"There is no button like that!" Valterri Bottas
Are there too many buttons in F1? Valterri wasn't referencing Jenson. A concatenated summation of the radio communications from the 2015 Austrian Grand Prix may be put like this,
"On multi-B, MGU-H 14 full switch off on fail 11, go to battery 7, default X5B. Strat 6, MGU 14".
Those are references culled directly from the radio transcript of last weekend's race. I can infer some of the meaning of these things, and I like technical information. I do not like technical information where it either gets in the way, or is self-serving. It's the 21st century after all, technology is supposed to be transparent by now!
That's a personal opinion, of course. Everyone is ready to proffer their version of the rules these days, or who should run Formula One, or what's wrong. I arrogantly proclaim that everyone is wrong, conceptually.
Formula One is an outgrowth of the maturation process of a technology, the automobile. People were racing horses prior to this, and to this day still race horses; but nobody insists horse carriages should be powered by an internal combustion engine to assist the horse!
There are no equivalents in Tour bicycle racing of an ERS "push to pass" button. The peloton doesn't get to use a gear if they're within a meter of the leader, that the leader doesn't get to use. Horse racing, bicycle racing and others have long ago come to grips with the basic philosophical premise of what constitutes their respective sports.
Formula One has not. Two forces have shaped the regulation of F1, the progression of technology, and safety.
At some point, let's say maybe around 1998-2002, we reached technological diminishing returns. Effectively, it was no longer a technological challenge to get to 210 mph with an IC engine.
In addition, safety had congruently matured to a point where it had become not perfectly safe, but perhaps acceptably safe.
At this point, a boundary has been set, whether it is codified or not:
- the safety of the driver (and spectators) are paramount;
- cornering speeds shall not increase for safety reasons;
- top speeds shall not increase beyond (210-220 mph) for safety reasons.
Number 2 and 3 were natural built in limits at one point. Nobody had to figure out how to make cars corner slower or go slower, because they hadn't reached these herd-meme parameters of "too fast". They're not written as law, but we all know they are there.
I have my own Personal F1 Rules & Regulations, as does everybody. I would simply mandate "do whatever you want, don't exceed 5Gs in a turn or 210 mph." I don't expect that will never be implemented, of course.
Neither will anyone else's idealized "fixes" for F1. Because that's all they are: patches.
Because, unlike horse or bicycle racing, there is no ratified set of principles that guide the philosophy of what "Formula One Car Racing" is about.
I have plenty of ideas about what that should be, no doubt the reader does as well. I won't waste your time iterating them. Instead, I make the following recommendation:
- Get the smartest and brightest cross section of the Formula One community together someplace. Not Monaco, not Paris, not Las Vegas - and have a convention that comes up with a Formula One philosophical "Constitution".
- I have no wonderful suggestion for how the logistics of this would be started. That would better be solved internally in the F1 community. Not by FOM, or the FIA, or CVC. It would not be a rebellion, it would not be a Grand Prix Drivers Association, it would be a representative cross section of the "Formula One Community".
- Say 10 drivers, half past, half present. 10 team bosses, past and present. 10 track owners. 10 circuit promoters. 10 journalists. Most importantly, 10 fans from all of the grand prix host countries; of different ages.
How are they picked? I don't know. You put them up for a week somewhere, make them hash out 10 Articles guiding F1. Maybe a common leader emerges, a Jackie Stewart or Ross Brawn, that sets the basic organizational arrangement of said convention?
The articles would be simple non-subjective generalizations. My suggestions previously - driver and spectator safety first and foremost, Article 1, maybe. Then something like "a "car" will only have a throttle, brake, clutch, and gear shift for inputs". Very general, but concise premises.
Because in this, one can then go about how to make actual rules that work towards these aims. Without these basic principles set in stone - what is a "car?", what is "racing?", F1 will continue to be a morass of conflicting bureaucratic non-solutions to achieve a myriad of goals that will please nobody.
As time goes on, it is only natural to expect this manner of regulation to continue to become more obfuscated and bureaucratic as to be so untenable the whole thing stops working.
There should be a call for an F1 constitutional convention. Determine what a "car" and "F1 racing" should be about in the most basic terms, and then let the the regulations wrap themselves around that.
One might be cynical that such a thing might result in just another list of technical flotsam and jetsam. If such a convention were to take place in the right environment with everyone having an equal say, in the spirit of the concept, Formula One might have a chance to be great again.
[highlight ]Opinion by reader Chip McDonald[/highlight]
Latest News
Loading
