The quality of racing depends on more than the design of the cars. How a championship is governed, how its income is distributed and how competitors enter the sport all influence what happens on track.
My proposal therefore begins with the organisation of Formula 1. The objective is to give its participants responsibility for the championship’s direction, establish independent authority over safety and create a broader route into top-level competition.
A championship governed by its participants
Under this proposal, the Formula One Organization (FOO) would operate as a collective body governed by its participating constructors and suppliers, without an external commercial owner entitled to distributions from the championship.
Each eligible participant would have representation in an assembly responsible for the calendar, commercial arrangements, revenue distribution and sporting regulations. It would also agree the technical framework within the safety requirements established by the FIA.
This would still require a professional administration. Organising events, negotiating broadcasting agreements and managing championship finances are substantial responsibilities. The distinction is that the administration would be accountable to the participants and work within an approved budget.
Rule changes within the assembly’s remit would require at least 51% support from eligible voting members. The constitution would define voting eligibility, quorum and conflicts of interest, including safeguards against a single corporate group obtaining several votes through related businesses. Decisions and their implementation dates would be published.
Participant governance would not automatically remove political disagreements. Its purpose would be to make responsibility and decision-making more transparent.
Keeping more of the sport’s income within the sport
Championship income would first cover operating costs, contractual commitments and appropriate financial reserves. The remaining funds would support participants and investment in the sport.
The distribution system would reward sporting performance while providing a sufficiently stable foundation for teams to compete. A distribution based entirely on results could reinforce the advantage of established competitors, so the balance between participation funding and performance payments would be defined in the financial regulations.
A share of available funds would support driver development, circuit improvements and, where justified, new venues. Hosting arrangements would also need to leave promoters with a viable business, recognising that circuits are essential infrastructure for the championship.
Removing distributions to an external owner would change how available income is used. It would not eliminate operating costs or guarantee lower fees. The scale of any savings and reinvestment would need to be established through a detailed financial model.
Independent safety authority
The FIA would retain independent authority over safety, covering car safety standards, circuit approval, medical provision and safety-related inspections at every event. The FOO could not overturn a safety decision for commercial or competitive reasons.
The FOO would establish sporting rules and oversee their administration through independent officials. Competitors would not vote on individual incidents, penalties or protests. Published procedures and an independent appeal process would separate collective rule-making from decisions affecting individual competitors.
Where a technical or sporting proposal has safety implications, FIA approval would be required before implementation. This division of responsibilities would need to be explicit, particularly in areas such as tyre condition, active systems and race control.
A clearer progression through single-seater racing
The proposed development pathway would begin with karting, followed by Formula Junior using a standard chassis and a 1.5-litre engine. Formula 3 and Formula 2 would provide successive stages using 2.0-litre and 3.0-litre engines.
Engine capacity would identify the categories, but it would not be sufficient to define their performance. Power, vehicle mass, aerodynamic load and tyre capability would also need to be coordinated so that each stage represents a manageable increase in speed and driving demands.
Above these categories, Formula 1 would operate at two levels.
The F1 World Title would determine the world champions through an international calendar.
The F1 Continental Championships would provide top-level regional competition for drivers and teams from their respective geographical areas, with races held within those regions.
Both levels would use the same core technical and safety standards, with different rules governing the components teams must develop themselves. Continental teams could purchase more of their cars, reducing the engineering infrastructure required to enter.
The Continental Championships would be valuable competitions in their own right, as well as a route towards the World Title. They would allow drivers and teams to demonstrate their ability in F1 machinery without first committing to a worldwide campaign. Progression would depend on results, eligibility and available opportunities rather than automatic promotion.
Calendars built around countries
Calendar places would be allocated to countries according to published criteria. Eligible circuits within each country would then rotate between seasons.
The intention is to broaden the range of venues represented while giving countries a more stable place in the championship. Rotation would remain conditional on circuit approval, operational readiness and a viable event plan.
This approach would require advance planning and sufficient notice for promoters, teams and spectators. Regional scheduling could reduce some transport demands, but the financial and logistical effects would need to be assessed across the complete calendar.
The proposed framework
The following principles summarise the structure. Detailed regulations would define the measurement methods, eligibility requirements and procedures needed to apply them consistently.
Governance
- Independent safety regulation. The FIA would have final authority over safety requirements and their enforcement.
- Participant governance. Each championship would be governed by an assembly of eligible teams and suppliers, without an external commercial owner receiving distributions.
- Defined responsibilities. The FOO would manage commercial affairs, revenue distribution, calendars and sporting rules. Independent officials would apply those rules, and FIA safety decisions would remain binding.
- Voting. Changes within the assembly’s remit would require at least 51% approval from eligible voting members, subject to published constitutional procedures.
Constructors and technical freedom
- Constructor responsibility. World Title constructors would be responsible for the design and intellectual property of their chassis and aerodynamic components. Manufacturing could be subcontracted, but responsibility for compliance would remain with the constructor.
- Purchased components. Engines, gearboxes and brakes could be purchased from eligible suppliers.
- Works manufacturers and customer supply. An engine manufacturer competing as a World Title constructor could not supply engines or other components to another World Title constructor. Supply to Continental teams would be governed by the separate Continental provisions below.
- Minimum vehicle mass. A minimum car weight would apply, with a clearly defined measurement condition.
- Chassis and brakes. Development would be open within dimensional and safety requirements, subject to the general technical regulations.
- Powertrain development. Engine and gearbox technology would be open within specified mass limits, safety requirements and the championship’s energy or emissions constraints.
- Vehicle dimensions. Maximum car length and width would be specified in the technical regulations.
- Emissions and efficiency. A maximum CO₂ emissions allowance per kilometre would apply under a defined measurement method. The regulations would distinguish direct emissions from wider environmental impacts and specify how different fuels and powertrain technologies are assessed.
- Supplier competition. There would be no fixed limit on the number of eligible tyre, brake, gearbox or engine suppliers.
- Seasonal supplier selection. Teams would declare their suppliers before the season. Changes during the season would be permitted only under defined exceptional circumstances, such as supplier withdrawal or safety concerns.
- Private testing. Private testing would be permitted without a separate sporting limit on mileage or days. Testing would remain subject to safety requirements and the financial regulations, with its costs included in team accounts.
Tyres, entries and event format
- Qualifying and race tyres. Qualifying tyres would prioritise peak performance. Dry-weather race tyres would be designed to complete the scheduled race distance. Wet-weather requirements would be defined separately.
- Open entry. There would be no fixed commercial cap on entries. Participation would remain subject to eligibility, safety and venue capacity. Where entries exceed the permitted grid, a published pre-qualification procedure based on free-practice performance would determine access to qualifying. Separate practice groups would be used where necessary for safety.
- Team size. Each team could enter one or two cars. The constructors’ scoring system would need to account explicitly for this choice.
- Country allocation. Calendar places would be awarded to countries, with eligible circuits rotating between seasons.
- Circuit database. Each country could register up to eight eligible circuits. The United States would be divided into three geographical areas, allowing up to 24 circuits in total.
- Circuit variety. The championship would impose no arbitrary circuit-length or layout template. Approval would depend on safety assessment and operational suitability, including recovery access, medical facilities, pit provision and safe grid capacity.
- Two-day race weekends. Saturday would comprise 90 minutes of free practice followed by qualifying. Sunday would include a 30-minute warm-up and the race.
- Race distance. The scheduled race distance would be approximately 250 kilometres, converted into a whole number of laps. Time limits and interrupted-race procedures would be defined separately.
- Set-up changes. Teams could adjust their cars between qualifying and the race, provided the cars remained compliant and available for inspection.
- Overtaking systems. There would be no DRS or other overtaking assistance granted according to a car’s position or proximity to another competitor. Any permitted active aerodynamic system would operate under the same technical rules for every car.
- Fuel capacity. Cars would carry sufficient fuel to complete the scheduled race distance within the applicable consumption limits. In-race refuelling would not be permitted.
- Pit stops and tyre changes. Scheduled tyre changes would not form part of the race format. Stops would be permitted for repairs and safety reasons. Tyre replacement would remain available for damage, an unsafe condition or changing weather, under procedures designed to prevent these exceptions becoming routine strategic stops.
Additional provisions for F1 Continental
- Regional eligibility. Teams and drivers would have to meet the eligibility requirements of their championship’s geographical area. Driver nationality, team operating base and ownership criteria would be defined in advance.
- Purchased chassis and aerodynamics. Continental teams could purchase chassis and aerodynamic components, as well as engines, gearboxes and brakes.
- Common standards. Cars would comply with the same core technical and safety regulations as the World Title, apart from the rules governing component design and sourcing.
- Independent regional teams. Chassis and engine manufacturers would participate as suppliers rather than operating works entries in the Continental Championships. World Title teams would not enter directly.
- Additional suppliers. Eligible suppliers could participate in Continental competition without supplying the World Title.
- No complete-car package. A Continental team could not purchase its chassis, aerodynamics and engine as a complete package from a single World Title team. Component sourcing and related-company rules would need to preserve the regional team’s operational independence.
These proposals establish the direction of the wider reform. The following articles will examine how its financial rules, technical framework and calendars could support a championship that remains demanding at the highest level while creating more opportunities for teams, drivers and circuits to participate.
