The So Called Solution

So it has emerged that Mercedes have floated a compromise proposal to FOTA and the FIA regarding the rules for next year's Formula 1 world championship. In effect, a budget cap of 100 million would be in place and the smaller teams would be technically assisted by the current manufacturers, although this stops short of chassis supply.

What a load of bollocks! Why not simply allow customer cars? Toro Rosso have shown that the concept can work. Heck, even Super Aguri showed that its possible to show the works teams a thing or two. Lola, who apparently will enter the 2010 championship, is in the business of constructing racing cars and selling them off to teams in other formulae. If customer cars were allowed, they could supply the other entrants as well.

Interestingly, there are two different views within FOTA itself. Some folks led by Williams who are adamantly opposed to the idea of customer cars on the grounds that this would somehow jeapordise the constructors world championship. Again, completely bollocks. Then there's Red Bull, who were assured when they entered Formula 1 that customer cars would be allowed.

I still can't understand Williams' argument. We could easily add a team's title in addition to the constructors championship. For instance, points for the constructors championship could be scored by the top two cars of the constructor regardless of the team that won it. If Williams for instance supplied cars to say Campos, and such a team scored a one-two in the race, Williams as a constructor would collect points since they are the constructor of the cars. They would still gain the prestige of winning the constructors title. If Campos regularly beat the works cars, then the team championship would be won by Campos.

In other formulae and especially in sports cars we see different combinations of chassis and engines all the time. In grand prix racing, we see that its possible for the customer team i.e. Toro Rosso to win against the works team using different engines. In sports cars we regularly see the customer teams beat the works cars. It all adds to the interest in the sport.

Teams would be in a far better position to afford grand prix racing if they did not have to spend monies on research and development and maintaining production facilities. But nevertheless, they would still have to pay for their chassis. In fact, this would be a revenue source for constructors. Lola makes a living from this. And so could say the Williams team, who I'm sure with its still vast technical resources could make better racing cars.

Frank Williams is a complete ass. And so is his team. I'd never thought I'd ever say that. And yet now, I wish Williams demise from grand prix racing.

FIA / GPMA And Rule Making

Two articles ago, I stated that a specialist engine maker like Cosworth would not be able to effectively compete in grand prix racing's new future due to the technical challenges. Having read the Mosley/Goschel Q & A in full, I think I was completely wrong on that one. The way it looks, I think they would be able to do so on technical grounds. The difficulty for a company like Cosworth would be mainly financial and political.

In future, the manufacturers will be dominant and together with the FIA will set the technical direction and rules of the sport. Lets not underestimate what the consequences. The technical agenda for all future rules will be driven by the needs of the manufacturers and in relation to developments in road cars.

In the past it was the teams that made the rules and this was not lost in the Q & A. Repeatedly, references were made to how the teams never got anything done and how the rule making process frequently degraded into argument and shouting. Again, this is slightly deceitful. For the rule making process is defined in the Concorde Agreement, a document that Max Mosley himself helped in its formation. According to the Concorde, rules can only be made with a unanimous decision among the teams and frequently, one or two interlopers could simply raise objections and kill a particular rule. Some red coloured team apparently was quite famous for doing this.

To address this problem, the FIA itself formed a Sporting Working Group in addition to the Technical Working Group whose members include the teams, the FIA, CVC and other representatives. These working groups required only simple majority to push through a piece of regulation. And yet, wasn't it Max Mosley who recently vetoed (and in contrary to the FIA's own regulations) a motion to scrap the engine homologation rules in May of this year? And yet he says that all the teams do is bicker. Oh the duplicity of this man.

And wasn't it Max who once said that manufacturers come and go but it is the independents who soldier on in the sport and their welfare should therefore be protected? And yet here we are now, power is given to these manufacturers, all of whom have only in recently times become team owners themselves. From the Q & A, we learn that in future "we now have a mechanism for sitting down with the manufacturers at board level to agree on objectives... That is the most important point, that discussion takes place at board level and not at team level."

In future rules would be made using a "three stage process." At the first stage is to define objectives at the board level. Now this means exactly as it says. The decisions are made by the FIA and the board of directors of the manufacturers. Then at the second stage "technical experts from the major manufacturers... will flesh that policy out." At the final stage, "you would have input from the technical experts at the teams on the details of the rules.. work[ing] out how to achieve the predefined objectives." After being pressed, Goschel admitted that "if this means we bypass Ron Dennis, then so be it." Meaning to say, tough luck to the teams.

Regular meetings are planned to define future rules and objectives and "to define the next areas we should look to introduce into F1 which are relevant to the car industry." But this "has to be driven from the manufacturer level alongside the FIA, not from the teams. It will be a common working group made up of GPMA and FIA members."

So you might ask, what's the problem? Especially since teams these days are all owned by or closely associated with the manufacturers. I can't quite explain it but I always thought there was something wrong with Max ramming regulations down the throat of the teams. An FIA/GPMA board of directors alliance setting the agenda doesn't make it any better if you ask me. The teams should be the ones to come up with the rules. Again, this is back to the overall point of grand prix racing. I think it ought to be purely sport and speed but these people think there should be industrial and social relevance. And so, it is industrial captains that now set the pace.

The only good thing about this is that it should lead to better governance. The keyword is "should." One of the bones of contention in the past between the FIA and the GPMA was a lack of transparency in the rule and decision making process. The GPMA then argued that the sport was poorly governed on all fronts be it technical, sporting or commercial. This was not good for their collective image but was also costing them billions because some rules were arbitrarily decided by Max and cohorts with apparently no consideration to the costs of compliance and to the objectives of the car makers. And not to mention, rules or decisions made in favour of certain teams, which was my personal gripe. The latest developments will hopefully result in a more balanced governance.

Still I cannot help but feel that the sport has been usurped from the independent teams. I bet Ferrari would want to call themselves a manufacturer now after years of insisting that they are independents. But teams like Toro Rosso, Red Bull and Williams will not be represented at the "board level." This simply wrong, for they too should have a say in how they will compete in the future.

If one wanted to change the rules of football, shouldn't the football clubs be consulted? And of course the players themselves? If Nike, Reebok or Adidas in their capacity as equipment makers and sponsors, made the rules, you know there would be an uproar worldwide. Why should motor racing be any different? The manufacturers say that the environment are at the forefront their concerns these days. Puh-lease. This is only insofar as it projects a better image to their customers and helps them sell cars. At the end of the day, money is the real objective. And sport of Formula 1 has been truly raped and turned into a marketing tool for the manufacturers own purposes. We have forgotten that it is a sport.

Back to Cosworth and their like, I can imagine it could get quite frustrating for them if they had no say in the future direction of the sport. And would they even be allowed to compete should someone want their engines in the future?

FIA / GPMA And Future Technology

I kinda screwed up my last post. Serves me right for not reading the Financial Times. But then, I have no online FT subscription and I refuse to pay 7 bloody ringgit for a copy at my local newstand. By now of course, everyone should have seen the official Q & A (Max just loves these) with the FIA president and Herr Goschel.

In my defence I assumed that when Max spoke of green technologies and new directions, he would be introducing measures that he spoke of earlier on in the year and which I had mentioned in my last posting. But happily the official Q & A now gives us clearer indication of the direction the FIA / GPMA intend on taking.

In the short term it seems they speak of energy recovery and reuse. In broad terms this means recovering lost heat energy and reusing it to produce additional power. Of course, one would naturally assume turbocharging would make a return and in fact, the use of turbochargers had been mentioned several times in the Q & A. This is being looked at for introduction sometime in 2011. The size of the engine would be determined by taking into account power gains by recovering and reusing braking energy and the type of fuel being used. In this case, bio-fuels had been mentioned. The idea is to produce an engine size and formula that would yield similar levels of horsepower to the current generation. To this end, fuel flow restrictions have been mooted and rev limits in the 18000 - 19000 RPM range. Although no engine size had been finalized, Mosley did mention of "a 2 litre engine" giving "650 horsepower, but the other 150 horsepower comes from ... reusing the heat from the engines and turning it into propulsive energy."

In the short term, Max has spoken about the "2009 device." This is a device that recovers energy from braking and reuses it for acceleration. This is envisioned as a "very small, very light, very efficient" device that "would revolutionize the way hybrid cars are made." A device "cost efficient" enough which "the manufacturer can put on a road car." This has been mentioned in the past so no surprises here.

Massive research into aerodynamics will face a massive chop in this new future. This according to Mosley is "manifestly irrelevant to road cars" and "is a complete waste." Far better according to Max, to promote "things to do with chassis dynamics and the interactions between different systems on the car and the most efficient way of running the drivetrain." In effect, what seems to be the point here is to reduce aero dependency and recover resultant lost grip with mechanical means.

Goschel pointed out that the latest BMW X5 comes with "integrated chassis management", "combining active steering with electronic micro systems and anti-rollbars to a new functionality." And therefore, "electronics and software technology will play a major role in car technology in future." Doubtless to say that this is the direction that the FIA and GPMA are headed towards.

You would be forgiven to think that all this flies in the face of safety and cost cutting, an idea championed by Max repeatedly. Actually none of the ideas above are anything new of revolutionary. Turbochargers have been used once but was banned because of the astronomical power outputs and safety. Drivetrain developments like regenerative braking had been in development by McLaren in 1998 but was stopped on grounds of safety and cost. CVT transmission had been tested by Williams but was also banned. Active suspension as developed originally by Lotus and then Williams and McLaren went out the window as well. So did active four wheel steering. I read somewhere that way back in the eighties, turbo diesel had been suggested by none other than John Barnard (formerly of McLaren, Ferrari and Benetton).

All the technologies above had already been in development by the teams. Or more accurately the independents. All of them banned either on safety grounds or cost and because some of them took away from the skill of the drivers and therefore reduced the spectacle of "the show." It seems hypocritical to me that when it is now suggested by the manufacturers it is suddenly alright because now it is "done in a way that has an effect on our normal technology of our core business." On cost, Max Mosley said that "research on the energy recovery and regenerative braking is already happening in the car industry, so there will only be a marginal difference between that and what will be needed in F1. All in all you don't have to make enormous changes, there will be less expenditure and it will be industry relevant." Goschel added that "the main point is that this kind of research is not a waste. It is in our main research budget anyway."

I reiterate the point that some of these technologies were already under development by the teams. But it seems that now, the manufacturers want to bring them back in and claim all the credit for it. All the better for their marketing purposes I suppose.

But no matter. I'm all for technology. But up to a limit. We cannot forget that main component in any racing car. And that is the driver. The skill of the driver must be showcased for it is after it is meant to be sport. When Goschel talks about increasing electronics and software with new found functionality in chassis dynamics, I cannot help but feel that it will increasingly diminish the spectacle of that most wonderous form of traction control, the driver's hands and feet. Lets hope not.

As for aero, I'm actually one of these people who are absolutely fascinated by anything that flies. Or applies the same technology to keep cars on the ground. Max mentioned that aero development is irrelevant to road cars. Well Max, if it is so, you helped make it that way. Look at the current aero regulations. They are unbelievably restrictive. Such restrictions merely send the teams to look for ever marginal gains in aero efficiency. And also because of the way the rules are written, the aero on a modern Formula 1 car is absolutely bastardized. Given more leeway, thats not the best way to make an upside down aerofoil. Engineers are forced into such designs by the regulations. And any attempt to make a new step is banned. And also because of the current regulations, the cars are enormously sensitive to aero turbulence. But unfortunately there are no better ways to do it. What suffers is the entertainment factor.

All very well if they shift emphasis to chassis and mechanical grip. Hopefully, the racing will improve. But to claim that Formula 1 aero is irrelevant is deceitful since the FIA made it that way. Just as calling reuse and recovery systems "the future" is shifty for there's nothing really new about it.

I still stand by my original position made several months ago. And that is Formula 1 should be about the pinnacle of racing technology. Its concern should be the science of speed and the sport of driving. Road car, social and other such concerns merely corrupt that pursuit and really should be handled elsewhere. I am glad to find that some others do share this opinion.

Tomorrow is the 53rd edition of the Macau Grand Prix, and one of the highlights is the Formula 3 race. Look at the cars competing. Do you think that it makes any road car industry, social or environmental sense? Should it? I don't think so. And neither should things like Formula Ford/Renault/BMW or even that most pure of driving machines, the kart. They all exist for sport and nothing else. Formula 1 you see, is the final progression up the scale that contains these junior formulae as its base. A base of sporting machines that are irrelevant except for its sole purpose of competition. Formula 1 should hold true to these roots.

The test now is to see how exciting the racing becomes as a result of these new measures. After all, a racing driver will race with whatever car is given to him or her. The main worry is that some of these technologies will diminish the importance of driver skills but lets hope it doesn't come to that.