1. I agree in principle with the idea that races should be an odd number of laps. However, with regard to Interlagos, I think 5 laps would make for an excessively long race lasting well over 6 hours. For this course, the "problem" of everybody pitting at the same point in the race is less of a concern, since there are so many good opportunities to pass on this track. In general, the choice of tracks should be rotated regularly with perhaps half the tracks being changed on an annual basis. This leaves ample opportunity to retain old favorites (e.g. Monaco, Imola), cycle through the other tracks in the library and try out new ones. The objective in the choice of tracks for a campaign should be variety, i.e. choosing tracks which require different strategies and/or types of cars during the course of the campaign. It is not necessary that each and every course provide "good racing" however anybody might define that term. It is perfectly reasonable in my view to include a few tracks which put a very high premium on the pole position (e.g. Hockenheim, Kyalami) and others which offer the tail enders on the grid a reasonable chance at victory. For this reason, I think that altering tracks from their historical base to achieve "playability" is not a good idea. Otherwise, there might be endless arguments about what is "playable" or not. Many of these arguments may very well be based on drivers' preconceived notion of how to drive or what constitutes a good race.
2. I agree that the double race days should be dropped completely. Those days are simply too long. If 12 weekend dates is too much, we can always cut back to 10 races (although I would prefer to still count 8 results towards the driver's championship). I am against shortened races on weeknights. For those who have a lengthy commute to work, it could be a very long evening which will not end before midnight followed by a drive home. Also, I think attendance would probably suffer on such occasions resulting in some small starting fields (6 cars or less), another undesirable factor.
3. This suggestion will achieve the opposite effect of its stated intended objective. A more complex game places an even greater emphasis on pre-race analysis (the science) and more severely penalizes the driver who drives by the seat of his pants (the art). The artist makes analytic judgments based on experience rather than precise calculation. By introducing more variables you increase the probability that the artist will encounter an unfamiliar situation. Consequently, the artist will make more errors. The consequence will be to increase the gap between the "scientific" and "artistic" drivers and thus decrease the potential interest level of marginal players. Inexperienced drivers will find the initial learning curve even steeper than before. Even my suggestions complicate the game more to a lesser degree but this suggestion is rather drastic in my view. I find that there is still a significant amount of art in the game. Mostly, it involves anticipating the moves and strategies of your opponents. There was many a time when I wished I could have eavesdropped on the pre-race planning sessions of the Williams' or McLaren teams. I think there is sufficient art in the prediction of human behavior to make the game interesting.
4. I strongly disagree with the idea of any "hidden" chips. All information should be public and above-board. This will reduce the probability of occurrence of inadvertent mistakes which could drastically affect a race.
5. From the realism standpoint, I agree with season-long baseline designs. However, from the purely gaming standpoint, adopting such an approach will significantly reduce the scope of available strategic options available in a particular race. I believe that most competent drivers will pick pretty much the same baseline design which will result in similar race day designs occurring even more often than they do now. The battles we saw this past season between radically different design approaches at Brands Hatch and Monaco will be non-existent. Taking a chance on a radical design can be worth the risk in a single race context. Doing the same for a baseline design over the course of a season is almost certainly suicidal. A driver who makes an error in his baseline car design and discovers halfway through the season that his car is noncompetitive in most races may quickly lose interest in the rest of the campaign and stop showing up. This is to be avoided. Furthermore, another part of the skill demand of the game is the ability to run different types of cars on different types of tracks effectively. This skill will be significantly reduced in its importance with this approach.
6. I agree completely. Giving drivers two goals to shoot for will maintain the competitive interest for a longer period as well as greatly assisting inexperienced drivers.
7. I agree with this idea also. But if we have a substantial influx of new drivers, you may want to revert to the old rule to increase the potential size of the pool of experienced drivers available to pair up with newcomers.