In recent months, there has been plenty of debate within the
Formula 1 fraternity regarding the direction the sport should take. While there
appears to be a consensus forming regarding such proposals as returning to
1,000-horsepower-plus engines and wider tyres, addressing F1’s ills by altering
the technical regulations is only part of the story.
Little has been suggested as to how to the sporting rules
might be moulded to improve F1, which seems like something of an oversight considering
how much easier and quicker it would be to implement such changes than reimagining
what a Grand Prix car should be.
That’s why I’ve devised a list of five relatively radical changes
to the sporting regulations, all of which could theoretically be implemented no
later than next season. Some would have a knock-on effect on how teams would
have to design their cars, but none of them are technical rule changes per se.
I’ve also avoided the thorny issue of how prize money ought
to be distributed – as much of an impediment to a truly competitive
championship as the present arrangement is – as well as the way the sport is
governed in the Strategy Group era. Those are arguments for another article.
The following changes also don’t include any provisions
explicitly aimed at boosting grid numbers from their current low ebb, though
their indirect effect may well be to improve the spectacle to a point where
more would-be sponsors and team owners decide they want to be involved.
1. Replace qualifying
with a reverse grid sprint race
Rules heralding a dramatic reduction in aerodynamics are
often mooted to generate more passing, but the very nature of modern F1 would
make it impossible to reintroduce all the variables that made Grand Prix racing
of yore so unpredictable. Instead, it’s time to consider something more radical
– something that forces teams to produce cars able to overtake one another more
easily.
Traditionalists may baulk at the thought of reverse grids,
but there’s no doubting that forcing faster cars to overtake slower ones on a
routine basis is a sure-fire way of generating the wheel-to-wheel action fans
crave. The non-points paying sprint race
format helps to moderate the random effect that reverse grids could have on the
championship if used in the actual Grands Prix themselves.
Grid order for the sprint races would be determined by
simply reversing the order of the championship as it stands before each race, meaning
the fastest cars would generally be at the back and the slowest at the front,
also providing some sorely needed TV coverage for the minnows. For the first
race, the grid would be determined by the previous year’s final standings.
The sprints would be approximately 45 minutes in length, with
no pitstops permitted (except to repair damage), and each driver would use a
single set of prime tyres; DRS would have to be scrapped to prevent the
quickest cars scything their way through the order too rapidly. The finishing
order would then determine the grid for the main event, with any retirees
starting at the back.
Over the course of the season, the best car-driver combination
would still prevail, but with more emphasis on the driver given the premium that
reverse-grid sprints would place on the ability to pass – something even the
purists can surely agree would be a good thing for the sport.
2. Overhaul tyre
compound rules
Another way to spice up Grands Prix would be the creation of
more strategic variables, meaning a rethink of the rules surrounding tyre usage
is in order. As much as this writer would love to see a return to a tyre war
(for the same reasons there would never be standardised engines, or even
chassis, in F1), there’s still plenty that can be done in the context of a sole
tyre supplier.
Pirelli has said in the past that they would be willing to
expand their range of dry tyre compounds from the present level of four, if
that’s what teams wanted – it’s the time for that offer to be taken up, with
each team given the ability to choose their own ‘prime’ and ‘option’ for each
race weekend, barring any compounds Pirelli deems unsafe for a particular
track.
Thus, teams could opt to gamble on using softer tyres than normal
in order to gain competitive advantage during the race, introducing a new layer
of intrigue and providing more opportunity for smaller teams to overcome their
bigger rivals through sheer tactical guile alone. The need to use both tyre
compounds in a race to promote strategic variation would also no longer exist.
This new set of tyre rules could work both with the new
sprint-race proposal outlined above, or with the existing qualifying format. In
the latter case, there would be nothing to stop teams using softer tyre
compounds to claw their way up the grid, but at the expense of being able to run
lengthy stints in the races, providing a suitable risk-to-reward ratio.
3. Reserve FP1 for
third and reserve drivers
Most observers agree that F1 needs to do more to give its
stars of the future more track time, but little meaningful change has been
effected in recent years to that end. The end-of-season young driver test was a
(small) step in the right direction, but even that’s been effectively replaced
by a return to limited in-season testing, in which teams are not obliged to run
young drivers.
Proposals to create new test sessions specifically for
rookies tend to be shot down because of cost concerns, and understandably so
given the current financial climate in the sport, and introducing third cars to
be raced by inexperienced drivers opens up a whole new can of worms that is, on
balance, probably best avoided entirely.
The solution? Simply mandate that teams must use their third
driver during FP1 at every Grand Prix weekend. Immediately, young drivers gain
hours of valuable track time at no extra expense to the teams, while the
designation of reserve driver would become meaningful once again as each team
would have a driver totally familiar with the car and ready to step in if
needed.
Some teams already reward their third drivers with the odd
practice session, and in almost all cases they do a perfectly competent job of
setting up the car, ready for the regular driver to take the reins once again
in FP2. There would be an incentive for teams to employ truly capable reserves,
but the rise of young driver schemes means that there’s no shortage of those.
4. Apply engine token
system to chassis upgrades
Since the introduction of the new engine formula last year,
a compromise ‘token’ system has been in place, allowing manufacturers to
develop their power-units to a degree without the associated costs of a full-on
engine war.
Despite disagreements over the precise amount of tokens
manufacturers should be permitted to spend, and a brief controversy over how
homologation rules should apply to new boy Honda, there seems to be a broad
consensus that the token system itself is fundamentally one that works – so why
not apply it to chassis development too?
Teams would still produce new cars for each season, but they
wouldn’t be free to develop them as they saw fit beyond a certain homologation
date; as with engines, each component would be assigned a token value depending
on its effect on performance, with a limited number to spend throughout the
year.
This would level the playing field to a certain extent,
effectively preventing the biggest outfits from spending their way out of
trouble and allowing smaller teams to maintain any early advantage gained for
longer. In essence, teams would be forced to deploy their available resources
more carefully, arguably the next best thing after a utopian budget cap.
5. Make ‘blue riband’
events more significant
Only four circuits on the current calendar featured in F1’s
inaugural season back in 1950 – Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Monza. This
quartet, which all boast the atmosphere, heritage and soul that no amount of
Middle Eastern oil wealth can buy, could be seen as the closest equivalent that
the sport has to the ‘major tournaments’ of golf and tennis.
Perhaps, then, F1 should make more of these ‘blue riband’
events by making them more significant milestones in the Grand Prix season.
While offering double points at Abu Dhabi was rightly derided by fans and
insiders alike, there could be some merit in awarding extra points at extended
versions of the four ‘major’ races at the four classic tracks listed above.
The four ‘blue riband’ races could be easily be made around
a third longer without unduly compromising the schedule, also solving the issue
of races at Monza and Spa regularly lasting less than 90 minutes. Naturally,
fuel tanks would need to be made larger to accommodate the extra fuel needed, a
change that could easily be implemented in time for the start of 2016.
The other implication of conferring a special status on
Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Monza would be to help ensure they remain on the
calendar indefinitely. While feathers would no doubt be ruffled at FOM, fans
would surely welcome an FIA intervention to prevent the four above Grands Prix
from suffering the same fate that the German Grand Prix appears to be heading
towards.
No comments:
Post a Comment