the accident but was he had to miss the race and was replaced by Marc Gene. The #1 Audi also couldn't participate the first qualifying session on Wednesday. The qualifying wasn't too good for other Audis, too. The three R18s occupied the starting positions 5 to 7, behind the Toyotas and the Porsches.

Early in the race, #14 Porsche had some fuel system problems that forced it to pits being repaired. Then, with just under two hours of racing, it started to rain heavily and we had some drama. The #8 Toyota driven by Nicolas Lapierre seemed to spin by itself to barriers on the wet track, and at the same a GT Ferrari, driven by Sam Bird hit the #3 Audi driven by Marco Bonanomi. The Audi had to retire whereas the Toyota was able to continue the race but lost lots of time being repaired.

At night, the #1 Audi had to pit to get the fuel injector changed. Also the #14 Porsche faced again problems, being forced to have again a long pit stop. Meanwhile the #7 Toyota was racing with a comfortable lead of almost two minutes to the second-placed #2 Audi. Then, in early morning we had the most dramatic moment of the race. The leading #7 Toyota had been reported to have stopped at Arnage and the #2 Audi took the lead. An electrical problem had forced the Toyota to retire from the lead.

Now, despite all the struggles of the week, the Audi team found themselves having a one-two lead in the race with #2 in the lead and #1 second. The #20 Porsche was on the third place in front of the #8 Toyota and #14 Porsche who had lost lots of time in pits during the race. But the race was far from over, there was still more than the duration of a regular WEC race to finish. And it wasn't a comfortable finish for Audi. The #2 R18 dropped to third position because its turbocharger had to be changed. Now the #1 Audi was leading the race, after being heavily crashed on Wednesday's practice. One of its drivers was the record-winner of Le Mans, Tom Kristensen, aiming for his tenth win.

But nothing was predictable in this race. The #1 Audi also had to get its turbocharger changed, which dropped it to the 3rd place. Now the #20 Porsche was leading the comeback race of the manufacturer in Le Mans. But the #2 Audi was coming fast from behind and it got past during the pit stops. Eventually, the #20 Porsche couldn't even make the podium as technical issues forced it to retire. Also the #14 Porsche had to pit because of technical problems but it was sent back to track at the end of the race to cross the finish line.

In the end, the race was won by the #2 Audi R18 driven by Marcel Fässler, Andre Lotterer, and Benoit Treluyer. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Tom Kristensen, Marc Gene, and Lucas Di Grassi finished second and the #8 Toyota TS040 driven by Anthony Davidson, Sebastien Buemi, and Nicolas Lapierre finished third.

Many people must have found yet another Audi win boring but I was happy for them after all the difficulties they had this week. In some ways, I can understand the joy of Rafael Nadal's fans after his maybe the worst French Open-winning performance. In both cases, the old winner was vulnerable but nobody else had what it takes to win.

At the same time, I feel gutted for Toyota. They did everything right in the race but to win a 24-hour race, you must have the reliability and they didn't have. They were the fastest car this year and I hope they can win Le Mans soon, even though Toyota doesn't raise the same passion in me as Porsche or Audi.

Porsche had an excellent comeback race even though technical issues ended it. Before those issues, they had even one car racing for the win. I hope and believe they can have success in the next years and have tight battles for wins against other teams. While I was happy that Audi could win after the difficult week, I hope to get a new winning manufacturer as soon as possible. Despite Audi's win, at least this year the battle for the win involved three teams, so you can't say Audi winning was inevitable.

Besides the LMP1 class, I enjoyed the GTE classes. Especially the battle for the win of GTE Pro was exciting with wheel-to-wheel racing. The #51 Ferrari of AF Corse, #97 Aston Martin, and #74 Chevrolet Corvette were battling for the win of GTE Pro. Unfortunately first the #74 Corvette and then the #97 Aston Martin faced technical problems, ending the battle for the win before the race ended. I wanted Aston Martin to have a good result as their last Le Mans was a sad race because of Allan Simonsen's death in the GTE Am class. That's why I was really gutted about the power steering issue that took them off from battling for the GTE Pro class win. Every cloud has a silver lining, though. My countryman Toni Vilander was driving the winning AF Corse #51 Ferrari with Gianmaria Bruni and Giancarlo Fisichella. And Aston Martin could win the GTE Am class with the #95 V8 Vantage GTE; the same number that Simonsen had at last year's Le Mans. Unfortunately their #98 V8 Vantage GTE faced some technical issues while leading the GTE Am class; otherwise they could have had one-two in the class.

I really enjoyed the race, 24 hours of great racing and drama, and no artificial gimmicks like DRS or tyres designed to degrade like in F1. Le Mans and other WEC races aren't so hard to follow for an F1 fan, as there are many F1 drivers there. My motorsport interest is definitely moving from F1 to Le Mans and the WEC.

Formula One to return to Long Beach?

Recently there has been talk about Formula One possibly returning to Long Beach. The founder of the Grand Prix of Long Beach, Chris Pook, is working to get F1 to the streets of Long Beach. According to him, F1 wants to have three races in the United States by 2016, the already existing race in Austin, Texas, and races on both the East and the West Coasts.

I think Long Beach would be a great location for an F1 race. The Grand Prix of Long Beach is the most famous street race in the USA. That's why a race in Long Beach could bring a lot of attention to F1 in the States and help it to become more popular there. I think it would be even more important for F1 to have a race in Long Beach if the planned West Coast race in New Jersey fails. The planned New Jersey race with Manhattan as the backdrop could have brought huge attention to F1 in the USA; there are no other races as close to the New York City. Unfortunately that project is already at least two years late, and it happening seems more and more unlikely as time goes by. To me, it feels like Long Beach would be the only other race in the States which could give F1 as much attention as that New Jersey race.

Long Beach hosted F1 already in the late 70s and early 80s before they replaced it with the less expensive and domestically more popular CART series nowadays known as the IndyCar Series. But why would Long Beach now want F1 back? Hosting F1 is much more expensive than IndyCar, and an F1 race would require improved facilities. But F1 would bring more exposure to the event. F1 draws an international crowd whereas IndyCar isn't followed that much outside the USA. The ticket prices would explode if IndyCar were replaced by F1, and many local fans would be unable to attend the race. But even though F1 isn't so popular in the States, an F1 race could have fans from all over the country. F1 races in the USA are rare events compared to IndyCar races; 16 of the 18 IndyCar races take place in the States. And an F1 race gets more spectators from abroad than an IndyCar race.

But can Long Beach afford an F1 race? I believe they can. The US Grand Prix has drawn big crowds in the two years it has been held in Austin. The USA is a big country, and even though F1 isn't the most popular motorsports category in the States, there are still lots of people interested in F1. I believe the USA could have two or even three F1 races with large enough crowds. But another thing is if hosting an F1 race is more profitable than hosting an IndyCar race. The IndyCar race draws big crowds in Long Beach and is much less expensive than an F1 race. Then again, the revenues from an IndyCar race are probably smaller than from an F1 race.

A race in Long Beach would be important for F1 in the States but a race in Long Beach is maybe even more important for the IndyCar Series. Long Beach is the most important street race in the USA and adds prestige to the IndyCar Series. Losing Long Beach from the schedule would take attention away from the series and be a sign of the series being in a bad state; another series has the most famous street race in IndyCar's home market. That's why, for the sake of the state of IndyCar, I hope F1 doesn't return to Long Beach but it remains as an IndyCar race. For F1, I hope the race in New Jersey will happen. I believe it could bring a lot of attention to F1 in the USA and help to increase its popularity there. And I think two races in the USA would be enough at the moment. There are so many countries hosting Grands Prix that I think even two is a lot for one country. F1 could increase its popularity in the States also by having more races in the same time zones. Besides the existing US, Canadian, and Brazilian Grands Prix, have another Grand Prix in the USA and Grands Prix is Mexico and Argentina. That would mean six races in the American time zones.