Just a few races ago there were
complaints from fans and media alike that Formula One was broken,
despairing at a single race due to a lack of activity. However, the
two races that have followed have been barnstormers and it would
appear that the modern short attention span and knee jerk reactionary
crowd have been silenced, well, at least for the time being.
The important question here though, is
Formula One broken? And my overwhelming response is no, nor is it in
drastic need of a rethink, which is where we’re heading in 2021.
So, in this article I’m going to propose some other, more metered
solutions to the issues we currently face.
First off I have no doubt that FOM’s
working group, headed by Ross Brawn and tasked with improving racing
is doing some exemplary work. Afterall it’s been suggested that
where a driver currently loses around 50% of their downforce when
trailing in the wake of another car they have reduced this to
approximately 10% and increased the trailing distance it’s achieved
within.
Based on some of the recent racing
activity I do have reservations regarding the entire prospect of the
overhaul though, as whilst it sounds great to have cars that can
follow one another so closely the DNA of the sport is likely in
danger owing to the changes too. The mooted changes take F1
perilously towards a spec series, with not only areas of the car
heavily restricted, but certain ‘none performance enhancing’
components becoming a unified design element. Now whilst casual
viewers of the sport can’t identify components from one team to
another I not only make a living from doing so but find it intriguing
as to how ten separate teams can come up with components that
although share characteristics are not identical.
Engineering is the lifeblood of this
sport, as whilst people tune in to watch the race on a Sunday
afternoon and cheer on their favourite gladiator it’s often
decisions and manufacturing made away from the track that ultimately
decide the running order. Mercedes are a prime example of this, a
team that is so unified over its various engineering disciplines that
it has triumphed for 5 seasons in a row and is all but an implosion
going to do so again for another. FOM’s decision to dilute this
from 2021 onwards, for me at least, is a turn off and frankly may be
seen as one by some of those that actually compete at this highest of
levels.
Afterall, the likes of Mercedes,
Ferrari, Renault and McLaren to a lesser extent use Formula One as a
moving advertising billboard that shows the entire world how great
their engineering excellence is and why you should be buying one of
their cars, rather than a rivals. Lessening the engineering aspect of
the sport could be a turn off and certainly one less reason to put
their own funding into the project.
As you can tell I’m not convinced
what’s being proposed will fix Formula One’s ills, as I
thoroughly expect Mercedes to do another 2014 and throw an enormous
amount of money at the new rules before the proposed budget cap comes
into play, thus giving them a buffer to the other teams in the
opening phase and allowing them to pull clear as the others hunt
around for the performance that’s locked into the then W12.
Talking of budget caps I firmly believe
that if such a device is going to work and reduce the gap to the
midfield that the mooted sums must be far less than is on the table
at the moment. At 175m with concessions for driver wages, advertising
and costs associated with engines it's still far too much and well
out of reach of many of the smaller teams. To be decisive that figure
needs to be closer to 125m, with some hefty scrutiny placed on the
expenditure associated with the concessions too, as it’s far too
easy to have some flexible accounting to enable costs to grow.
This would be my first gambit, rather
than introduce an all-new car that will require a floor up redesign
for everyone and an opportunity for some to get it right and others
to get it extremely wrong. We don’t want or need a topsy turvy
shuffle, we need things to plateau to a point where everyone is
racing in close proximity.
Talking of close proximity, let’s
talk Max Verstappen and Charles LeClerc… the racing between those
two has been pretty tasty in recent races, up there with the sort of
midfield battling we’ve gotten used to in the last decade or so.
So, what’s wrong with the current aero regulations if lap after lap
we get that kind of action? Of course there is still work to be done
in order to improve what we have, with some of the current freedoms
taken away in order to make the cars less predictable but to say that
it’s broken is laughable. Have you ever gone back and watched what
many consider to be F1’s glory years? Trust me there aren’t any,
there are snippets, small moments that define those years but not
wheel-to-wheel racing action week in, week out.
So, the Somers Formula (or tweaks)
would be as follows and would hopefully make for a much more exciting
racing (note I talk about racing, racing ie, wheel-to-wheel action is
not necessarily about overtaking!)
Ditch powered steering or reduce its
effectiveness dramatically - for those that want to see the drivers
work harder this is a must, as it means they have to put more effort
into rotating the car
Reduce areas of critical downforce
development - Since the giant downforce leap forward in 2017 certain
areas of the car have become critical to producing downforce, with
the bargeboards and edge of the floor areas within the regulations
that require some tidying up.
The development of these structures
have been identified as the designers as the low-hanging fruit, easy
to cherry pick as there is freedom in what can be done. The easiest
way to reduce their effectiveness is to reduce the box area in which
the bargeboards can exist, lower the lip on the leading edge of the
floor, making it more difficult to force air underneath and reduce
the area on the outer portion of the floor that can be used to create
fully enclosed within - a hangup from the way the regulations were
transferred from 16>17.
These are changes that will make the
car a little more squirrelly, at least until the teams identify ways
to recover the lost downforce, at which point you make some further
detail changes, perhaps to the size of the diffuser or height of the
rear wing in order that their interaction is metered.
The length of the car is also
problematic to me, as it’s not only aesthetically woeful - as the
length/width ratio is messed up, making the car look less aggressive,
it’s also making the cars more aerodynamically stable. One major
bug-bear I have with the regulation change in 2017 was the swept
front wing, as this increased the nose box by 350mm a dimension that
subsequently crept up by a further 25mm, making the cars longer by
default. I’m not sure that it actually improves the look of the
cars either and whilst it improves safety in the process it also
increases weight in front of the axle meaning that has to be
compensated for at the rear.
Formula One teams has for years been
pushing the envelope to save weight here and sought ever more complex
structures to do so, so of course I expect that the more well funded
teams have been able to overcome this obstacle in ways that the
smaller teams have not, especially as there has been a shift toward
more complex nose structures that assist from an aerodynamic
perspective.
The black art of tyres is one that
requires innumerable articles but it’s quite clear to me that the
switch to three compound choices has been a disaster for Pirelli, as
it makes life easier for the quicker teams when it comes to one-stop
races, especially as the hard tyre is even more performance oriented
this year. I’d propose a switch back to the two compound scenario
with a larger gap in performance between the two compounds available
at each race, that way it forces their hand - really struggle on pace
to make a one stop work or go flat out for a multi stop strategy.
The lack of variance in race strategy
is also driven by other factors, the most obvious being fuel load, as
whilst the regulations have seen the maximum fuel load increased to
110kg to account for the increase in drag it’s still not enough to
create divisional thinking and allow the drivers to push throughout
the race*. Jean Todt has recently proffered a return to refueling in
2021, worth a cursory glance in its own right but not one that will
likely lead to a great deal of strategy variance in my opinion.
Instead I’d take away the maximum fuel load criteria and allow the
teams to choose how they go racing.
Whilst this potentially means heavier
cars at the start of a race it also means they’ll be forced into
more tyre stops and we’d have a variance up and down the grid as
each team choose a way to go racing that suits their car/direction,
much like we had in the V8 era.
I’d also make some changes to the
fuel flow restrictions and ERS model too whilst I’m at it, giving
the drivers more tools when they require and forcing them to recover
more energy at less critical phases in the race. Still at 100kg/h,
I’d suggest upping the fuel flow limit in order that the engine can
make more peak power, whilst the MGUK is surely at a stage that
allows us to push beyond the current 120kw (approx 160bhp) to
something a little more potent for when battle ensues.
I’ve also made my feelings about DRS
heard in the past but in short the current format for me is somewhat
contrived. I want both drivers, both the lead and chasing driver, to
have tools at their disposal to fight and my suggestion would be to
have a set number of uses per race, deploy them how you see fit but
once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Anyway I’ve banged on enough, for me
I’m struggling to see the rationale for full blown change other
than Liberty stamping their mark on the sport, for me it’s just
easier to fix what we have, rather than the risk of another runaway
Red Bull or Mercedes. I think this is where the teams are at too and
why it’s taking so long to sign off on what appears to be a diluted
version of FOM’s original vision.
*In fact the teams will always slightly
under fuel the car for a given circuit and do some management
throughout a race as fuel is just extra weight that must be carried,
which results in a time loss.
0 comments