Head unleashed: ‘Rocks in your head’, regulations headed in wrong direction

Former Williams F1 owner and technical chief, Patrick Head, isn’t as optimistic as the F1 Strategy Group is that the new changes will achieve everything they desired for close, exciting racing. The regulations shakeup of 2017 will add wider tires for more mechanical grip but it also ushers in more downforce and retains, for the most part, the existing hybrid power unit.

Head, in fact, believes you’d have to be daft to think these changes will work telling the Guardian’s Giles Richards:

“If anybody was thinking of these rules with the aim of closing the field up then they’ve got rocks in their head,”

The notion that a major change in regulations always shakes up the grid may not be completely unfounded but Head says that while this may true, the big teams are always the winners.

“Any time you make significant changes the advantage will always go to the bigger teams,” Head said. “Because they have more resources, they have more capability to parallel develop their existing car and work on design of their new car. When you have 750 employees or more against, say, Force India’s 300, of course the bigger teams can do more. Any idea it will close the field up is nonsense.”

Changing tires, chassis, downforce and weight on the 2017 cars is one thing but not changing the FIA’s love affair with hybrid electric engines is another concern as it will place a serious load on these power units and this may, once again, favor Mercedes who has the best unit on the grid. It bears keeping in mind that they have now limited the season to just four engines in an era that will see much more load on the power units.

“There is no doubt about it that the drag levels of the car will be higher,” he said. “But what makes the engine fractionally more important is that with more downforce, which they will undoubtedly have, your percentage at full throttle – the percentage of the lap at which you are power limited rather than grip limited – will be higher, so if you have that bit more power it will give a slight advantage.”

The article does mention Pirelli’s Paul Hembery and his comments that we mentioned a few weeks ago. It’s with good reason the article brings Paul’s comments up as did Autosport who linked this story. Paul offered a removed assessment and cautionary tale. They are providing tires but he is at the crest of the wave of data samples and predictive models. His words aren’t very comforting with regards to what they are seeing in the data and what he fears might happen.

“Will it improve overtaking or make it worse? I hope we are not making a wrong decision that doesn’t actually solve what we were trying to solve in the first place.”, said Hembery.

The issue of more aero was raised as a concern as late as Tuesday in an FIA meeting with team engineers and as Richards points out, that’s awful late in the game to be raising concerns over their new format changes. Head says the obvious that even the most casual fan at home has been saying for years.

“If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite direction,” Head said.

If the new changes favor the big teams and move in the wrong direction, perhaps they will take another look at them for next year but I’m not quite convinced this will happen beyond a few tweaks. I don’t sense anything major happening until Liberty Media and the FIA come to grips with the F1 Strategy Group format and address who is really setting the technical and sporting direction of the sport. The very reason Liberty Media brought Ross Brawn in perhaps?

A group consisting of the top teams who all have individual interests around certain elements of their cars that work well and provide their performance, are not going to all agree on sweeping changes that will hurt their hidden agendas. If you had five teams who had five elements, some shared and some different, they felt strongly about, what are the odds of getting big changes that might impact those elements? They will hunker down and concede on orbital changes that offer little threat to their current performance elements and endorse those elements that may offer a possible increase in performance—like downforce and wide tires.

None of this is really what the sport needs. It needs to have an independent set of regulations that is designed to create a product that is competitive and entertaining. I have little doubt that Liberty Media doesn’t know this but disassembling the manufacturer and big team control over the sport will be a delicate situation.

If Mercedes, Renault and Honda left, would that be the worst thing in the world? There are plenty of engine manufacturers out there like Mechachrome, Cosworth and others. Remember the Mugen Honda days at Jordan? If the sport was left with only privateers like Red Bull, Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso, McLaren and Sauber and they all used different engine makers, would you still watch?

Hat Tip: The Guardian

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

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

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

charlie white

If the manufacturers(including Ferrari) left the sport, would I watch? Absolutely! This sport is in dire need for a general reset. I had feared manufacturer domination when Bernie were courting them into F1 in the late 1990’s to early 2000’s. So out of a threat of a breakaway series, we get the Strategy Group and a ineffective, compliant FIA. This year, I will watch the first 4 races of 2017 before making a judgment on the new rules, but I am not confident it will make the racing or the show any better.


Agree on the engine front and the downforce direction but I’m still looking forward to seeing this year’s cars and sincerely hope it will be better than the last few years. Having said that however and like Kimi likes to say, “let’s wait and see”.

Salvu Borg

Yes the best way is as Kimi says, “lets wait and see”, lets give the new set of regulations a chance. There are those for and those against the new regulations, those against are coming out a bit late in the day. Some of us followers has our own opinion about the new rules, most followers minds (expectations) has been preconditioned by the media bombardment as how big an Excitement the new rules will produce. I as a follower believes that F1 needed less aero and not more of it, I also believe that the importance of the engine has… Read more »

Tom Firth

Firstly obligatory PATRICK HEAD!!!!! It might shake the grid up for a race or three or a season but within a year, like always it’ll be the big teams of the era back at the top of the field. That always happens and always will happen. We are partially to blame as fans for being optimistic about new regulations as we buy the same crap every single time new regulations are being mooted that they will solve all of F1’s ills and make the product better. Then when it gets closer, we all get sceptical and eventually when are released,… Read more »


The answer to that last question is: Yes.

Rhys Stephens

The teams had their chance to have a say in the future direction of the sport and the technical regulations when Liberty Media offered them up a chance to buy in. If they all said no, it’s Ross’ way or the highway from now on I say!

The Captain

Actually if you check out Todd’s piece from last week the ‘buy in’ deal Liberty offered the teams didn’t give them any say in the future of the sport either.

Salvu Borg

Liberty wanted silent share holders ($40m up to $200m), in short they only wanted their money.

Salvu Borg

In realty teams can leave LM with 100% of nothing by taking ownership of their own destiny. and as regards to Ross Brawn, if there is a man that knows this, its him, been there, done that.