That’s a hard one Eunice. I'm not a regulator, but here are some of my general thoughts and concerns:

  1. There are no set of rules that will please everyone.
  2. F1 need to clearly define what they want F1 to be.
  3. It’s no good saying that “F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport” and then regulates it into almost a “spec” series.
  4. Regulators (and organizers) need to understand that the fans don’t just want to see close racing; they want to see spectacular machines as well. Noisy, fast and technologically advanced.
  5. The “tighter” the set of rules, the more similar the cars will be to each other. (no room for innovation)
  6. Generally speaking, the “tighter” the rules, the more expensive it becomes to gain a competitive advantage.
  7. Constant rule changes make the sport more expensive (manufacturer’s must adapt) and as a result increases gaps between cars (in the medium to long term) rather than equalize the performance.
  8. Don’t just focus on regulating the cars! How about the tracks!?
  9. Many tracks do not offer enough “overtaking” opportunities. They are boring (to both driver and spectator) and clinical. (that’s why nowadays, everyone has “orgasms” over some of the “older” tracks (Monza, Spa, etc)
  10. Not everything can be a priority. If safety and TV viewing is the priority when building a track, then “real” racing and imaginative circuit design, can often be compromised. (to a lesser or greater extent)
  11. Rather start with smaller engine capacity with more permissive engine rules, than with larger engine capacities that need to be regulated down.

Also note: I'm more of a sportscar guy.