A proposal for a radical new Formula 1


Part 1: Drivers

In my previous posts I have established that I believe Formula 1 has been heading in the wrong direction for many years and I think the time has come to start again with a completely new set of rules. 

I will now proceed to outline what I think should be the future regulations for Formula 1, under the headings of Safety, Driving Standards, Engines, Tyres,  Aerodynamics and Chassis Design. 

Please bear in mind that this is a proposal from a life-long enthusiast aimed at putting racing back in its proper place as the primary attraction of the sport. If there is enough support for my ideas, I hope that this proposal will be adopted but I will leave it to the experts to formulate detailed rules and regulations. However, i would add that I hope to have a rather looser set of regulations than at present in order to encourage some obvious variations in the appearance of Grand Prix cars, much as was the case in the 1970s. 

I appreciate that, whatever the rules, there is likely to be a particular shape that fits the rules best and that this will rapidly be copied once someone has stumbled on it. This can't really be helped and a search through the archives will show that there is a degree of similarity between most cars in any given era, but this usually only lasted until someone came up with a new breakthrough. 

Current Formula 1 rules and aerodynamic trends have resulted in an end to this situation and a grid full of cars that would be very difficult to identify if they were all unpainted and the overal look of next year's cars will be very similar to this year's which only really visually differed from last year's by the changes to the wing regulations. Such is the way that modern Formula 1 cars are designed, and the restrictive regulations, it is extremely unlikely that anybody will, or can, take a gamble on a different style of nose or sidepod or other aspect of bodywork design  to produce a different looking car. It's time to do something about this and stimulate designers' imaginations again.

Can you imagine what Colin Chapman would have made of today's restrictive regulations? Adrian Newey is the nearest we have to a 21st century Chapman and he does manage to exploit loopholes and come up with something that no=one else has thought of, but it's all technical detail stuff and doesn't result in anything that looks different to the spectator's eye. Imagine what he could do with a bit more freedom in the regulations.

My suggestion for a new Formula 1 is as follows:

Safety

There are two kinds of safety, passive safety and active safety. Passive safety is something built into a car to give you a better chance of walking away from an accident. Active safety is taking steps to avoid the accident in the first place.

For many years it was simply accepted that the sport was very dangerous and sometimes people died. The victims were mainly drivers but sometimes an accident would also involve marshals, pit crew or spectators, the worst being Le Mans 1955 when Levegh's Mercedes-Benz took off after it hit an Austin-Healey that slowed as it was coming into the pits, landing in the crowd where it cartwheeled,  broke up and caught fire, killing the driver and over 80 spectators.  One of the reactions to this was to rebuild the pits at Le Mans, further back from the track, with a wall separating the pit road from the track with a pit lane approach road starting at the bend that leads onto the pit straight. This can be considered as an active safety measure.

Passive safety was almost non-existent in the 1950s. Back when Stirling Moss started racing, his father insisted on him wearing a crash helmet which was actually designed for use by polo players as it was the best available at a time when most drivers wore a cloth helmet for protection from the wind and no special clothing. Mike Hawthorn famously wore a bow tie when racing! Seat belts had not even been thought of. Eventually helmets and flame-proof clothing became compulsory along with roll-over bars which were often not much better than decorative as racing car designers sought to save weight. Eventually, a campaign by Jackie Stewart made seat belts compulsory but funerals of top drivers were still too common at the start of the 1970s.

Gradually more rules came in regarding driver protection and today we have a situation where cars are almost too safe. Drivers are so confident that they will be able to walk away from a crash that they don't fear contact. It is 18 years since the last F1 fatality and drivers were not afraid of contact even then. This has resulted in drivers being more keen to block overtaking rather than to race each other. I will deal with this later.

This is not just down to safety measures on the cars, but also improvements in trackside safety with better barriers, tyre walls, gravel traps and large run-off areas as well as ridged, but otherwise almost flat kerbs that won't flip a car and debris fencing to protect spectators.

As far as my new rules are concerned, we can't possibly justify anything that will make accidents more dangerous so I propose that the only possible changes to the passive safety rules should be restricted to advances in safety measures. 

That brings me on to the next topic.

Driving Standards

As mentioned in the last section, we now have a situation where drivers are not put off by fear of contact. Back in the 'good old days' a collision was something to avoid at all costs because it could all too easily result in a serious accident causing injury or even death to the drivers and possibly others as well. 

Back then it was considered normal to allow a car to pull alongside and try to pass. If he made it, there was always the possibility of re-passing later provided the other car was not too fast and got away. That's called racing. It may have been encouraged by the need to avoid contact which would all to often result in a serious accident rather than just a bent car as today, but it was good to watch. Check out a historic meeting if you don't believe me.

As mentioned earlier, we can't go back to the days when fear of contact was the norm, but we can discourage the attitude of not allowing anyone past at all costs. Hopefully, my proposals for changes to the cars and ban on tyre stops will go a long way towards encouraging drivers to try harder to race anyway but this should be backed up with stringent penalties on deliberate blocking and contact. Recently we have seen big stride made in this direction and I don't think too much more really needs to be done, just some tweaking. 

The offence of 'causing an avoidable collision' is certainly a good idea, although I'm not sure that it's current implementation and punishments are always correct. It's a difficult thing to judge and the recent addition of a driver steward is a very good idea. It certainly seems to have finally got away from the situations we have had in the past where some big names have got away with serious offences while lesser lights have received over the top punishments because they happened to be involved in a collision at the time when the FIA decided to have a crackdown - something that only ever seemed to last for one race. 

These days any contact seems to come under immediate investigation and punishment is often meted out for very minor offences that I would brand as just a racing accident with no intention from either driver. However, we could do without these comings together so I would have a rule that states that both parties in a collision would be automatically penalised with 10 points docked from their score. Minor contact from side by side running with little or no damage would be allowed as that is racing and clearly accidental.

Anything judged to be a deliberate collision such as when Michael Schumacher attempted to take out Jacques Villeneuve (and failed), or when Alain Prost turned into Ayrton Senna's car at Suzuka 2008 should result in an automatic life ban from all forms of motor sport. Even with today's cars, this is potentially life-threatening so should be considered as the most serious offence possible (I'm tempted to use the term attempted murder but I don't believe this has ever been any driver's intention). Drug taking in athletics is performance enhancing and rightly punished by bans (which, in my view, should be permanent) but deliberately causing a collision is far worse as it is dangerous. Stewards will need to be very certain before making this decision, but once it is proved that a driver has deliberately caused a collision, no matter who he is, a life ban should be invoked and all points gained in that season cancelled. With luck, this punishment will never need to be enforced. The possibility should be enough to deter the act as nothing would be gained from it.

It is also time to ban the 'Schumacher Swerve' at the start of a race. The current staggered grids mean that pole position almost guarantees leading into the first corner so there should be no need to deviate from the racing line. The 'one permitted move' is meant to prevent swerving across the track to prevent overtaking during a race and should not apply to the start which is effectively a free-for-all for most with swerving often being the only way to avoid contact but the leader has no excuse for deviating from his line so should be punished for swerving across to block the possibility of being passed on the run to the first corner. It's not as serious as a collision so I would suggest a drive-through for this.


This brings me to another thing that annoys me and I think should be corrected. The rules state that cars should keep there wheels on the track at all times. That's the black bit! Punishments only seem to be applied when somebody gains a place by using a run off area. 


On normal public roads, the edges are often marked by kerbs which are vertical and can derange your tracking or cause a puncture if contact is made with the kerb. For obvious safety reasons, race track kerbs have long been banked and have got progressively wider and shallower as time has gone by. They now incorporate ridged 'rumble' strips to make running over the kerbs audible to the driver but this is not a deterrent. Lap times can be reduced by running over kerbs so that is now the norm. According to the rules, 2 wheels are allowed in contact with the kerb. This is interpreted as allowing as much of the car as possible over the kerb provided 2 wheels remain on the track. It is not unusual for these 2 wheels to be partly on the kerb as well. 


There is one corner in Canada where every car regularly has all 4 wheels on the wrong side of the kerb! How is this legal? I can only assume that a blind eye is turned due to the fact that everybody does it so no advantage is gained.


What it all adds up to is that nobody gains an advantage and they only do it because it would be a disadvantage not to. I propose that we enforce the rules and penalise anybody who deliberately runs over a kerb with even one wheel unless it is taking avoiding action or as a result of 2 cars running side by side through a corner. Drivers should not be penalised for racing but taking short cuts as a matter of course is wrong. 


I particularly get annoyed when drivers complain about cars being damaged running over kerbs and insist that the kerbs are altered! If the kerb is causing harm to the car, drive on the road instead! It might mean a slightly slower lap time but the car is more likely to still be running at the finish which is half the battle. There is an old saying 'to finish first, first you have to finish'. 


Let's make the kerbs harsher to discourage running over them and incorporate sensors that will tell the stewards if someone is still taking advantage of them to cut corners. Anyone caught doing this during qualifying will be docked 2 grid positions for each corner cut. Anyone caught regularly doing this in a race will not score any points for that event. If this results in so many penalties that the HRT drivers end up fighting for the title, then so be it. The message should get through long before that situation arrises. 


If drivers are forced to keep their cars on the track all the time, it should make circuits more challenging which is important for putting the emphasis back on the drivers abilities. Let's face it, they manage to keep on the tarmac at Monte Carlo because the option is to hit a barrier that will bite hard so why not do the same with tracks edged by kerbs?


 That's covered the driving regulations. My next post will move on to the rules that govern the design of the cars.That's where it should get interesting!

Let's go back to basics for Formula 1 in the future

If you have read yesterday's blog, you will be aware that I am not happy with the very contrived rules of today's Formula 1. I think it's time to put the emphasis back on driving and real racing instead of strategy and overtaking in the pits. 2011 saw the introduction of new gimmicks to promote on-track passing but the real passing for race position is down to pit stop strategy while the 'overtaking' that excites casual TV viewers is out of position cars with varying tyre wear and means nothing. It might be good for 'The Show' but it is not racing!


So what can be done about it?


Firstly I think we should examine the reasons why we have arrived at the present situation and start again taking a different route. 


As I see it, we basically have 2 problems. One is the over-emphasis on strategy and the other is the dependence on aerodynamics. The strategy problem has come about in part as an attempt to resolve the aero problem. Of course strategy is not an answer, merely a way around the difficulty in overtaking brought about by the aerodynamics of modern F1 cars being upset when travelling close to another car as would be required when trying to pass a car. The inevitable result of this is that drivers have come to rely on pit stop strategy so much that they no longer try to overtake on track which is why we now have processions rather than races. 


The strategy problem can simply be overcome by eliminating planned pit stops. Refuelling is already banned so we just have to ban tyre stops as well. This will create a situation where the only way to pass is overtaking. It won't guarantee a change of attitude from drivers who have become used to just driving around hoping for a mistake by the man in front or a chance to pass during the pit stops, but it should encourage people to try to overtake, especially the real racers. 


Now, you are probably thinking that this 'quick fix' is not the answer and will lead to a reduction in passing as drivers will no longer be out of sync with each other on strategy.
I agree, but I think we have lost the plot if passing is everything. Some of the greatest races of the past have featured little or no overtaking. The important thing is that the drivers were racing! 


It's not the overtaking that matters (all too often a pass ends the drama), it's the possibility of overtaking being there and being frustrated by brilliant driving from the man in front. It's racing that is important!


Take the 1961 Monaco Grand Prix as an example. This is widely regarded as Stirling Moss' greatest race. In that year the V6 shark-nose Ferraris were almost unbeatable, indeed it was only Moss' brilliance that defeated them at Monaco, and later at a wet Nurburgring. Moss drove fantastically well to take pole position at Monte Carlo but Ginther's Ferrari led for 13 laps before Moss forced a mistake and got past. He spent the next 87 laps fending off the 3 works Ferraris who took it in turns to try to get by the blue Lotus and all failed. This was a race with only 1 pass for the lead. There were some place changes between the Ferraris but this was more tactical rather than racing each other as they tried to depose Moss from the lead. I can still remember, as a 10 year old, watching this race in black & white on the BBC with commentary from the great Raymond Baxter. It was all about pressure and trying to pass - totally different to modern processions.


Another classic example is James Hunt's first Grand Prix win at Zandvoort in 1975. The race started wet and Niki Lauda's Ferrari initially dominated from pole position. However, the track dried out and Hunt timed his switch to dry tyres perfectly to take the lead when all the stops were completed. Lauda caught him rapidly but had to spend the rest of the race behind the Hesketh. Again this was no procession. Every lap saw Lauda pull out to try to overtake but perfect positioning by Hunt meant that the pass was never completed. It certainly wasn't for the want of trying and the crowd in the grandstands were on their feet every time the 2 leaders came by. I was there and I remember it well. It was racing at its best!


I could go on, but I think you get the picture. 


A couple of years ago, when the FIA set up a commission to investigate ways to increase overtaking, Mark Hughes wrote in his Autosport column that he had been looking back at race reports from the so-called golden age and there was no more overtaking then than the present day (at the time of writing of course). This leads me to one of my favourite quotes: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". There is some disagreement as to who first said that, but the origin doesn't really matter. What matters is that statistics can often be misleading. With regard to overtaking, race statistics will only tell you when the lead changes at the end of a lap so, if a driver overtakes the leader in one corner and is then repassed at the next, the lap chart will record no change of lead. Statistically, these 2 passes won't exist. I haven't bothered to check but I suspect that many overtaking manoeuvres on the old pre-chicanes Monza track went unrecorded because the great slipstreaming races there had too many place changes during a lap to be noted.


Likewise, the classic French Grand Prix lap where Gilles Villeneuve and Rene Arnoux ran side by side for almost a complete lap will appear in the statistics as a single pass. Figures will not show that the pass took a very long time. 


The other thing that statistics won't tell you is how hard people were racing. What looks like a processional race on a lap chart could easily be a classic, in the same way that a 0-0 scoreline in a football match could hide a terrific game with great saves at both ends.


So, what is required is not more overtaking but more genuine racing!


How do we go about restoring racing to Formula 1?


We need to have a total rethink on the rules governing the design of Formula 1 cars. 


I think we have already established that modern aerodynamics are the root of the problem, but it's not the only thing. Put simply, modern F1 cars are too easy to drive. I am not suggesting that any average driver could climb into a Red Bull RB7 and lap as quickly as Sebastien Vettel, or even that an average racing driver could, but I would like to see a situation where cars are difficult to drive and only the very best can get the most out of them. 


I am not being very original when I point out that modern F1 cars have too much grip. This has been a complaint for many years. Periodically rules are changed to supposedly deal with this problem but they never go far enough. There are 2 facts that always seem to be ignored. Firstly designers are constantly making progress so they will have already found a way to claw back half of the reduced grip (usually downforce, but there have been a few rule changes affecting suspension and tyres in the past) by the start of the season. The other thing that is ignored is that there is always a trade-off. For example, reducing downforce by reducing the size of the rear wing will also reduce drag which will increase straight-line speed (as shown by the DRS system) so lap times won't go down that much.


What we need is a dramatic change in the car design rules to drastically reduce grip and put more emphasis on the drivers.


I recall a decade or so ago that a number of drivers, including Damon Hill, suggested that the way forward was a reduction in aero grip (agreed) and an increase in mechanical grip (not a good idea). This was based on watching old races from the 70s where cars with very wide tyres were seen to be sliding in some corners. I agree that we would like to see F1 cars sliding occasionally when on the limit, but the way to go is to reduce all kinds of grip. The old cars were not sliding because they had wide tyres, but despite the wide tyres. What has not been taken into account is 30 or more years of progress in tyre and suspension design. Fit a 70s car with tyres made using 2011 construction and compounds and the car will never slide because the increase in grip will be enormous. 


Curiously, back in the 70s drivers were complaining of the wings being affected by running close to the car in front making overtaking harder. What would they make of today's cars?


What I think is required is to go back to basics. It won't be easy because we have had over 40 years of aerodynamic development and you can't un-invent downforce. Whatever the rules, someone will find a loophole and get something back which is why I want to effectively throw the rulebook away and start again with completely new regulations.


If you have ever been to a historic race meeting such as the Goodwood Revival or Silverstone Classic, you will have seen good close racing from old single seaters without any aerodynamic aids. Of course that is a bit artificial as cars of different years will be racing each other when they didn't in period but the racing is good and very entertaining, which is what we want! The fact that old cars are relatively slow, and probably not being run at their limit for obvious reasons, doesn't matter because they still look quick, sound good and are racing!


At this point, it is probably appropriate to mention safety which is another problem. There is no doubt that safety in motor racing has come an enormous way over the decades. Although there are sadly still fatalities and serious injuries in motor sport, it is a fact that no F1 driver has died since that tragic day at Imola in 1994. This can only be a good thing. However, safer cars means that Formula 1 has occasionally become a contact sport. Even before 1994 there were instances of deliberate collisions that unfortunately went unpunished. Suzuka 1989 was the first when Prost deliberately turned in and hit Senna's car long before the proper turn-in point for the corner, as is very clear in the overhead shot shown without comment in the movie 'Senna'. Whatever your opinion of this and other subsequent apparently deliberate, but unpunished, collisions, it is clear that the drivers concerned would have been more circumspect in an earlier era when any crash was likely to lead to serious injury or even death for one or both drivers especially with the serious danger of fire.


Back in Stirling Moss' era drivers would avoid contact which probably aided racing as cars could pass safely or run side by side without fear of one car moving across because it would likely end in a trip to hospital or worse. Again I will refer to the film 'Senna' which included an interview by Jackie Stewart where he was challenged on his accident record and risky overtaking manoeuvres. The response was something along the lines of: "I am a racing driver so it is natural that I will go for a gap when one appears." Of course what both men were missing was how much the safety side of racing had changed between their 2 eras. A gap that Ayrton considered worth going for may have been too risky in Jackie's time because cars didn't bounce of each other back then and drivers were far less likely to walk away from an accident. Conversely, when Jackie Stewart did go for a gap, it was much less likely to close because the driver in front would (hopefully) see him coming in his mirrors and allow space because being passed was preferable to contact. 


As an example of how attitudes have changed with safer cars, I forget which year, but there was an incident at Long Beach when Senna made a great start and went for a gap between the two cars on the front row. Obviously there wasn't enough room for three cars to go through the corner side by side so someone had to give way. I forget who got there first, but it was down to Senna and Gerhard Berger to back off. It goes without saying that Senna wouldn't concede but Berger wasn't going to either and the resulting collision was inevitable. Afterwards Berger stated that he was prepared to sacrifice the race because he knew that once he had given way to Senna it would always be expected of him whereas he had shown that he wouldn't concede so Senna would have to be more wary in future. It's a good argument and a fair point but it would never have come to that in an earlier, more dangerous, era.


What is the answer to this issue? That is the really difficult question. Clearly it would be wrong to change any of the modern safety rules. More dangerous cars would make for a different attitude from drivers and might improve racing but we never want to see another fatal accident in Formula 1 so that is not an option. The only way forward has to come from penalties. In this respect I think modern F1 is on the right lines with its driver stewards and penalties for 'causing an avoidable collision'.


So far I have gone through what I think is wrong with Formula 1 and given a very rough idea of what I think the answer should be. If you look back over the history of Formula 1 you will see that there have been times when rule changes are brought in to tweak the sport and other occasions when a completely new set of rules change the sport radically. I am proposing possibly the biggest single shake-up in the sport's history in order to put the racing back.


My next blog will be a detailed account of the rules that I would like to see put in place for an all-new Formula 1.

F1, 2011 style - it was all about tyres!

I am now approaching my 61st birthday and have been a fan of motor racing all my life. Obviously a lot has changed over this period of time, some for the better, but not all.


Regular readers of Autosport magazine will have seen a few letters from me during 2011 on the same theme. This blog seeks to elaborate on this as well as eventually taking in other forms of racing, but, for the time being, I am going to concentrate on the World Championship of Drivers.


Fortunately, drivers still make enough difference for the best to rise to the top and I have no doubt that Sebastien Vettel would have won the title whatever the rules, but wouldn't it have been better if it was clearly all down to his ability behind the wheel and not strategy?


Am I alone in thinking that modern Formula 1 is too contrived and no longer about racing?


It has to be said that there have always been boring races and races where there has been little or no overtaking, but there have also been some very exciting races with lots of passing and genuine close finishes which we don't seem to get now.


These days, Bernie Ecclestone and the people who set the rules are obsessed with 'the show' as they call it. What has happened to the sport? In order to give the TV companies some passing to show we now have a situation where cars are equipped with KERS and DRS to artificially aid passing (further complicated by restrictions on DRS usage) plus the crazy tyres which are deliberately designed to not last long.


I can live with KERS and DRS, but those tyres drive me mad. 


KERS works like the old Turbo boost control or the indycar 'Push-to-pass' button in that it can be used to give a power boost for a short time which could assist overtaking but it is often countered by the other car also using KERS. This is just a variation on racing so I am happy with that provided everybody has it as was not the case when it was first introduced. The clever trick is for a driver to fool the driver in front into using his KERS while saving his for later in the lap.


DRS is more complicated. The big problem ever since aerodynamic downforce was discovered has been that running close to another car causes loss of downforce to the following car which makes overtaking harder than in the days before aerofoils. DRS is an attempt to negate this problem by allowing a flap on the rear wing to move to a low downforce position while the car is travelling on a straight where downforce is not required. Where it differs from KERS is that its use is severely restricted by only allowing  it to be used when closely following another car and then, only in a specified zone. 


I find these restrictions annoying to say the least. What makes it all the more rediculous is that there is no restriction on DRS use during qualifying which means that it is used on all straights to increase speed and not part of overtaking at all! If this is legal for qualifying, why not in the race? I can see that it would become effectively redundant if a car being followed closely could use DRS at the same time as the following car trying to pass it. However, the current rules mean that it is (supposedly) easier for a car to overtake using DRS in the prescribed zone but the passed car cannot use DRS to try to get the place back until the next lap at the earliest, provided he is close enough in the zone. This is artificial passing and NOT racing!


I now come to the tyres. Please note that this is nothing to do with Pirelli who have simply supplied what they were asked for. In that respect, they have done a good job, but I can't help wondering how owners of expensive fast cars equipped with P-Zero tyres react to seeing F1 tyres with the same name having to be replaced every 50 miles or less. 


To be honest, I'm not sure whether a single tyre supplier is a good thing or not. On the one hand, it was clear that a tyre war resulted in some teams being at a disadvantage through being contracted to the wrong tyre supplier for a particular track. However, it usually balanced out over a season with about half the circuits suiting either one tyre supplier or the other. In the days when there were 3 or more tyre companies in F1, there were some tyres that clearly were not competitive and tended to only be used by the lesser teams as the top tyre suppliers were only interested in the front runners. This sort of situation will not help teams move up the ladder and a single supplier certainly removes a variable which helps the likes of (for example) Force India wh are trying to close the gap on the front runners.


Meanwhile, the FIA, in their infinite wisdom (in this context I am using the term very loosely), having decided to only have one tyre supplier, then proceeded to confuse things by insisting on the use of 2 different compounds in a dry race. Having taken out the variable of having more than 1 tyre supplier, they thought it would be a good idea to introduce another variable with the different compounds which could introduce some strategy alternatives depending on when in the race a team (or driver) opted to use the other tyre. A bit like playing a joker in Jeux Sans Frontiers (if you are old enough to remember that) or a pub quiz. In theory, this should encourage passing with cars having different levels of grip at different times. Again, this is artificial but might increase the number of genuine passes if it worked that way.


The obvious problem is that everyone almost always takes the same route on compound choice, the main variable being the number of tyre stops and the timing of them. In other words, we are stuck with strategy. What Max Mosely likened to a game of chess (not much overtaking in a game of chess!) and I prefer to call passing in the pits.


Unfortunately, this kind of strategy game has been played to a certain extent ever since planned pit stops became part of F1 whether for fuel, tyres, or both. Alain Prost was a master of this. It often seemed to me that he just tooled around and somehow emerged in the lead without doing much in the way of actual racing. Back then, a single stop was the norm and most of the drivers were old school racers so there was plenty of action to watch. Now it's all got much more controlled and too many drivers are happy to just sit in line waiting for the all-important tyre stops to grab a position. If the strategy fails, they wait for the next round of stops. Finally, if they haven't got past the car in front, they concede and hold position to the end. 


KERS and DRS have helped a little in this respect with some drivers actually trying to race rather than wait for the stops but, more often than not, what we actually see is 2 drivers on different strategies (which invariably means different stages of tyre wear) apparently racing but, in reality, it means nothing as the just passed car pits or the overtaker drops back down the order when his out of sync stop is due. We get passing on our TVs but the race result turns out to be the same order as the first lap because what we are seeing as 'passes for position' are actually cars that are not really racing each other, merely being on the same piece of track at the time due to strategy and tyre condition. In this respect, the Pirelli tyres of 2011 have only made matters worse at a time when KERS and DRS should have helped overtaking, if not actual racing.


As I said earlier, it is not Pirelli's fault. They were asked to supply tyres with a relatively short life, which they duly did. The theory is that a car with tyres that are 'going off' will be easier to overtake and this has been proven to work. However, this only goes to increase the amount of strategic planning rather than encourage racing. A lot of people have said well done because we are seeing more passing (or at least we were early on before the teams got the measure of the situation) but, as I have stated earlier, this pasing is rarely for genuine race position. It might improve 'the show' for casual viewers who don't really know what is going on, but it does not alter the result or improve the racing.


Apart from anything else, in my view, a pass that is due to one car having better condition tyres than the other is only valid if the tyres in question have become excessively worn as a result of aggressive racing, as happened to Chris Amon's Ferrari in the 1968 British Grand Prix for example. It's not the same if the wear is simply due to the tyres being near the end of their planned life cycle, and, actually, the car that has just gone past on fresh rubber was 3 places further up the order when he pitted and will be again in a couple of laps when everybody else has stopped.


Don't get me wrong, strategy has its place in motor racing, but that place is endurance racing where the emphasis is on the car and/or the team. Ask the average racing fan who won Le Mans last year and the most likely answer will be Audi. The drivers are less likely to be recalled. This is what that form of racing is about (and I am a big Le Mans fan). Strategy is a priority. Whilst having good drivers is very important, you want the kind who can drive to a plan rather than just go as fast as possible. This is a kind of racing where there is a lot of passing but nearly all of it is lapping slower cars. Formula 1 is different and should be primarily about driver ability. A Grand Prix is a sprint and the best driver should win, not the best strategist!


I mentioned Alain Prost before and you have probably already guessed that I was not a fan of his. Ayrton Senna, on the other hand, was a racer. Sometimes this was his downfall as he went for gaps that closed when it was too late to back out, but he was not one to settle for points or leave a passing opportunity for the pit stop round. He wanted to win and do it on the track. His famous 1983 Donington victory was basically sealed on the first half lap when he overtook 4 cars to take the lead in very wet conditions. That's what racing should be about, not sitting in line waiting for the strategist's call.


What can we do about it?


That's a good question. I think I have a very good answer which I will reveal in the next instalment of this blog. In the meantime, there is something that can be done to help right now, before the 2012 season starts. 


It's very simple: Ban tyre stops! 


This was done once before and failed simply because there were 2 tyre suppliers and Michelin got it right while Bridgestone got it wrong with the obvious exception of Indianapolis where the Michelin runners all had to withdraw after the parade lap (so technically they had taken the start which enabled the now ludicrous event to qualify as a race) because the tyres they had were not up to the stresses imposed by the banked corner at the end of the straight. After this 1 season, tyre stops were reintroduced, probably as much due to pressure from Bridgestone shod Ferrari as to worries about a repeat of the Indianapolis fiasco. Tyre stops would have alleviated the problem with blow-outs on the Michelins at Indy, but it is highly unlikely that Michelin would have made the same mistake twice anyway.


With only Pirelli supplying tyres, there is no reason why they can't go the distance. They could still supply a choice of compounds at each race which might see some cars better suited to one tyre while the opposition work well with the alternative. Indeed, if the choice of compounds is such that the softer gives slightly better grip but is marginal for race distance, we could see a situation where, for example Button's McLaren could be on the soft while Hamilton's would use the harder tyre due to his driving style making the tyre wear more. Still some scope for strategy there but not dominating the race, and based more around the individual drivers which could be very interesting and make for good racing. That's the key word here - RACING!


I will explain my idea for a radical rethink of F1 to improve the racing in the next instalment of this blog. If anybody wishes to comment on what I have written so far, please do.