F1 INSIDER
Expert opinion and analysis
Well, one thing’s for certain: this is going to be one hell of an F1 year. We’ve got cars that move like ground-level rocket-ships, a tantalising Vettel-vsHamilton (Ferrari-vs-mercedes) title fight in prospect and potentially the mother of all power struggles between NEWFOM (aka Liberty, FOG), the FIA and the leading teams, as they shape up for a period of turf warfare over who really runs the sport (ie Who Gets What).
That little lot was enough to shake off any residual jet lag as F1 rocked up in Melbourne, 11,000 miles from home (for most), yet simultaneously just down the road.
There’s something agreeably disorientating yet welcoming about the Australian autumn around Albert Park, off the back of a European winter. For starters, the weather is an all-too-familiar swirl between heavy rain, chill, blustery gusts and sun strong enough to peel the skin from your nose. Okay, that last bit’s a shock
“IN
MELBOURNE, THINGS FELT SUPERFICIALLY ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’, BUT BENEATH THE VENEER WAS A SWIRLING UNDERCURRENT OF RESTLESS CHANGE
for itinerant Brits, but you get the general idea. The language is the same, but chewily accented; the currency recognisable, but morphed.
And so it was this year in Melbourne with the sport itself. Things felt superficially ‘business as usual’, but beneath the veneer was a swirling undercurrent of restless change. Seeing Ross Brawn striding around the paddock in an FOM shirt as its sporting MD was particularly disconcerting. His presence as a figure of calm, continuity and vast experience was reassuring, but Ross wears team kit, right?
Wrong, because Ross is now a poacher-turnedgamekeeper – “Yes I am,” he beamed with his Sphinx-like grin – who has already started to formulate his thoughts on what future direction Formula 1 should take in terms of its on-track offering.
A new engine formula is high up the agenda for 2020, giving rise to the possibility of standardised transmissions for all competitors. Brawn will not be drawn, yet, on the specifics of engine architecture, but he acknowledged that any new power unit would have to be a true racing engine, worthy of powering the world’s fastest motorsport series. It would also likely be less complex than the current hybrid V6 units built by Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda, while still remaining relevant to the requirements of manufacturer participants, each of whom sluice hundreds of millions of dollars through the sport, by way of technological and marketing investment.
Brawn also spoke with conviction about the need for a more “benign” aero package in F1, one less reliant on easily disturbed over-body aerodynamic flows. This, he ventured, might allow cars to run more closely, nose-to-tail, and facilitate more dynamic racing with a greater number of overtaking opportunities. Examples already exist, said Ross, of other ‘high-aeroperformance’ categories such as Indycar and the LMP1 class of the World Endurance Championship, where cars can run in close formation without catastrophic deterioration in aero efficiency.
“Over the next three to five years,” he added, “we want to create a vision for an ‘ultimate Formula 1’. This would be one where a really competent private team would be able to win a race, but to do that means limiting resources and capability so that teams in a similar bandwidth have the same potential to win a race.”
Gosh. Under-body aerodynamics; simplified engines with standardised transmissions; plucky privateers being able to take on and beat better-funded ‘works’ rivals. Pinch yourself and Ross might have been talking about those turn-of-the-decade seasons around 1980, when ground-effect aero, off-the-shelf Cosworth DFVS, plus Hewland gearboxes, allowed any number of small independent teams to run at the front.
So far, so good, and the knowledge that Pat Symonds, who recently retired as Williams’ chief technical officer, has immediately been snapped up by NEWFOM and Brawn to begin detailed research on the next Formula 1 technical framework, is further evidence of a welcome outbreak of sanity within the corridors of power. But still, the question: how?
Formula 1 has never had a figure like Brawn in his current position: ie an eminent technical and sporting manager working for the commercial rights holder. That’s because the championship’s technical and sporting rules-’n’-regs framework has always been the bailiwick of the FIA, as F1’s governing body. And the last time anyone looked, it still is – a point emphasised by none other than FIA President Jean Todt, also present in Melbourne.
So while the FIA and NEWFOM are playing nicely for now – an entente cordiale if you will – we can be certain that the famously intransigent and thick-skinned Todt will concede not a millimetre of what he considers to be FIA territory, should he feel threatened or manoeuvred.
And that’s before we talk about money. Shall we talk about money? Do we have to? In Formula 1, with heavy heart and great reluctance, yes we do, because it’s the very lifeblood of this endlessly cash-consumptive pursuit.