I agree that the sprints should decide the grid order for the main race. That is why they were introduced. I also agree on the freedom for teams to find their own solutions. When the budget cap was brought in I said it was a chance to open up the rules. Allow the teams to do whatever they like, so long as they do it within the budget. Open-cockpit, closed cockpit, open-wheel, closed-wheel, rear drive, four-wheel drive, petrol, diesel, turbo, supercharged, normally aspirated, fan cars, whatever. There would need to be an limit on overall length and width (height doesn’t matter), and the essential safety requirements. Other than that, all free and limited only by cost. It would improve racing, because some smaller teams may sacrifice performance on certain types of circuits to be highly competitive on others, whereas bigger teams would need to find a balance to be competitive everywhere in pursuit of titles.

The author wishes to change the circuits, change the cars, change the races, change the points. So what facets of the sport are not included? And the reason for all those changes is to attract Twatter scrollers to follow threads about F1. The most insignificant group to which they could possibly pander. If the author wants to see changes, he needs a better reason than that. He also needs to explain why he has suddenly started expressing these urges now, when he wrote no such articles about the previously dominant team.

— The points system. Yeah, I will get to that in a bit — There are other bits that need to be tweaked before we overhaul this mess.

— Reduce the number of races: I agree. While I love having a race on nearly every weekend, there are times when I could use a break, and I’m not involved with any team. I can imagine what they have to deal with.
So, go down to 18 races a season. Yeah there are like 28 venues that would LIKE to host a race, so lets work with them. Set a fixed number of circuits on the calendar that you hit every year, say 9 or 10. The remainder of the 18 races are rotated through those other venues on a bi-annual or tri-annual basis. This mixes it up a bit every season. The big issue here is that venue that JUST spent a huge amount of money to improve the facility (Zandvoort for example), change the circuit entirely (Silverstone years ago), or entirly new circuit, like Las Vegas or Miami. In that case, make them part of the 9 or 10 venues that are hit every year, and they remain on that list for 5 seasons. This should help them offset the costs involved with the construction and improvement.
Even then, there will be some iconic circuits that will alwas have to appear for historical reasons — Silverstone, Monza, Spa, Monaco (could be fun with smaller, lighter cars), etc.
As a follow on to this, maybe the hosting fee structre should be more friendly to the venues. Its not as bad as the Bernie days, but still, you have venues dropping off just because nobody (meaning public funding sources) wants to come up with a few truckloads of Euros. The series should be a winning opportunity for all involved. I wanted to go to the Vegas race, but there isn’t any way THAT is gonna happen. I make over $100k a year – quite a bit more — but the cheapest two day package I found to date starts at $8000. Thats a person, and for race day only. That gets you a grandstand seat, food, and non-alcoholic beverages. (I understand that if I lived in Vegas I could get single day grandstand tickets for around $250 a seat — still steep, but possible.) $8000 is most of what I pay a semester for my kid’s college, and that lasts 15 weeks, not two days.

— Sprint races: I agree, dump them. The original format was flawed but better. Now its just a way for teams at the front to starve out teams at the bottom. The original format, which was to set the grid for the main event, made these more of an opportunity. Now you qualify for TWO races instead of qualifing for the sprint, and taking what you get from that on Sunday. Sprints should include more risky and daring possiblilites for the midfield and back to improve their starting spot on Sunday, not wreck the car so they are at an even bigger disadvantage. If I was a backmarker team, I would just go out and do a lap in the “shootout,” a couple of laps in the Sprint, and save the car for Sunday. Cut down the tires used and the milage on the PU. This would provide me with a larger PU pool for the main events, and reduce the chance of a grid penalty for using too many M8 40mm long screws someplace on the car, which is where this whole grid penalty system is headed. So, yeah, Sprints no longer serve a purpose except to end the main campaing 6 events early. If Max sat out every sprint, he would still have a sizable lead, but there would be a closer packed points allocation behind him.

— Which brings us to points. Either get rid of the fastest lap, or make it available for all positions. Also, make it a constructors only point instead of a driver point.
The distribution of points for the race is f–king rigged. Change it so its still important to win, but also rewards consistency. So, switch the current 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 with 25-20-15-13-11-9-7-5-3. Yeah, it looks a little wierd in the back, but if you make each of those positions worth 2 points, how many cars do you think will be trying to overtake the next guy at the end of the race? You would probably see all kinds of different strategies, like all of them pitting for fresh tires with 5 laps left. And, the team would get the bonus of the fastest lap point.

— The sound, size, and weight issue? Let them put whatever engine configuration they want in the car. The only limit being you have a limit of how much energy you can recover/store in the batteries, and you still have to finish on 100kg of fuel. THAT will spark some inovation. Make the car as light as you want, but you still have to pass all crash tests….

None of this will ever happen, but if your gonna change (or mess) things up again, lets make it a significant amount of “What the hell?”

Now, I am open to all the hate and shade that are sure to follow this response….

That is a bit inaccurate. “Change every facet”? The article is talking about reverting changes that have been made and are not good for the sport.