Photo by: www.kymillman.com/f1

There was a time, not long ago, when Ferrari said that the regulations for 2021 had better be relevant to their program or they may consider leaving Formula 1. Then Sergio Marchionne passed away and that type of talk hasn’t been prevalent in the news until today. This time, however, it’s not Ferrari.

“For McLaren it has to tick two boxes: to be financially viable and to be able to fight fairly and competitively,” Zak Brown, McLaren’s chief executive, says. “If it wasn’t that, we would seriously have to consider our position in F1. That’s not a position we want to be in.

“People throw it out there as a negotiating tactic but this has to be a fiscally responsible, competitive racing team and, if we feel the new rules don’t put us in that situation, we would have to review our participation in F1.”

It’s an interesting situation when a team like McLaren have now joined the chorus of “we might leave” choir including Red Bull, Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes (admittedly to a lesser extent and not so forthright). There is another part of the Guardian article that has me thinking:

“Brown, an American with a background in sponsorship, looks to the NFL model of total parity, noting that the Super Bowl still features a diversity of teams. “Once it is levelled, that should accelerate everyone’s competitiveness,” he says. “F1 has had dominant periods but a great F1 is no one dominates any more. It might mean a team winning two championships on the trot – not five or six.”

Once spending caps are imposed, he argues, the regulations should be relaxed, allowing teams to spend more on innovation.”

I would argue that the New England Patriots are not a one or two title winner, they are a dynasty and I don’t think it has leveled everyone’s competitiveness in the NFL. Some teams are better than others.

I tend to come from the camp that believes a better set of regulations would bring down cost and tighten competition rather than trying to limit the amount a team can spend. You can cut the pie into smaller pieces for top team and larger pieces for bottom teams from F1’s prize fund but that’s a portion, albeit a large one in the case of small teams, that they spend on their program.

You want to reduce spending? Reduce the aerodynamic downforce and move to an advanced V8 internal combustion engine with a KERS unit. Move away from complex turbos with MGU-H’s and complicated ECU’s and battery store systems.

People complain about F1 becoming a spec series but today’s regulations about the front wing produce roughly the same kind of wing for every team. How those teams use that wing to then design a car that handles its airflow properties is where all the money gets spent it seems to me. Perhaps a much tighter set of regulations around these high-aero areas would limit downforce and create less wake.

Limit the amount of sensors a car can have and what a team can monitor. You won’t need 50 people back at HQ reading the data from 100 sensors covering every facet of the car. Limit engine modes, limit radio channels, bring back good tires, restrict fuel-flow rates and possibly fuel loads to prompt more pit stops and more strategy needed to get to the end of a race.

I’m just thinking out loud here but there could be many ways to reduce costs through better regulations. I will be very interested to see what F1 and the FIA come up with as the plan forward. What I will also say is that they had better get it right this time, I’m not sure if F1’s fan base is going to be around after two more seasons of sheer Mercedes domination due to regulations designed for them.

Hat Tip: Guardian

7
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
avatar
 
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
4 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Negative CamberJames McClellanjtrKenneth AllenTom Firth Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rapierman
Member
Rapierman

Here we go again. 9_9

Yanno, I’d have a better time letting Joe Blows off the street figure out the regulations instead of some person who has a personal stake in the action.

Tom Firth
Editor
Tom Firth

Bark bigger than bite. Ferrari can threaten and people think about it. Everyone else, especially McLaren just looks silly. I miss Ron.

jtr
Member
jtr

Ferrari and McLaren are probably the two companies who rely the most on Formula 1. It’s pretty weak for either of them to threaten to leave. Each team’s rich history in motorsport and particularly in Formula 1 is a gigantic fraction of their overall brand value. Both companies are in the business of building outrageously expensive toys for outrageously rich people, and their public image as winners in the very highest level of motorsport is hugely important in selling those cars in a rather crowded market. If either one bails on F1, they lose a huge amount of cachet and… Read more »

Rapierman
Member
Rapierman

To be honest, the whole lot of them are just acting like spoiled brats who threaten to take their ball and go home if they don’t get their way. Aren’t we supposed to take spoiled brats out to the woodshed and spank them?

Kenneth Allen
Member
Kenneth Allen

Zak’s racing philosophy “It’s everyone’s else’s fault we suck”. That Honda looked pretty fast last week BTW

James McClellan
Member
James McClellan

I’m of the opinion that limiting innovation is the last thing F1 wants to be a part of. Capping spending is a good way to equalize parity, and I think that is good. But any innovation that a team discovers or creates, shouldn’t have a new rule disallow that Innovation as long as it falls within existing rules. When Redbull got a leg up on existing factory teams, F1 basically nullified that advantage with rule changes instead of allowing the advantage to stand. What should have happened is not allowing teams to own an advancement within the league for longer… Read more »