Are the rules pushing F1 into irrelevancy?

[outer_bongolia]

As we look at a major update of the rules in 2021, I would like to bring a question about where these tiles should be guiding the sport towards.

Basic question is the title: Are the current rules pushing F1 towards irrelevancy?

I will later discuss two sub-topics:
1. Aggressively set rules
2. Limitation of technological advances

Before diving deeper: I have been following F1 for nearly 40 years. I became an engineer (albeit in a different field) partially because of F1. I admit a decent portion of the dedicated fans are actually in my age group.

I do not mean that the attendance is going down. Liberty has been successful in adding more to the spectacle to ensure the race is a part of a circus. But it would be interesting to note, in Austin for example, a large fraction of attendants were watching the race on large screens elsewhere instead of the track itself.

This can be a result of the changes in the world which are making driving a lot less important portion of people’s lives. Less people are getting driver’s licenses. Local racing series and tracks are dying. The nearest track to where I live (a very large city) is nearly 2 hours away. There is only 1 go-kart track left.

If driving is not as important, and the race itself is just a part of the acts that are drawing people to the F1 event in town, how can corporations justify sponsoring or owning a team to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Especially when even large companies like Renault and McLaren are struggling, why put a name on a car that does not have a chance to compete, that will not get airtime, and basically will make the name look worse?

Here I will go into the first sub-topic.

1. Aggressively set rules:
One reason why there is such a gap between haves and have-nots is because of the rules that make cars nearly but not exactly stock cars. Look at 2019 rules. They basically define the front wing for you. There will be loopholes which will be exposed. And bigger teams already have an advantage here with more engineers peeking into the details. They will have enough resources spend on that 1 mm area to optimize the aerodynamics.

Why not relax the rules and concentrate them on safety and cost? Let the engineers play in a field with more variables adding many different points of optimization?

2. Limitation of technological advances
A very simple example is active suspension. As a result of the active suspension ban, teams had to come up with creative and utterly useless mechanical tricks to imitate it. Massive amounts of money is dumped into ridiculously complex dampers/springs. Again, rich teams got to do a great lot of tricks in their cars. A cheaper solution would be just letting the teams have electronic suspension and have them program their way.

Same goes for traction control. It improves speed, increases safety. Why would you want to ban it?

Why not allowing more technology in both powertrain and handling? Just allow the series to keep up with the road technology and even bring the costs down by doing that.

Especially given the way the rules define everything nearly down to the bolts in your engine, there is no way the car will ever be technologically relevant. I totally agree when many of the engine suppliers do not want to get into this money pit. Why would they, after the public shaming Renault took from Red Bull and Honda from McLaren?

There are many ways F1 can go. I hope it goes in a direction that keeps the race as the main event, not the clown of the circus.

[Big Tea]

My personal view, which I am very sure will not be shared by many, is that F1 has become too fast, thus requiring all the rules to stop it becoming stupidly dangerous.
I also feel that as a technical challenge, it is not about ultimate power, or it would be easy to add capacity, but about power per unit, either of capacity or fuel.
So in my eyes, reduce the engine capacity to where the output will still give respectable total performance, and lose many of the restrictive rules.

As impressive as F1 performance is, it would be even more so if the lap times could be matched with an engine maximum limit of 999cc, and I am reasonably sure they could bet quite close to it without the restrictions there now. There would of course need to be some sort of block on total spending, and some restriction on materials and chemicals.

A 1ltr unlimited engine with recovery and electric front wheel drive and free aero within an outline would be awesome.

[Just_a_fan]

I would want traction control to remain banned because traction management is a driver skill, especially in the wet. Allow traction control and you remove a key differentiator between drivers.

I would be for active suspension but I think it should be a standardized system. Bespoke systems would cost a lot and thus continually benefit the big three. Indeed, allowing free for all on things will always benefit the big budget teams.

I would allow teams to run more cars if they wish - if they want three, or four, cars why not? Only two to score constructors' points, however. That would help to bring larger grids too which will make more "spectacle".

[jjn9128]

I don't think the rules are what is pushing F1 into obscurity and irrelevance. Teams were willing to accept the short term gains of TV money without thinking of the long term loss of fans unable or unwilling to shell out for a dedicated service. Certainly in the UK - TV figures dropped significantly from BBC holding exclusive rights to the C4/sky share deal/highlights package. The owners were also rather slow to accommodate new media as a means of helping fans feel closer to the action (they're still fed the same PR just direct from teams). It means they risk losing a generation who are tied to their phones and can only relate to something they can "interact" with.

Then there's the deals circuits have to sign to get F1 to come to them - when Silverstone is getting gates of 120-125,000 each day but struggling to cover their obligations to FOM - there's an issue. This drives the sport away from its fan base to oil rich countries where 1 man and his camel turn up to watch, but the government is funding the contracts. This excess of money from TV and circuit contracts hasn't made the product better - more professional but not better.

The real issue is that F1 has an identity problem. Does it want spectacle, technological innovation, road relevance, a vehicle for the human gladiatorial spirit, or tight competition?! It can't have everything. The current engine/power units are technological marvels, but even I have to admit do nothing to help the spectacle (I'm on record as saying all engines do is get in the way of neat aerodynamic packaging), both from the point of view of the visceral impact track-side and the sheer number and complexity of penalties. They are arguably not even road relevant or particularly pushing boundaries. A screaming V10 or V12 is spectacular, but isn't innovative or relevant.

Even fans aren't in agreement about what they want. Which makes the fan surveys a token gesture at best. They won't reveal anything other than the fact there's a multitude of reasons different people like F1. Try to make everyone happy and nobody will be - look at the 2017 reg changes as a reaction to the perception of the cars being slow, the result was more spectacular cars in qualifying but a complete detriment to racing. A change of camera positions could have done a much better job of conveying speed, but would have lost the track side sponsor money.

[strad]

JJN;
Much of what you say I disagree with but in this

This excess of money from TV and circuit contracts hasn't made the product better - more professional but not better.

, in my opinion you hit the nail on the head.

[jjn9128]

JJN;
Much of what you say I disagree with but in this

This excess of money from TV and circuit contracts hasn't made the product better - more professional but not better.

, in my opinion you hit the nail on the head.

Much of what I said here or in general?

[notsofast]

The real issue is that F1 has an identity problem. Does it want spectacle, technological innovation, road relevance, a vehicle for the human gladiatorial spirit, or tight competition?!

I agree with this point.

As for me personally, I prefer a combination of technical innovation and a vehicle for human gladiatorial spirit. Let the constructors build a vehicle that can go at least as fast as their drivers can handle it. Then let's have a real race. In F1, I don't want to hear things like "GP2 engine".

But others might prefer something different.

[strad]

Much of what I said here or in general

What was said here.
I take things on a case by case basis and don't carry grudges. I can disagree with someone on one thing and agree on another.

[Greg Locock]

"Irrelevancy" I'm not sure that's actually a word (it is), but relevant to what exactly?

[Just_a_fan]

F1 is relevant to F1 and that's about it. It is not road car relevant, doesn't really innovate as such - usually it uses existing technology, isn't really relevant to other motorsport other than as something for young single seater racers to aspire to.

[JordanMugen]

A cheaper solution would be just letting the teams have electronic suspension and have them program their way.

Same goes for traction control. It improves speed, increases safety. Why would you want to ban it?

Especially given the way the rules define everything nearly down to the bolts in your engine, there is no way the car will ever be technologically relevant.

You are right the way a NASCAR or V8 Supercars define the rulebook which literally say "unless the rule says you can, then you cannot", does indeed stifle innovation.

However I don't think active suspension or traction control would be beneficial.

Traction control should be banned as they are supposed to be top drivers who can execute their own throttle control to manage their own wheelspin!

Similarly, I would counter active suspension by adding a "spec" rule of strictly one conventional oil damper and coil spring per corner, and strictly one steel antiroll bar front and rear. Strictly no other damping or springing components allowed.

[JordanMugen]

My personal view, which I am very sure will not be shared by many, is that F1 has become too fast, thus requiring all the rules to stop it becoming stupidly dangerous.

Quite right.

Too fast!? Ridiculous.

They deliberately made them faster in 2017, and this was absolutely the right decision. They should be pulling 5g's and they should be thrilling to throw into a corner at the limit.

Not a dreary thing that trundles into a hairpin virtual in slow motion, like an old IRL Dallara. Instead it should be maximum attack and dart into the corner in a lively, dynamic way just as the 2017+ cars do!

The conservation running in the race, instead of maximum attack, is quite a problem and reduces value for fans who want to see a maximum attack race, not a ruddy cruise!!

[Bandit1216]

I think the rules should say 100kg/h fuel flow max, but without a max on fuel quantity in the race. And if someone want's to try a 3 or 4 cylinder inline, go ahead. And for god sake let them refuel during the race. With throttle by wire it's easy to prevent the driver to drive off with the hose in the car and it's safe to. Lighter cars and more tactics.

More under car aero. The down-force level should stay about the same, but the efficiency should be better, resulting in 5g cornering and 360 top speed.

And perhaps limit battery power to make them even lighter. Couple the mgu-h to the an elec motor at the diff directly, without the battery. This would also eliminate the need for a reverse gear. IMO kers is irrelevant for road use and we could better invest in tech that make stopping and going during commuting redundant. And get rid of the use 2 compounds tire rules. Let the teams decide whether they want no stops on hard tires and bring 120kg of fuel or bring only 30kg and stop 3 times for fuel and only use hypers.

I think these kind of changes have more influence to the racing then the actual formula itself.

[Big Tea]

My personal view, which I am very sure will not be shared by many, is that F1 has become too fast, thus requiring all the rules to stop it becoming stupidly dangerous.

Quite right.

Too fast!? Ridiculous.

They deliberately made them faster in 2017, and this was absolutely the right decision. They should be pulling 5g's and they should be thrilling to throw into a corner at the limit.

Not a dreary thing that trundles into a hairpin virtual in slow motion, like an old IRL Dallara. Instead it should be maximum attack and dart into the corner in a lively, dynamic way just as the 2017+ cars do!

The conservation running in the race, instead of maximum attack, is quite a problem and reduces value for fans who want to see a maximum attack race, not a ruddy cruise!!

I see it as being about racing. Once the speed hits the levels it has there is never going to be racing.
I respect your view, just do not see it as 'go as fast as you can and make a noise'. But then, the wife says its time I was put out to pasture anyway.

[Just_a_fan]

'go as fast as you can and make a noise'. But then, the wife says its time I was put out to pasture anyway.

Perhaps you should change your technique then...