.png)
Strategy group? Pah....
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
22 comments
Formula One can't solve it's own problems because the people who bought their way into the decision making process all have their own agendas. That's right if you weren't aware of why and how the strategy group came about, it was during the signing of the last bi-lateral agreements that tie all parties to the sport until 2020. The strategy group is made up of 18 votes from the FIA, FOM and the top six teams which means some go without a say. The FIA whom are the "governing" body have essentially neutered themselves in exchange for a yearly payout. The strategy groups main role is to shape the way in which the sport moves forward but also has influence on rule making decisions, which invariably means that some things can never be resolved. Put together the teams couldn't organise a McDonalds children's party less agree on the direction of the sport, with each representatives views skewed by their own teams business / self interest.
So what is wrong with the sport that so many of us love?
For me it's having an identity crisis, struggling to retain the exclusivity it had in the past, whilst trying to cross viewer boundaries that see it as a truly global sport, embraced by all. What's wrong seems to broadly fall into just two categories but both have many sub categories: Cost and "the show".
Let's start with costs as they seem to be a hot topic for debate again at the moment as in some circles it's believed if you talk about something enough you can affect change. That change for those not enjoying the spoils of the new powerunits at the moment is the cost of them. Formula One is expensive, that is part of its DNA and the allure to be involved in the sport. The cost of the new powerunits is manufacturer specific, as each has factored in their recovery of costs toward R&D, production and ongoing development against the quantity of teams they supply and planned expiration of the current powerunit framework (2020). The most expensive powerunit is estimated to cost around £18 million per season which is quite the jump, but this isn't the first downsizing that has sparked an outcry though. Ecclestone didn't really like the switch from V10's either, suggesting cost would be an issue... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49650
If the cost of the powerunits is too extravagant spend a moment considering the implication for Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and now Honda who'd find themselves in a financial hole IF changes to the format were made. Conversely Ecclestone is talking about the need for more noise and more power as we steadily tip toe into the realm of "the show". He (and other fossils like him) perpetuate the statement that we're losing fans because Formula One isn't what they want to see or hear. I'd argue that's not wholly accurate and that his public condemnation of the powerunits and the lack of education offered on how the powerunits work is a turn off for most fans. I'd also suggest that much more can be done with the current technology if the shackles are loosened, lest we forget that the engine manufacturers are hamstrung by various fuel and electrical limitations.
As I've discussed on several occasions the 15,000rpm upper rev limit is actually a faux target that can never be achieved, owing to the fuel flow formula set at 10,500rpm, making just above 12,000rpm the manufacturers target. The ICE is manufactured with this in mind so simply removing the formula may not allow the teams to rev out to the full 15,000rpm but it might have some impact. Dialogue would need to be opened up with the engine manufacturer to see what can be equitably achieved without massively hamstringing one over the other. Furthermore, changing the fuel flow parameters also means changing the fuel weight limit during a race, as some races are currently marginal with the given fuel flow formula. This then has further implications in terms of car design with the 100kg fuel tank and powerunit occupying roughly the same space that the roughly 150kg and V8 did. Increasing the tank size to increase power will raise the weight of the car once more and increase its size.
Whilst balancing this fuel flow / weight conundrum it may also be worth looking at what more can be achieved with ERS, as currently the maximum release from the MGU-K is 120kw (roughly 160bhp). As this is scalable and mapped to throttle application (ie not always releasing 160bhp) it is conceivable with more power being generated by the ICE/Turbo that ceiling could be raised further too, whilst also looking at the energy formula (ie 2mj release from the energy store etc).
Ok, so what happens when they've all sat down and can't achieve the kind of targets that they think they want from the current powerunit (1000bhp). By the way that figure makes me laugh out loud as quite frankly it reminds me of a pub conversation where BHP figures are used to compare manliness. Why do we need to reach a 1000bhp target? Anyway if that is the case so be it but please don't let it be to the detriment of ERS, let's continue to embrace it and downsizing so that people can marvel at what can be achieved with so little. If we must have a new powerunit lets have a twin turbo V6 with dual MGU-H's making recovering and using energy easier than a singular turbo, again increasing how much can be output via the MGU-K. Furthermore, can we look into direct hub motors? perhaps recovering and using energy at the front wheels too, ie torque vectoring anyone...
Ok, so now we have talked about and perhaps even re-designed the powerunit regulations lets discuss other areas of F1's car design. Provocatively Ferrari released the image above recently, giving us an indication of the type of aesthetic that they believe Formula One should be looking to achieve, which on the face of it is great. Framing the regulations in way that that could be achieved is a completely different prospect and we'd probably get nothing like that render, owing to aerodynamics triumphing over aesthetics (amen to that). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say and although I prefer the cleaner lines generated by the post 2009 regulations I know many still prefer the busy pre 2009 cars with flicks and winglets all over the place.
Andries van Overbeeke got in touch a little while back with some renders he'd also completed (see above), taking inspiration from both the pre and post 2009 regulation changes, whilst widening the cars track and increasing the rear tyre size.
Having had a great response to the Martini liveried car he also set about looking at some ideas that couldn't live within the current regulation construct such as endplate-less front wings, with the Red Bull concept above.
Like the Ferrari concepts they evoke emotions, both good and bad but ask the question "Are we doing things right, right now?" Aesthetics are important to the sport but for me they cannot compromise performance and this is where F1 should be focused and so not rather than but as part of the Strategy Group I feel the Technical Working Group (TWG) as used to shape the 2009 regulations should be used to study and implement regulatory changes that improve how the cars behave. By all means listen to the suggestions tabled by the Strategy Group but the TWG should be funded by the sport to actually investigate how to solve problems such as how to improve overtaking. I'm not only talking about ideas here I'm talking about a group of engineers that work like a team, with CFD, a wind tunnel, simulation software and even full scale production to prove what does work.
So what is wrong with the sport that so many of us love?
For me it's having an identity crisis, struggling to retain the exclusivity it had in the past, whilst trying to cross viewer boundaries that see it as a truly global sport, embraced by all. What's wrong seems to broadly fall into just two categories but both have many sub categories: Cost and "the show".
Let's start with costs as they seem to be a hot topic for debate again at the moment as in some circles it's believed if you talk about something enough you can affect change. That change for those not enjoying the spoils of the new powerunits at the moment is the cost of them. Formula One is expensive, that is part of its DNA and the allure to be involved in the sport. The cost of the new powerunits is manufacturer specific, as each has factored in their recovery of costs toward R&D, production and ongoing development against the quantity of teams they supply and planned expiration of the current powerunit framework (2020). The most expensive powerunit is estimated to cost around £18 million per season which is quite the jump, but this isn't the first downsizing that has sparked an outcry though. Ecclestone didn't really like the switch from V10's either, suggesting cost would be an issue... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49650
If the cost of the powerunits is too extravagant spend a moment considering the implication for Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and now Honda who'd find themselves in a financial hole IF changes to the format were made. Conversely Ecclestone is talking about the need for more noise and more power as we steadily tip toe into the realm of "the show". He (and other fossils like him) perpetuate the statement that we're losing fans because Formula One isn't what they want to see or hear. I'd argue that's not wholly accurate and that his public condemnation of the powerunits and the lack of education offered on how the powerunits work is a turn off for most fans. I'd also suggest that much more can be done with the current technology if the shackles are loosened, lest we forget that the engine manufacturers are hamstrung by various fuel and electrical limitations.
As I've discussed on several occasions the 15,000rpm upper rev limit is actually a faux target that can never be achieved, owing to the fuel flow formula set at 10,500rpm, making just above 12,000rpm the manufacturers target. The ICE is manufactured with this in mind so simply removing the formula may not allow the teams to rev out to the full 15,000rpm but it might have some impact. Dialogue would need to be opened up with the engine manufacturer to see what can be equitably achieved without massively hamstringing one over the other. Furthermore, changing the fuel flow parameters also means changing the fuel weight limit during a race, as some races are currently marginal with the given fuel flow formula. This then has further implications in terms of car design with the 100kg fuel tank and powerunit occupying roughly the same space that the roughly 150kg and V8 did. Increasing the tank size to increase power will raise the weight of the car once more and increase its size.
Whilst balancing this fuel flow / weight conundrum it may also be worth looking at what more can be achieved with ERS, as currently the maximum release from the MGU-K is 120kw (roughly 160bhp). As this is scalable and mapped to throttle application (ie not always releasing 160bhp) it is conceivable with more power being generated by the ICE/Turbo that ceiling could be raised further too, whilst also looking at the energy formula (ie 2mj release from the energy store etc).
Ok, so what happens when they've all sat down and can't achieve the kind of targets that they think they want from the current powerunit (1000bhp). By the way that figure makes me laugh out loud as quite frankly it reminds me of a pub conversation where BHP figures are used to compare manliness. Why do we need to reach a 1000bhp target? Anyway if that is the case so be it but please don't let it be to the detriment of ERS, let's continue to embrace it and downsizing so that people can marvel at what can be achieved with so little. If we must have a new powerunit lets have a twin turbo V6 with dual MGU-H's making recovering and using energy easier than a singular turbo, again increasing how much can be output via the MGU-K. Furthermore, can we look into direct hub motors? perhaps recovering and using energy at the front wheels too, ie torque vectoring anyone...
Like the Ferrari concepts they evoke emotions, both good and bad but ask the question "Are we doing things right, right now?" Aesthetics are important to the sport but for me they cannot compromise performance and this is where F1 should be focused and so not rather than but as part of the Strategy Group I feel the Technical Working Group (TWG) as used to shape the 2009 regulations should be used to study and implement regulatory changes that improve how the cars behave. By all means listen to the suggestions tabled by the Strategy Group but the TWG should be funded by the sport to actually investigate how to solve problems such as how to improve overtaking. I'm not only talking about ideas here I'm talking about a group of engineers that work like a team, with CFD, a wind tunnel, simulation software and even full scale production to prove what does work.
The last TWG were instrumental in the rules introduced by the FIA in 2009, which were partly in response to a survey conducted by the sport into what
fans wanted from it. More overtaking was the general consensus
and so the rules were changed in order to facilitate this, gone were
the wake inducing flicks and appendages that the pre 2009 cars had
plastered all over them, whilst the front wing was increased in
width, in an attempt to make it easier to follow another car.
Furthermore, the front wings angle could be changed by 6 degrees
twice a lap to further enforce a drivers ability to follow in another
cars wake. The DDD (double deck diffuser) invalidated the
moveable front wing as the teams were already creating more wake than
originally intended, it was consigned to history and abandoned after
just a years use in 2010. I ask why hasn't F1 re adopted this method
now the wake impact has been reduced by the 2014 regulations?
McLaren started the next
scramble to improve overtaking with the F-duct (RW80) in 2010 which
really paved the way for the Drag Reduction System (DRS). This
leads me to the current problem as far as I see it and why overtaking always seems artificial. When DRS was
introduced the zones were scalable by race control during the event,
whilst it could be used at anytime during Free Practice and
Qualifying. This often led to teams having to think
strategically, either compromising qualifying or its usefulness whilst
overtaking. The rules still allow different flap sizing so the
performance delta can be changed but the teams now have the DRS zone
information in advance, allowing them to optimize their choices ahead
of the event. This will reduce costs but also lead to a predictable pass 'n' go scenario come race day.
Mercedes came the closest to emulating the use of both systems with
their DDRS in 2012, stalling the underside of the front wing with
pipework that channelled airflow through the car when their DRS was
activated. Imagine what could be achieved in terms of overtaking aids
and general aero efficiency if both front wing and rear wing DRS's were
employed by the teams. Furthermore, imagine the strides that could be
made by the teams if active bodywork were allowed in other areas of the
car too, such as the leading edge of sidepods etc.
DRS is a purists nightmare as it's essentially a push to pass system that offers little in terms of a defence mechanism especially when we have the one move braking rule. For me DRS has become more about keeping the equilibrium, with the car that has the least wear on their tyres able to affect a pass on their counterpart without hindering their strategy too much. Remember the catalyst for DRS was Alonso getting stuck behind Petrov in Abu Dhabi in 2010....
DRS is a purists nightmare as it's essentially a push to pass system that offers little in terms of a defence mechanism especially when we have the one move braking rule. For me DRS has become more about keeping the equilibrium, with the car that has the least wear on their tyres able to affect a pass on their counterpart without hindering their strategy too much. Remember the catalyst for DRS was Alonso getting stuck behind Petrov in Abu Dhabi in 2010....
At this intersection I'd like to talk
about tyres (or tires for my American buddies) as they truly are a
control element in F1. When Bridgestone exited in 2010 they
were replaced by Italian manufacturer Pirelli. Their brief from the
FIA was to create 3 stop races, since then they've cited Canada 2011
as the blueprint for an entertaining race and asked that Pirelli
provide tyres capable of creating strategy scenarios that could bring
that level of drama. F1 teams don't like the unquantifiable,
they want to weigh and measure everything, so Pirelli offer a
conundrum. 2012 continues to irk me in this respect, as Pirelli
became the fall guy for the teams as they pushed the rubber supplied
to them beyond its design limitations. That's right everyone
would have you believe that Pirelli were at fault, their product
shoddy but it wasn't. It just wasn't compliant in the way the
teams wanted it to be. An unforgiving sidewall and a
directional tyre owing to the metal band inserted within created an
aerodynamic issue for the teams that they desperately tried to
overcome. This led to the teams swapping the tyres from the
designated direction, running adverse pressures and cambers to
improve performance. Pirelli carried the can for the teams on that one and since then have retained a more robust design philosophy, all to our detriment as fans. IF the FIA had the balls to call out the teams over the Silverstone controversy they'd have shown the teams for what they are, the problem is the teams hadn't technically done anything wrong. Up until that point tyre swapping, adverse camber and pressures were fine as Pirelli could only recommend how they be mounted and used, something the FIA should have changed as far back as Spa 2011.
One of the debates that does come up when looking at the future direction of F1 is wheel size, something that Pirelli briefly looked at in 2014 - www1.skysports.com. I'm not a fan of 18" wheels (see everyone gets hung up on aesthetics), it just looks wrong to me for a single seater to have so little sidewall on display but I can admit there must be a happy medium between that and the current 13" wheels being used. The problem of introducing such a change is the way in which it will change the handling characteristics of the cars, with the sidewall currently providing quite a reasonable assistance to the suspension. Perhaps then whilst introducing a new wheel and tyre model we can take a look at a return to active suspension? Banned by the FIA at the end of 1993 I'm sure with a 22 year absence the system could make a successful return and prove that Formula One is at the cutting edge again.
Whilst fixing the racing by introducing better quality overtaking is one thing, there isn't much point if there isn't an audience left to engage. Numbers viewing F1 have been declining in recent years and it's not difficult to understand why when there seems to be just as much action off the track as there is on it. Politics drives the F1 world away from the racetrack, in a way no other sport seems to be able to achieve and this can be difficult to swallow for many fans. Ecclestones pay up or shut up model to the circuits has driven the sport further afield, where fans often regard the tracks as 'car parks'. They aren't quite as bad as the Caesars Palace GP, which actually was in a car park but the Hermann Tilke designed tracks don't come with the heritage associated with a European circuit. That's not to say Tilke is a bad designer, the problem most don't understand is he couldn't actually build many of the classic circuits, even if he wanted to, that's because of the regulations pertaining to elevations, corner radii, etc. That's right he could build you a poor mans Eau Rouge or 130R but replicating them exactly is out of his jurisdiction. That's not to say he hasn't created some of his own great sequences with the likes of Turn 8 in Istanbul (so gutted when Istanbul got culled from the calendar) and turn 1 at Circuit of the America's etc.
The problem for the European circuits is they're being priced out of existence, as Ecclestone continues to search for countries that will pay the ever escalating fees. Meanwhile, as F1 has moved from free-to-air channels (like the BBC in the UK) to pay models (like Sky in the UK) the decline in numbers continues. The cost to watch every race live in the UK now stands at around £100 watching via the BBC and the NowTV PAYG method. I'm not put off by the use of that model but many are, especially when they were so used to watching races for free. You can't only blame the subscription based model for the decline in viewership though, with the sport doing little to entice a new following to the sport. FOM have at least started to engage their brain over the last 6 months focusing their efforts on the likes of Twitter and YouTube, but they are well behind the curve in that respect. I understand that Ecclestone has deals with the broadcasters in each region when it comes to live streaming, but considering they make the content I can't see why they have so little ambition to sell their own exclusive package too. They have far more content at their disposal than the broadcasters seem able to use, I can't understand why there isn't a full blown "hub" available, where viewers can choose which streams, commentary and data is available to them. I'd certainly pay for the right content to maximise and immerse myself further in the experience of a race weekend.
The race weekend may well be one the largest problems of engaging new fans too, in an age where your whole day can hinge on the deployment of 140 characters, time is of the essence (in fact if you've read this far I'm impressed). People want things condensed and so perhaps the Strategy Group should consider how to frame both qualifying and the race into one day, shortening the weekend. The other thing is race length, I understand that 305km is the magic figure from which the number of race laps is extrapolated but for some this is too many. Rather than mess with the fuel weight limit I previously discussed, how about if the race were 15 laps shorter? That would give the scope to race from lights out to chequered flag and go some way to enticing a newer, younger audience.
So what's wrong with Formula One I ask again, plenty is the answer, we have formulated here, quite quickly without really scratching the surface.....
The problem for the European circuits is they're being priced out of existence, as Ecclestone continues to search for countries that will pay the ever escalating fees. Meanwhile, as F1 has moved from free-to-air channels (like the BBC in the UK) to pay models (like Sky in the UK) the decline in numbers continues. The cost to watch every race live in the UK now stands at around £100 watching via the BBC and the NowTV PAYG method. I'm not put off by the use of that model but many are, especially when they were so used to watching races for free. You can't only blame the subscription based model for the decline in viewership though, with the sport doing little to entice a new following to the sport. FOM have at least started to engage their brain over the last 6 months focusing their efforts on the likes of Twitter and YouTube, but they are well behind the curve in that respect. I understand that Ecclestone has deals with the broadcasters in each region when it comes to live streaming, but considering they make the content I can't see why they have so little ambition to sell their own exclusive package too. They have far more content at their disposal than the broadcasters seem able to use, I can't understand why there isn't a full blown "hub" available, where viewers can choose which streams, commentary and data is available to them. I'd certainly pay for the right content to maximise and immerse myself further in the experience of a race weekend.
The race weekend may well be one the largest problems of engaging new fans too, in an age where your whole day can hinge on the deployment of 140 characters, time is of the essence (in fact if you've read this far I'm impressed). People want things condensed and so perhaps the Strategy Group should consider how to frame both qualifying and the race into one day, shortening the weekend. The other thing is race length, I understand that 305km is the magic figure from which the number of race laps is extrapolated but for some this is too many. Rather than mess with the fuel weight limit I previously discussed, how about if the race were 15 laps shorter? That would give the scope to race from lights out to chequered flag and go some way to enticing a newer, younger audience.
So what's wrong with Formula One I ask again, plenty is the answer, we have formulated here, quite quickly without really scratching the surface.....
.png)
Posts
