Jerez awaits the first day of testing
c/o James Moy Photography
It’s funny how quickly we forget the past. My over-riding feeling today watching the tweets rolling in from Jerez was just this, as the eight teams to hit the track amassed a paltry 93 laps of running.
For the first time in a few years, I opted not to go to the first test of the year. Jerez was always going to be disrupted at best. At NBC, we decided to miss Jerez and attend Bahrain in the hope that by then the cars would have some miles on them and the drivers be able to provide slightly better feedback on their aspirations for 2014 than they would after a couple of outlaps, a blown engine and a rain delay.
It isn’t that the F1 teams and engine manufacturers have forgotten how to do their jobs. It is simply the fact that the technical regulation changes for 2014 represent one of the biggest shifts in the sport’s rules for a generation. Not only do we have a total shift in engine and power philosophy, but we also have badly worded aerodynamic regulations to contend with.
So it wasn’t surprising to see that the day was filled with negativity towards ugly noses, and bewilderment at the low level of completed laps. Indeed, last minute hitches meant that Marussia only sent their car to Spain today and Red Bull got just 3 laps completed on Day 1.
But should we be surprised by this?
It wasn’t so long ago that testing was conducted pretty much wherever and whenever teams wished. A few of them would gang together and take over a track for a week and pound around with as many drivers as they wanted. The peak probably came in the 2006 pre-season. According to the excellent FORIX website, there were 63 sessions of pre season testing at 21 circuits over 192 days. Sixty-one drivers turned out 91,568 laps and amassed 411,012km in running. That’s an awful lot more than one car per team and 12 days of group testing at the two tracks permitted for 2014.
But if we look back to that very first day of pre-season testing for 2006, on November 28, 2005 at the Circuit de Catalunya in Barcelona, Spain, Nick Heidfeld ran 28 laps for Sauber and Alex Wurz just 11 for McLaren. The other car that day was McLaren tester Gary Paffett who ran 58. But nobody turned their noses up at Wurz’s 11 laps that day. Quite simply, it was testing. And whether you ran 11 laps or 111 laps, testing was testing and you’d have good days and bad days. That’s what testing was for. 97 laps were run on November 28, 2005. Only four more than today.
The problem today is that everything is condensed and put under the microscope. By limiting testing and grouping it together, the world’s media, now emboldened with the ability to report news in real-time via social media and scrolling live updates on their websites, can pounce on everything.
Lewis Hamilton before his front wing failure
c/o James Moy Photography
Lewis Hamilton suffered a wing failure. That will be the lead story on Mercedes’ first day of testing. Never mind the fact they were ready to hit the track when the clock hit 09:00 and should quite comfortably have set the most laps of the day without that issue. The failure of the wing is the news. In the past, it would have been shrugged off as just one of those things in testing. Not now. Because now there are only 11 more days for “one of those things” to further knock the team back.
By far the biggest talking point thus far however has been the new generation of F1 noses. Although I am yet to see them in the flesh, I’m already getting used to them. And I must say that I absolutely love the fact that this shift in regulation has given us a field of completely unique cars, each one with their own individual interpretation of the rules. Of course, whichever car ends up being fastest will be the design around which we see the field converge before the regulations are hopefully reworded for next season, but for now at least it is great to see the thought process of each design team in the open.
It doesn’t take away from the fact, however, that the cars look stupid. They are not aspirational creations, and that is something which Formula 1 must address. The technical regulations were made with good intention but they were badly worded. And now we have a situation in which the teams are openly calling their cars ugly, questioning their safety, and decrying the governing body for letting things get this far.
They are right, of course, but the teams are utterly hypocritical in being so upset. The Technical Working Group, now replaced by the controversial Strategy Group, was integral in the formulating of the new rules. At what point in these discussions was the question of safety raised? At what point was the wording raised? At what point did somebody suggest that this was not the route the sport should be going?
I asked Caterham’s Mark Smith recently why, with regulations forcing teams to adopt low noses, we weren’t going to see glorious creations such as the 1980s and early 90s low nosed F1 cars. The answer was simple. We know more about aerodynamics today than we did 30 years ago… so much so that if the 1980s F1 regs were in place today, we probably wouldn’t see such simple and graceful designs as we did back then.
Those hoping for MP4/4s in 2014 will be disappointed
c/o James Moy Photography
It’s a fair point. But it also reinforces the fact that a bunch of supposed design and technical geniuses got together and bashed out a set of regulations that have resulted in these… things.
And ultimately, this is what has me worried about the future of F1. The teams, by their very nature, are competing entities. They are so focused on maintaining their own competitive advantages that when looking at the manner in which the sport is taken forward they lose sight of the bigger picture. Their focus is on their interests and their interests alone.
Why hasn’t FOTA worked? Because a group of competitors will never agree on everything all the time. There will always be fractures. Sadly, the teams couldn’t keep their focus away from their own interests for long enough to keep their collective will in tact. That is why FOTA splintered. That is where FOTA failed.
Now we have ugly cars, and a stupid double points rule for the final race of the season. Team discussions have recently taken place. The double points rule was not reversed. Despite dissatisfaction from fans, the media, and even the reigning four time world champion…
The teams are as much to blame for the ugly cars as the FIA. The teams are as much to blame for this stupid double points rule as Bernie. And the teams, by not pulling together and agreeing on a resource restriction or a cost cap are to blame for such limited testing, because they’ve had to have cost cutting measures thrust upon them.
Frankly I don’t know what the answer is. Bernie has always acted as a benign dictator, and one worries about who will smack the teams’ heads together when he is gone. Somebody has to do it. Either that, or the teams must realise that in the interests of the sport they need to remove themselves from having any say at all in the direction in which Formula 1 is taken.
Because sadly, it seems they’re too busy staring down their now globally mocked noses to see that a bigger picture even exists.
The Buxton Blog 
Nothing wrong with the double rule. Having strange points rules is nothing new either. I think Kimi’s take on it is the most sensible.
There is a lot wrong with the double points. The race is identical to any other, or maybe even worse, because of the location.
And the fact that moren than 90% of the fans oppose, should be something to think about.
And then: in history we had the xx best races out of yy races count (e.g. the best 15 race result of a driver count out of the 19 total; so you can retire the race without direct consequence), In the last year it would mean that Vettel would have lost a lot more points than Alonso, so they would have been closer than they were now.
Exactly nothing wrong with it, F1 needs to cater for the most important group of fans, the casual fans who want the championships to be interesting right until the end. Very happy the sport didn’t listen to the whiners and moaners on BB’s and blogs. F1 is changing like it always has, don’t like it then maybe F1 isn’t for you anymore.
There is a lot wrong with double-points… It’s a gimmick that opens up possibilities for more “tweaks” with awarding points. Adjust the points so that all teams and drivers arrive at the last race on equal footing. Think how exciting that would be!
Casual fans are not the most important group. A casual fan will turn away for any reason – or no reason at all. The sport needs avid fans. Either someone becomes an avid fan or they don’t.
Very interesting once again. TEAMS can not run a sport. They have there own interest at heart. Power should be taken from the teams. Also they FIA should make rules for a period of time ie. 5 years. Nothing changes rule wise in that time. Would make the “sport” a lot better.
Do you want to see those ugly noses for five years?
No, everything is wrong with the double points rule. And the new cars? With a few exceptions, almost pornographic. The Caterham looks like a frog catching a fly. The Force India and Williams need modesty covers. The innuendo and double entendres will be a total distraction throughout the season. Good report, Will
What a great article, Will! Thank you. Again. Don’t suppose there’s any chance you could snag Bernie’s job, huh? 🙂
“Because sadly, it seems they’re too busy staring down their now globally mocked noses to see that a bigger picture even exists.”
Nicely said (written).
Sooner or later, a driver will win the championship benefiting the double points at the end of the season. The question is, how us, the fans, will regard that driver. A champion, I think not.
The FIA should have it’s own independent working group or panel. Invite the teams to have their say, ask the public, fans & media too. Then make completely neutral rules which won’t favour any team & save F1 from it’s self!
If teams owned equal shares, as stakeholders and were rewarded accordingly with a decent share of the profits, like in major US sports, then acquiesced to a decently-run professional governing body (NFL, NASCAR, NBA etc) we would end up with less land-grabbing, back-biting, squabbling and problems like the current Cyrano de Bergerac proboscii would be quickly cleared up by an ‘I like your thinking now go away and don’t do it again’ scrutineering attitude.
Would F1 having a technical person like Indycar has with Derrick Walker, a person who has been involved with a team recently and is a middle man of sorts between the teams and the series management, help prevent such instances such as the stepped nose of 2012 and this current nose? The rules and technical regs sound like they are written with purpose but also with a good deal of wishful thinking which leads to some unexpected results.
If the racing is there, no one will give a piss about how stupid the cars look. If on the other hand, the cars are slow, like a lot slower than last year then people might turn away from the sport.
However, the designers and engineers have ways to make cars fast that do not and should not be.
All of this drivel about saving money is horse sh!t. There is no way that this year or the next couple are going to be economic.
Will, is there anyway to find out what kind of money the teams have put into the new specs, especially the new hybrid technology?
Great article.
F1 is losing a 60 year fan with its stupid rules. It instead needs to lose all the aero.
Not sure what to say. This is as good as any an example of individual interest harming collective interest. Writ large, look at the politics of the late 20th and ongoing 21st century. This is the central argument. Not always, but sometimes as seen here individual interest demonstrably diminishes the situation of all. No agreement can be had for fear of a competitor gaining and you losing. So all lose. The pernicious attitude of zero-sum.
Simple game theory, really. And the outcome, and subsequent outcomes given no variable change, are not only predictable but foretold. No need for soothsaying or prognostication, the conclusion is already written. Simulation unnecessary; already done. It just needs to come to fruition. Give it time. Hopefully we’ll get something new.
F1 is soon dead; long live F1. I guess…or hope.
A great read. Not sure what the answer is, but I worry for f1
[…] Buxton pointed out on his post about Day 1 of Jerez (here’s the link) that when it came to testing in the past, teams would have good days and bad days of testing, but […]
“They are right, of course, but the teams are utterly hypocritical in being so upset. The Technical Working Group, now replaced by the controversial Strategy Group, was integral in the formulating of the new rules.”
For me the 1993 season has the most beautiful cars of all time. Except for the Benetton, of course. Could they just ask to write a rule that the cars will look like this? They don’t need to be exactly the same just look like.
You write, “Not only do we have a total shift in engine and power philosophy, but we also have badly worded aerodynamic regulations to contend with.” I wonder what more liberal testing policies would do for power train fine tuning.
I can sympathize with wanting to control costs, but I hope as the finances of F1 recover, they can start moving towards more tests.
Right to the point Will,.. . F1 is getting too political, regulation defined, money infused freaking over complicated “Queen” of Moto Racing that is making me really sad… And after being F1 fan for more then 25 years I am kind of starting to loose my patience with all this crap. . . Then – I won tickets to Indy race here at Sonoma race track in SF/Bay Area in a raffle. And I went with my 2 boys and my wife, who is not a racing fan. . And, as our World Greatest Basketball ambassador (you-know-who) said: Guess what?? – IT WAS AWESOME RACING. To the bone! with great paddock fun for kids and racing fans. . . And – with access (yes, physically, you can touch them and shake their hand plus take a picture with then type of access) to the race drivers. . .Like it used to be in F1 when I was a teenager. . . before all this Pri-Madonna regulate this and use that shit. And: Guess what?! – I am going to be watching WAY more Indy this year then F1. I hope next year someone slap them on the head like you said. I really hope. But I doubt it. Too much money and politics involved. . . And yes, those cars are ugly. Peace. Alex.-
BBC F1:” The new format, which has been criticised by fans, teams and drivers, has been introduced for the final grand prix of the season in Abu Dhabi.Now Ecclestone has written to the teams saying he wants to extend it to the two preceding races, in the USA and Brazil.”
Is it more sensible if you want a double point system to have this for more than 1 race as Bernie has suggested? I completely dislike the double points for the last race. If we are going to have it, we should have it for 3-4 races. But not as Bernie suggests the last 3 races.
I would look at Tennis and the Grand Slam system. You have 4 GS which are more prestigious and players are given more points for winning it. You have the Master 1000s in the next level which are awarded lesser points and in the next tier.
The equivalent of this in F1: We can have 3 races designated as double point races, with one race in each continent. Let us say Monza in Europe, Suzuka in Asia and Interlagos in the Americas. Plus the last race. So essentially we are creating a 2-tier race system.
Does Formula 1 want this? I don’t think fans want it. People spend a lot of money to go to a F1 race. They wont like it, if the race they have gone to is what they see as a second tier race, as it does not have double points. It makes no sense to tamper with the current system. But if the powers that be want to do it, atleast do something sensible for heaven’s sake
Without accidental loopholes in the rules Jenson Button would never have been world champion, and Brawn GP may have never become AMG Mercedes. Sure, the elephant trunk, Gonzo, ant eater noses are ugly, but at first we all thought the stepped nose was ugly, but we got used to it. I love seeing the interpretation of the rules and how well the teams point out glaring loopholes(but only after it is on the car). Thank God for Mercedes, probably the most appealing solution so far. And lets all hope it works! As for the double points, that concerns me most, it is championship trickery to try to drum up veiwership at the end of the season. NASCAR has tried and tried to make the points more exciting, and failed miserably. What no one seems to get is this simple fact, points races are already exciting! By making one or more races carry heavier bearing than the previous leaves people feeling cheated. Not just the drivers or the teams, but the fans and the tracks. I commend the FIA on the regulations overhaul, this season is going to be fun, it was time for a major formula change, and they actually did one that could benefit the real world. In my head the FOTA has one ohrpose, safety. When it comes to straight safety issues they always came together, the rest of it is just individual agenda.
Great article Will, look forward to seeing your fantastic reporting from the ground! Just please, no mustache this year. 🙂
[…] and the subject wasn’t brought up once. Will Buxton did an excellent job analyzing the current predicament Formula 1 is in right […]
The sport doesn’t act in the best interests of the teams so what motivation is there for the teams to act in the best interests of the sport.
Far for being a benign dictator, Bernie has played divide and conquer with the teams so that he remains in control rather than the teams getting together and getting the benefits they deserve – different teams having different payments etc. is pretty clear evidence of this
Thanks for the post, Will, very interesting. When did F1 get so vapid that the aesthetics of the cars was important? If you look back to the late 60s and 70s, you will see a lot of ugly looking cars. But somehow they’re praised now. I agree the different approaches taken by the teams should generally be welcomed (though people are of course free to mock what they want).
I also take issue with your point about the F1 teams being competitors is an excuse for their dysfunction. F1 is not the only sport with competing teams/organizations that have to work together (look at the NFL, NBA, MLB in the US or the Premier League in the UK) but for some reason F1 is the most dysfunctional. I don’t know the cause but to some extent I feel Bernie (and Max Moseley) has not played the role of facilitator or mediator that should as he’s the only person with the influence to do so. He’s instead used the competitive nature of the teams against them for his own gain. Hopefully when Bernie finally goes, there will be a manager/director/CEO put in place by CVC that has a personal/professional interest in fostering stability and building the sport up (to create a larger, more sustainable revenue stream and eventually float or sell off which CVC seems to desperately want to do – don’t get me started on this).
I like your perspectives, Will. Just different enough from the predominantly British view to which I am more accustomed.
Why do the 2014 turbo cars still have airboxes? Just curious…