F1’s rules may be black and white, but finding the loopholes is part and parcel of the sport
‘Ross Brawn considered it a matter of professional necessity to probe the grey areas. Very successful he was, too’
‘ RULES ARE RULES.’ A PHRASE RIGHT UP there with ‘it is what it is’ for banal, uninformative obviousness, but thrown around to emphasise the black and white nature of sporting regulations.
And whereas rules are, as we’ve established, very much rules, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an awful lot of wiggle room within them where one can gain an advantage.
Sometimes, like sports stars gaining approval to take an otherwise banned substance or footballers deliberately taking a yellow card, it’s obviously not in the spirit of the regulations but is within the letter of the law. Other examples, like Australian ball tampering or Benetton Formula’s traction control in the mid1990s, can fall into that most powerful sporting slur of ‘cheat’. Ross Brawn was Michael Schumacher’s technical director at Benetton back then and considered it a matter of absolute professional necessity to probe the grey areas of the regulations. Very successful he was, too – eight constructors’ and eight drivers’ championships prove that.
Adrian Newey, too, is unapologetic in pushing the boundaries to the limit and sometimes beyond. ‘ If you don’t, you’re not really racing,’ went the explanation.
The only downside is the damage to your brand or company reputation when you get caught on the wrong side of the line. But explaining that away is the job of the PR spinners, not the technical director, so hey, fill yer boots.
Of course, it matters less when an energy drink or clothing brand is caught cheating than a prestigious car manufacturer, and yet people still buy Volkswagens (I’ve got one myself). It was with this in mind that Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne decided a change was needed at Maranello. By all accounts he was tired of rival teams pushing the boundaries and exploiting loopholes, frustrated his guys hadn’t spotted them first, so he essentially instructed a team of engineers to read the rule book more aggressively. Not literally, though that might have helped.
As a result, this season Ferrari has been much more forthright, pushing every area of the regulations for an interpretation that makes its car faster. On some, it’s been given the green light and, at least in the first half of the season, reaped the rewards. On others, it’s been knocked back and has had to rein it in. But there’s one example that is so complex nobody’s quite sure what’s going on. It pertains to the battery in the Energy Recovery Systems of all Ferrari-powered cars (Haas F1 and Alfa Romeo Sauber have been regular points scorers this season, too). The suspicions, unproven, are that the Ferrari ERS can/ was/is allowing electrical energy to flow at a higher rate from the battery to the MGUK (the motor that runs off the engine’s crank), and that clever, higher-capacity wiring can satisfy the FIA sensor that restricts the rate of electricity but also deliver more grunt, potentially to the tune of 16 horsepower.
Improvements in battery technology have left power units with plenty of juice unused at the end of a lap, and it must be frustrating for driver and engineer to see free performance just out of reach. The rules do allow electrical energy to be diverted to ‘ancillaries’ (maybe Kimi’s newly discovered Instagram habit means he needs to charge his iphone during the race), so maybe there’s room to argue about unclear wording and interpretations there, if questions were asked. There is another FIA sensor that measures all electrical energy into and out of the battery, which would make interesting comparison with that of Mercedes, Renault and Honda.
If we, the Formula 1 viewers, are in the dark about whether this is actually happening, it’s likely the other teams are not. Over the winter, Mercedes employed Ferrari’s ex-chief engine designer Lorenzo Sassi, who would have known about the Scuderia’s plans for this year, even if he was sacked before it raced. Sassi may have tipped his new employer off, but Mercedes may not be in the mood to grass its rival up as they are best of friends these days, forming a united front to rebuff the plan of F1’s owner to impose budget caps and redistribute prize money. These ambitions would mean Mercedes and Ferrari having to lay off staff and get paid less to show up and race – neither attractive options.
But here’s the kicker: Ferrari has recently stepped back from the brink in its fight with F1 and the FIA over these rule changes, voluntarily surrendering a decent hand of cards. Why? As a trade against any further investigation or punishment for trespass into a grey rules area? Surely not. After all, you know what they say about rules.