The Formula One Strategy Group was faced with a choice yesterday: confront the issues facing our sport, or stare meekly at their combined navel and plough forward on a road to ruin. It has been said by many, myself included, that the anti-democratic think tank is a scourge on this sport, its ranks filled overwhelmingly by the self-interested. Competing entities, it has been argued, will never vote for the greater good. There’s too much for them to lose. Turkeys, it has oft been said, don’t vote for Christmas.
They just have.
With an opportunity to debate meaningful steps and solutions to the cost of the sport and measures to attempt to ward off the financial failure of any more teams, it appears that the only meaningful agreement taken yesterday at Biggin Hill was to “improve the show” by actually raising costs via the reintroduction of refuelling.
Forget, for a moment, the bracketed minutiae that maximum fuel allowance will still be in place. For it follows that, unless that allowance increases, the ability for drivers to push beyond the levels at which they currently do will only marginally be increased as they will still have to conserve fuel to make it to the end of the race. Forget, for a moment, the boring races that were the norm under the past era of refuelling, where races were decided on strategy in the pits far more than they are today. Forget, for a moment, the safety implications that a return of refuelling creates.
And think instead about what the FIA and its President are supposed to be doing for the sport. Two bold headlines underwrite Jean Todt’s reign over Formula 1: Cost reduction and a move towards a more environmentally sound Formula via fuel management.
Indeed, when, in April 2009 and under the previous regime, refuelling was outlawed for 2010, the World Motor Sport Council gave its reasoning thus:
“It was confirmed that from 2010, refuelling during a race will be forbidden in order to save the costs of transporting refuelling equipment and increase the incentive for engine builders to improve fuel economy.”
By re-introducing refuelling, it therefore follows that neither of these objectives are any longer of importance to the sport or to the President.
Indeed, in his own 2013 re-election manifesto (if one forgets for a moment that in his original running for office Todt promised to only stand for one term), the President promised: “In the coming years our goal will be to continue to pursue this agenda of delivering stable, fair, safe and competitive championships, while at the same time enhancing the FIA’s position within those competitions in order to ensure best practice and standards.”
The return of refueling does none of these things.
Today’s release stated that tyre allocation for next season would be free for teams to choose their own compounds. But, from the objective of “improving the show” just as with the reintroduction of refuelling and the ability for teams to start with different weight cars, the introduction of yet another variable will not serve to close the field, merely to space it out even further. And Pirelli has already stated that such a freedom will not happen under its watch. Might we see a new tyre manufacturer having to enter the sport to make good on these plans?
From 2017, however, we are promised cars that will be faster. Much of this will come from weight, admittedly some from lower fuel loads but some from fatter tyres and some from aerodynamics which we have been promised will be “aggressive.” A typically vague assertion, if ever there was one. Are we to expect painted snarls on the front wings? Or, perhaps something akin to Ferrari’s mock-up. To be honest, I’m not terribly sure what constitutes an aggressive design, short of the Mad Max car Lotus rolled out in Spain.
What we are actually talking about here is an aerodynamics overhaul, a car with a smaller fuel-tank and thus a complete chassis redesign. This will, once again, only pull costs up, not reduce them as hoped.
Of course, teams will still be allowed to use wind-tunnels to design these new cars, something which had been on the table for being banned in order to… yep, save costs. So perhaps no surprise that this alteration didn’t get passed.
Power units will remain unchanged (thank heavens), however engines will rev higher and noise will be louder… but how many cars will even be on the grid?
The FIA finished their statement off with news that, “following a constructive exchange, a comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged.” It is expected that this will cover the issue of Customer Cars. And it will have to.
The potential cost hike for the teams could be catastrophic. Manor / Marussia is already on its uppers. Lotus, Force India and Sauber are doing OK for now, but financial bombs like this will send shockwaves throughout their boardrooms. How will this affect the new Haas F1 team, who never signed up for this Formula?
When the smaller teams are gone, the top teams will have to run third cars. When one manufacturer keeps finishing last, they will pull out, before the next one does, and the next, and the next, and all we are left with is a one-make series with one team. Either that or we will end up with a two-tier championship split between manufacturers and customers. Which nobody wants.
The clowns are running the circus. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Turkeys have buttered themselves up, coated themselves in bacon, cranked up the heat and thrown themselves into the oven. Pitch it however you want. There is no way in which these proposals, if implemented, end well. For the teams, for the sport or for the fans.
There was a chance to have a proper debate yesterday. A chance for real, meaningful change. But it went begging. Again.
Yes, these proposals must still be voted through by the F1 Commission, but the message the decision of the Strategy Group sends out could not be clearer. The future of Formula 1, as we know it, is in tremendous peril.
I don’t blame Bernie. He has a set vision for the way in which he believes the sport should be headed. I don’t blame the teams. For a start they shouldn’t even be making these decisions. Why? Because they’re all motivated by self-interest and so why should they, the majority of whom who could no doubt afford the changes, care about those who couldn’t? And besides, if Ecclestone and Todt really did reach an accord as expected, the teams couldn’t out-vote such an entene-cordiale anyway.
When Jean Todt was originally elected to the Presidency of the FIA he did so on the promise that he would appoint an F1 Commissioner, who would take responsibility for the sport so that the President could cast his net wider and be more effective in his role. Todt’s net has been flung wide. Wider than many realise. But he never did appoint that commissioner. He never did hand that responsibility over to anyone else. He abandoned the idea in 2011.
The culpability, then, lies with the President of the FIA. He has lost all control, all authority and all respect. It would be wonderful to ask him his views on the mess, but he rarely holds court… instead choosing to hide in his motorhome at the few races he attends, refusing to stand accountable for his inaction.
His was the power. His, the responsibility. His, thus, the blame.
Until our sport finds itself a leader who can lead, we should all fear for its future.
Honestly If Refueling does end up coming back it may very well end my interest in F1 i’m afraid. I hated it the last time as I just didn’t like the effect it had on the races & was thrilled when we finally got rid of it after 2009.
I hated how it moved the action off the track & into the pits & how we saw a decline in the racing & overtaking that occurred on the track as a result of fuel strategy & pit stops getting preference over the actual racing.
This chart shows how refueling affected overtaking the last time, Would probably have the same negative effect this time:
http://t.co/tliKrHVmax
May seem like a small thing to walk away over but with everything else I don’t like about F1 at the moment, adding that 1 more element on top of the rest is enough to see me walk away.
Precisely!
The race is what its all about, the race is on the track not in the pits.
Just to note, overtaking increased very slightly between 2009 and 2010, suggesting refuelling has a minor impact, as in 2011 (when overtaking really increased), both Pirelli tyres and DRS were introduced – these two play a huge role in overtaking.
Reblogged this on the SNUFALUFAGUS.
yet again Will you hit the nail on the head. The head that needs hitting is always hidden, what a WOS Todt is. How do the FIA always manage to elect these guys, is there not anyone who some vision out there, who is willing to do a proper job?
Will,
This is just in from WEBSTER.
They’re changing the official definition of “oxymoron” to read “The Formula One Strategy Group”
Will,
…and your solution is?
To me its gotten to complex to be a fun sport anymore. Give me the old normally aspirated V8’s without all the BS fuel flow restrictions – let them race! This is totally lost from the sport today unless you enjoy watching (bring on the posts about watching only Nico and Lewis – and maybe Seb).
Let E1 do all the PC green development (while flying the cars around the world in 747’s)…
I wrote my suggestions for the furtherance of the sport and why refuelling was a bad idea two days ago on this very blog.
Reblogged this on Pappillon and commented:
F1: #notblessed
Wow. Who pushed the auto_self-destruct button on F1 governance?
This is crazy!
Will, you are a fantastic reporter and I have always enjoyed your pit reporting and special shows. Curious, it appears you have thought long and hard about the changes needed to improve the show, cut costs and attract more teams. Would you do another entry and detail out your solutions?
I posted two days ago on how I would modify the sport, as it is only small mods that are needed, I think.
If done correctly customer cars could be a good move, but the rest is, as you say, stupid beyond belief!
I’ve always believed customer cars should only be available to a new team in its first 2 years of competition. After that it should be a unique constructor.
Will,
You must have had Radiohead’s “The Daily Mail” playing while you wrote this fine piece. I see what you did there!
“The clowns are running the circus. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.”
-waiting on the rapture. Singing: “We’re here, to keep your prices down, feed you to the hounds…
Well written and informative as always, keep it up!
Oooh. That’s a bit late in the Radiohead catalogue for me. More of a Bends / OK Computer man… but wow. That’s uncanny. Haha.
Totally off topic, Will, but in regards to Radiohead, pick up “In Rainbows”. Beautiful album.
I seriously doubt that re-introducing refuelling will pas through the boards and I hope that teams being given the opportunity to choose their own tyre compounds doesn’t get the green light either.
That being said, these proposals send a clear message…
Todt and old Bernie are so clearly out of touch with what the sport needs. Everyone has “improving the show” in mind but everyone seems to be running in a different direction.
What a shame.
While I agree that these proposals are heavily-flawed and don’t do enough to fix the genuine issues in the sport, I do strongly disagree with one notion. It’s the idea that tree reduction of variables is the ideal for motor racing. It’s not, unless you have a spec series.
More variables means more ways to win. A lot of my favourite races have been the result of somebody taking a radically-different approach which others
didn’t see. That flexibility also allows us to avoid monolithic disasters like Mercedes.
A big part of what I love about F1 is the cerebral side which integrates the entire team via strategy. These days, we see one or two basic strategies for most of the field, and it’s terrible to watch. That’s not to say that every multi-strategy race was great, but, as I said, most of my favourites involved gambles.
To that end, I’m not sure if these proposals truly fix anything–and I suspect they don’t–but they seem like a step I the right direction. Without better revenue sharing, though, I guess nothing truly helps. Without cost cutting, revenue sharing, AND more technical freedom, F1 is doomed anyway.
The technical aspects of the sport are holding my interest. The driver and constructor battles are engaging. In short, I do not think the show is broken. However, the most recent Concorde Agreement is killing the viability of the series.
The revenue payments are the real problem. Putting aside that the teams currently receiving ‘premiums’ would never go for it (See Autosport article here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118955), the real solution to Formula One is to share the revenue equally. I am suggesting that FOM equally split all revenue based on the assumption that the last team in the series is just as important as the first team when it comes to putting on ‘the show.’ A modest additional prize should go to the top three teams, but otherwise all money would be shared equally. This one simple solution could negate the need to cut costs (somewhat).
There is always room to improve the technical regulations, and improvements to the show are always welcome (if they work), but short of running a spec. series, how and where money is spent by a team is part of what makes it interesting. The teams should share equally in the revenue generated by the show. In so doing, sponsors would become the key source of additional funds for development, and it would remove those sponsors from the less remarkable role of keeping a struggling team alive.
As you suggest, the aspect of the sport that is broken is an issue that goes beyond the reach of the Strategy Group.
I feel all kind of spiritual after that Will. “Thy pen be the power, thy words be the glorious obituary…. ”
And.. “If my will be done…” its #Buxton4President 😉
Cost cutting is never going to happens o eveyrone really needs to stop talking about it.
Instead what should be focused on is revenue sharing ala the American sports and entertainment model. Instead, you have Ferrari getting $100m just for showing up.
You want to fix “cost problems”? It’s right there in front of us all.
Brilliant commentary again!
I can’t believe they have voted AGAIN to re-fuel!!!
THIS DOES NOTHING to make a better show!
Give the teams a “set” amount of fuel per race, then open the design of the power train around that!!
Eliminate the use of wind tunnels.
Go with CAD, to reduce the cost.
Cripes I am not the brightest bulb in the box but it seems simple to me!!
Just read some additional comments from Toto Wolf about the goal of the group to create faster cars and thrilling races. Constructors would have total control of tyre selection,which would make Pirelli a true supplier. But a comment buried in the interview, refueling to meet 3 seconds, which would be amazing. Think about seeing a pitstop with 4 tyre changed and refueled in 3 seconds. Add to that lapping 5-6 seconds quicker!! Possibly around the 2004 benchmark – Simply amazing engineering feats!!! Formula 1 the pinnacle and most technologically advance form of motorsport! Unleash the beast in 2017
I just saw the part about them wanting to do 4 tires and re-fueling in 3 second pit stops also. That is going to be very difficult to do. Unless they want to have to perform 7 or 8 stops per race, the fueling port will have to be much bigger than those on Indycars. I also think the fueling systems will have to use a pump, instead of being gravity feed in order to get enough fuel on board in 3 seconds.
Refueling in 3 seconds sounds far more dangerous than what we had the last time.
If they did that I could just see more accidents in the pits where fuel hoses been dragged along, Mechanics been dragged over & at worse more fires.
Refueling add’s nothing but more costs to teams, More danger to the mechanics & like it did before will almost certainly result in less racing & less overtaking.
Reblogged this on enigma.
I would like to see them as giant, powerful Formula Fords. Use the FF regs to ban wings, give them back the 2 meter track, wide sticky tires, and a maximum energy limit to use in any form they see fit. Gas, diesel, propane, electric, hydrogen fuel cell, whatever. Hopefully, this would spur power plant innovation.
I must confess to being in favor of refueling. For this if you who say ‘the race is on the track’- I must respectfully disagree. For me, F1 through the 4 decades I’ve been an avid fan- it’s always been a combination- the best racers on the planet, the best technology on the planet, the best ‘readers of the arcane-regs-that-are-F1’ on the planet and the best [real-time] strategists on the planet. Take one away, and for me, it’s some other racing series. Refuelling juices up the strategy. Yup, it’s dangerous. But so is standing in the pit lane as shown last weekend.
I guess I’m just in the minority- but I remember being at the track when the 1200BHP monsters would try not to detonate their quali-engine. (and were fuelled by guys in what amounted to hazmat suits because of the toxicity of the fuel).
One possible way to combat the ‘money buys all’ would be in -increase- (yup) the rate of technical innovation permitted -beyond- the point where money can play a deciding factor. (spending money introduces what I’ll call ‘budget latency’– you can’t put that much [effectively] into play in a short time). Freezing the specs and then removing testing has basically ground innovation (and the ability to catch up — just ask Honda). We’d see more ‘crazy ideas’ and responses.
Bring Mark Webber in to run this thing!! No nonsense Aussie with some clear vision for where F1 should be heading…
Well written, I’m very impressed. But I have to disagree with you on one thing. Both the teams and Bernie also bear responsibility. This notion that the teams (and Bernie) are entitled to self-interest above all else is rubbish. How ridiculously stupid do you have to be to destroy your own sport? For that matter, I, as a fan, am willing to take on some responsibility. Watching it is indirectly supporting it. If we all bailed on F1 (quicker than is already happening), they’d either be forced to change, or we’d get a new series that would be infinitely better given a few years. I’m in. Who else?
I was just reminded of this article written by David Coulthard in 2008 on the ITV website calling for refueling to be banned-
http://web.archive.org/web/20080809181851/http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=David_Coulthard&id=43612
He made the same points those against refueling coming back are making now. He however obviously has the benefit of been a driver (At the time) & having a far better understanding how how refueling was effecting races & the racing.
[…] Will Buxton’s Take on refueling […]
Reblogged this on secreteyes4.