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.
No comments:
Post a Comment