How F1 got into a right rules pickle
- •
- 724 reads
- •
- 1,022 views
- •
- 14 min read
F1 bosses have been in a rare decision-making mood this week about a number of important issues.
This comes after a meeting of the sport’s Strategy Group at Hockenheim on Thursday.
Here are a list of what they decided:
The introduction of cockpit protection, a move that would alter the DNA of the sport forever, has been delayed until 2018.
Limits on radio messages, which have been tweaked here, there and everywhere, were scrapped completely.
Track limits, the result of tarmac run-off areas giving drivers greater margin for error, have seen a three-strikes system apparently implemented but when is wide too wide?
Qualifying is to be suspended in the event of a car stranded on track, again, the consequence of drivers taking liberties.
A race that starts behind the safety car due to wet conditions will see a normal standing start, but only when Charlie Whiting deems it safe enough.
And finally, when is one move actually two when defending against another driver? That has now been opened up following Max Verstappen’s actions in Hungary.
Basically it’s a raft of decisions aimed at pleasing everybody, but as a result, F1 has left itself looking rather foolish.
Let’s take at look at each one.
Cockpit protection
The big debate over ‘Halo’, cockpit solution of choice for the FIA, has been rumbling on ever since it was first shown off publicly by Ferrari back in February.
The majority in F1 agree something has to be done after the tragic death of Jules Bianchi and others in recent years. But also conceded the halo was too ugly and not the perfect answer to every scenario.
Despite those concerns, the FIA put a lot of effort into converting the doubters and looked to have done so, at least among the drivers, following a presentation in Budapest.
With their support, it cleared the way for the acceptance of halo being on the cars in 2017. Then, after Thursday’s vote, they decided it wasn’t ready to be introduced until 2018.
What was the point of doing the hard work to sway opinion in favour and then vote against it?
Now it has left the drivers in a weird position of being unhappy about something they were previously not all that desperate for. That’s because they have been convinced it is something the sport must have.
Yes, halo needs more time to be developed on that we all agree, but now the level of urgency around its introduction feels much less than before.
Radio messages
Where do we start on this one?
In a high-tech sport, where much of the car can be adjusted from the steering wheel, the driver is under a huge amount of pressure to know exactly what each mode does.
They have a raft of options to help improve performance and they also have ways of solving problems, should they hit out on track.
The major talking point has constituted around breaking the rule that says all drivers must drive the car ‘alone and unaided’.
The common sense appraoch would be any message that helps car performance or offers advice on how to drive shoud be banned.
If they are losing time to drivers around them it’s upto them to find out where and respond.
But anything regarding a safety or reliability issue should be permitted because it is not the job of the driver to provide a good car.
Sadly the FIA tried to get cute and the result was a farce that basically made implementing that rule impossible.
With those limits gone, F1 is back to where it was before and it will be interesting to see just how much help each driver receives across the airwaves from now on.
Track limits
When you play a racing game on a console, how often do you really stick between the lines?
Exactly, you see a big wide kerb, you use it because you know you can’t really crash.
As the PlayStation generation has come through that same approach has transitioned into real life onto the racetracks.
Tarmac run-off areas have given an increased margin for error for a driver if get it wrong, therefore it makes it more tempting to see just how wide they can go.
Enforcing track limits is very easy. You have a white line if a driver puts all four wheels across you penalise them.
Heck, tracks now even have sensors on the outside of the kerb to take away the element of uncertainty.
So why are the stewards so undecided over how the police it?
Certain corners are being clamped down on using a three-strikes system but what about all the others?
There is another way to stop drivers running out too wide, however. Remember those nice yellow speed bumps they installed on the outside at Turn 8 in Austria? They worked rather well.
Slowing under yellow flags
Just when you thought Virtual Safety Car had solved this issue it missed out one important area. Qualifying.
The argument is very much the same. Just how much should a driver slow down when a yellow flag is waved?
Nico Rosberg’s pole lap in Hungary was set despite going through a yellow flag zone. Data proved he slowed 20kph and that was deemed sufficient by the FIA.
Now they have taken away the element of doubt by red-flagging a session when marshals are required to join the track.
Much like track limits, the need to take a firm decision is because drivers look to take liberties, stretching the rules as far as they will go.
That’s to be expected in any sport not just F1 so it comes down to those in charge a determined line, in this case, the FIA has now done so.
Standing wet starts
Ah, another favourite topic fans and pundits alike have complained about in recent years.
When is a track too wet to race on? This is very much a personal opinion as there is no black or white answer.
F1 has had a number of great wet races in recent years but many have also seen a great amount of caution by Charlie Whiting.
Canada 2011, Malaysia 2012, Suzuka 2014, Monaco and Britain 2016. All races that featured prolonged safety car periods, four of which actually started behind it.
Yes, it’s a safety issue, but in almost every case of a Safety Car start or restart has being called because of the weather, drivers have been switching to intermediates soon after.
The reason is a lack of confidence in Pirelli’s full wet tyre, however, as qualifying in Hungary and Austria proved these are the best racing drivers around and one of their skills is adapting to different conditions.
From now on any race that does start behind a Safety Car will see the drivers line up for a normal standing start when the track is deemed raceable.
That’s good, now let’s just be a little more willing to test the drivers in wet conditions too.
Defending a position
There is nothing better than watching the best drivers in the world going wheel-to-wheel.
The skill required to overtake or defend from another car, well, it used to be an art by itself but DRS rather took much of that away.
We do still get a few great battles and none more so than between Max Verstappen and Kimi Raikkonen in Hungary.
In the early part of the race, it was the Finn ineptly keeping the much faster Red Bull at bay, towards the end the roles had reversed, it was fascinating to watch.
Verstappen has also been a breath of fresh air when it comes to racing. His aggressive manoeuvres last year and his defence against Rosberg in Canada both receiving a large amount of credit.
In Hungary though, some thought he pushed the boundaries of moving in the braking zone. One moment even saw Raikkonen run into the back of the Dutchman.
It was firm but just about fair, much like Michael Schumacher’s defence against Mika Hakkinen at Spa 16 years ago.
But because the rules state a driver could only make one move, what constituted that became a grey area in the case of Max vs. Kimi.
With the FIA siding with Verstappen on the issue, the limit of what becomes acceptable or not, much like track limits, will be an interesting story to follow for the rest of the year.
How F1 got here
So with so many fairly fundamental rules being altered, causing chaos and confusion, the simple question is how did F1 get here?
It comes down to a poorly organised FIA trying to exercise its power.
They should be the governing body that decides all the rules, casts them in stone and the teams and drivers abide.
But because the teams and F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone basically share power with them, everything is up for debate.
If there’s a rule that they don’t like, just change it, radio limits being the prime example.
The idea itself was good but there was no clear-cut agreement by all parties on what those limits would be.
That’s why there was constant tweaking and that’s why eventually the FIA gave up.
The inconsistent application of rules is another.
When is a pit release unsafe? When is a driver exceeding track and defence limits? When is a track too wet?
Because the rules were being applied with a here-and-there approach it makes it harder for teams to know what is and isn’t allowed.
It also opens up rules to interpretation thus making it harder for them to be implemented.
Finally, it comes to the sport lacking a clear direction. This is an issue for all sides, not just the FIA.
Bernie Ecclestone may be a great negotiator but he’s becoming a yes man when it comes to how his sport looks.
Drivers say one thing, he agrees, teams say something else, the same answer.
The disconnect between those in power and the fans is what is slowly killing F1.
As fans, we want radio communication but the right kind of communication. We want an exciting show with great action between the drivers. We want to see them push the limits but know exactly where they end.
It really isn’t too much to ask and only requires a bit of what has been lacking in recent years, common sense.
There will always be rule controversies, that is just the way it is in sports. Was he offside? Was the ball out? Drama with so much on the line, that is part of what makes sport what it is.
But when those rules are constantly changing it becomes very hard to keep up and eventually people switch off.
The FIA need to grow a spine in how it governs the so-called pinnacle of motorsport.
It appears F1 bosses have finished their tinkering session for now. But with another new raft of rules coming in 2017 we can expect much more of this in the next year to come.