Stefan Johansson drops hard truth bomb on F1

14

The radio ban discussion started with the notion that the drivers were being too coached in their lap-by-lap efforts and so, with nearly everyone agreeing, the FIA banned radio communication that would coach the driver. Now the teams feel this ban has gone too far starting with Lewis Hamilton’s situation in Baku which prompted an immediate and almost sycophantic response from Sky Sports F1 after the race about how ridiculous these radio bans are. Then there was Sergio Perez and most recently, Nico Rosberg who incurred a penalty over the radio ban issue. The teams seized the media’s angst and have lobbied for a reduction in the restriction.

What the teams and media may not have intended in this discussion was the conversation coming full circle to eventually point at the outrageously complicated cars they have designed with Hybrid ERS units, energy harvesting brake-by-wire systems and more. Now all of a sudden, the finger of blame has eventually turned upon itself and they aren’t liking that much.

Former Ferrari driver Stefan Johansson recently weighed in with a scathing commentary:

“F1 creates these monstrously complex vehicles and then gets way down the road before they realise that what they’ve done is causing huge problems.

“The multitude of complex settings and technical adjustments on the current cars’ steering wheels never should have been allowed. With the complexity of these cars, [the] engineers were telling the drivers on every straight what settings to have for the next corner – which is ridiculous, of course.

“So they then ban all kind of communication, which effectively means that currently you can’t even tell a driver what to do even if there’s a technical fault on the car.

“In the case of Perez in Austria, it was outrageous that they couldn’t tell a driver that his brakes were about to fail because of this radio ban. Imagine if that happened at Monaco coming out of the tunnel? There’s no logic to it.”

“If you allow the designers to make cars so complex that you have to tell a driver how to drive them during a race, you’ve got to pull back and get back to basics, fast!

“What we have now is what I keep repeating – engineering porn. That’s all it is.

“The drivers don’t even understand half of it, so how can the public?”

He concluded: “I’m the biggest fan in the world. I love racing and I love F1. It’s my passion and I watch every race live and I just end up being frustrated because of the absurdity of what takes place.

“And if that’s what I’m thinking, I can only imagine what the casual fans think. You have to wonder.”

Motorsport’s Mr. Klein ran that story and a few days later, Editor in Chief, Mr. Bradley, offered an opinion piece in which he explored what’s ailing Formula 1 at the moment—actually that’s putting it lightly, he said that circuit limits and complicated systems are big threats that risk spoiling modern motorsport.

Mr. Bradley offered some thoughts on the complex nature of the cars and accurately concluded that the balance may have swung too far in favor of the engineering and not the driver. Probably no big revelation there for most F1 fans, we’ve been saying that for 3-4 years. That’s not a poke at Mr. Bradley, he’s right, but it’s just an admission that he’s preaching to the choir.

As Bradley and Johansson accurately arrive at is that if it is this complicated for teams and drivers, there is no way in hades that the F1 fans will ever grasp the enormity of what the series is achieving and that’s a shame because they are achieving a lot with this technology.

Regardless, it is the lack of any remote understanding and lack of great racing that is fueling the call to return to wide tires, normally aspirated petrol engines and the golden era. Other fans this this is daft and claim that technology marches on and F1’s entire DNA is all about road-relevant technology innovation. That’s not entirely true. It has been a present factor because the richer teams in the 60’s through 90’s could afford exotic tech and they used whatever made their car go faster around the circuit. The tech we have today dropped the performance level by somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 seconds in its initial year.

Still, fans of the new formula argue that they have clawed back much of the time they’ve lost and this means that 4-5 years later we are finally approaching or narrowly beating the V8 era cars. Do you think that if they had continued with the V8 or V10’s, they would not be much, much faster by now? You are using frozen times from 4-5 years ago as a benchmark here.

The balance needs to be found and perhaps the 2017 season will find it. It is difficult to know but what we do have a precedent for in F1 is the stabilization of regulations eventually becoming more equal up and down the grid. Time and stability are afforded the patient regulatory body who will see things out. This is what Ross Brawn said in a recent interview with Martin Brundle and while I agree with him, I also agree that something needs to be done. Too many viewers have switched the TV off.

In fairness, this issue did not start with the hybrid and the move to electric cars is not the sole reason for the frustration. This started on the heels of the Ferrari domination that was continued by Red Bull for four years on the trot. Then the hybrids came in and removed the sound, pace and visceral experience of F1 and ushered in a newer, even more dominant team in Mercedes and baked that performance advantage in for much of this specification’s shelf life. The stable regulations are seeing some parity but that is manifest in a slight closing of the performance gap to Mercedes from 1.5s per lap to 1s per lap. Not quite the equity F1 fans were hoping for given you’ve gutted the formula’s sound and racing action on track.

That’s why the changes are being brought in but if I’m honest, I’m not quite sure I understand the tire specification in 2017 that well. If they are the HD tires, then we may still have an issue. If the cars are more aggressive, faster and more competitive, high degradation tires could neuter than impact. If the aero gains are increased, the same is true. If DRS is retained, the same is true. If fuel flow restriction is retained, the same may be true but that’s not a guarantee.

When FOM sold the sport and CVC acquired It and the bi-partite agreements were signed with the teams and the F1 Strategy group was formed, the series lost its ability to make the hard decisions it needs to and the team, like Mercedes, took over. When the FIA mandated an ideology narrative be the backbone of the series to send socially responsible messages via hybrid technology, the sport lost its ability to govern itself realistically for entertainment value and bankrupted three teams in the process. The “show” as they say, must go one but the more F1 talks of “spicing up” the show, the more it tastes like oatmeal.

Hat Tip: Motorsport and Motorsport

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
13 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
Gramzke007UndecidedJoe MamaNegative Camber Recent comment authors

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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
MBP MBP
Guest
MBP MBP

Truth. Leave the hybrid systems for WEC, where it makes sense. Just make these cars fast and find a happy medium with the wake and aero.

Dr. Bob
Guest
Dr. Bob

How do you confine F1 so there is still a driver who is responsible for operating the vehicle? Consider what it would be like now if true ground effects, active suspension, fully auto transmissions and multiple thousand horsepower engineers had continued to develop over the last several decades. All of those started when computer technology was in a relative infancy. The computing power of a ’90s supercomputer now fits comfortably in your smart phone. Add the car control technology that is now being developed for autonomous cars to the technology cauldron that is F1 development. You could have F1 cars… Read more »

HashBrown15
Guest
HashBrown15

I like the engineering porn. It is what makes F1 the best.

Paul Riseborough
Guest
Paul Riseborough

There’s a whole lot of other stuff on F1 cars that the average person has no way of understanding, The argument that technology should be understandable could have been used against the introduction of computer controlled fuel injection. Advanced tech is part of F1’s DNA, so let the technology be advanced, enforce a lack of pit wall assistance and the teams will have to improve the user interface. Alternatively the FIA could mandate a reduction in complexity of the interface – they could claim it was for ‘road relevancy ;) Most fans i know don’t care about the technology, they… Read more »

Negative Camber
Guest

I agree on the tires. I agree that not all tech is or should be understood by public. I also think the balance is off a bit. Complex systems the drivers struggle to operate and aero designs with tires and DRS that prevent close racing is a balance issue for me.

MIE
Editor

The V8s were frozen, so there would be no more power had they continued. Improvements would have continued thanks to chassis developments. However there is a safety limit on just how fast a car can go around a particular corner driven by the amount of runoff available should something go wrong. Periodically the FIA slows the cars down before the team’s recover that speed. This will continue to happen regardless of the technology used.

Achim
Guest
Achim

I am not sure I’d agree with the “F1 swung to much in favour of the engineering” and “cars are to complicated” argument. Why not just limit the amount of buttons and switches and adjustment options from inside the cockpit? I’m sure the outcry from teams will be huge, but remember what happened when they limit the number of engines per season. They said only very few cars would reach the chequered flag, but what happened? A lot of clever engineering made the engines very reliable and more cars now finish the races than ever before. The reason they have… Read more »

Gaetano Colosi
Guest
Gaetano Colosi

What I don’t understand … why so many buttons and settings? I have no problem with ‘high tech’ gizmos, but it should all happen behind the scenes. IMO the teams can put as much technology as they want into the cars, but the driver controls should be limited to steering, gears, clutch, brakes and possibly the DRS button. Everything else … gone! That includes pit lane speed limiter…. let the driver judge that. If the fancy settings can’t be controlled automatically by the engine management system, then bad luck. The technology level is not the problem, the problem is the… Read more »

Henk
Guest
Henk

This piece went of the rails somewhere for me. The FIA has to restrict performance by restricting things like fuel flow, engine size, aero and extreme tech solutions. This is not a new thing to F1, it’s in its DNA. Without all the restrictions the cars would just be too quick and have drivers passing out in the car. Especially the fuel flow restriction that keeps popping up in these discussions gets a lot of undeserved flak. It has gotten rid of the annoying rev limiter that engines would run up to and is the most natural way of limiting… Read more »

Nigel Cass
Guest
Nigel Cass

Great article! I have been reading the comments section and I am seeing a lot of the “No need to pin-back technology, just get rid of the buttons and have the engineers in the pit lane manage the car’s functions”. I respect the argument, but if that is where we want to go, shouldn’t we just pull the driver out of the car too? If the engineers should be managing the car’s systems from the pit lane, why not the drivers? Give them a playstation controller and go for it. The safety people would love it too! Of course, I… Read more »

Joe Mama
Guest
Joe Mama

Well this is a fine pickle, eh? If F1 is indeed intended to be road-relevant, then it has to follow (or lead) the direction of road car development. Well guess what…that direction is safety, efficiency, and performance gained largely by system complexity. And the only way to make that complexity transparent to the driver is by automation and/or remote management. But that’s the real problem; the automation that makes driving increasingly complex cars easy enough for everyday drivers is exactly what “real” racing is NOT about. The fact is, the real world is gradually distancing itself from the menial task… Read more »

Undecided
Guest
Undecided

Next step would be to make them like really fancy RC cars. Take the driver out for safety purposes, he can drive from the pits while wearing an Oculus Rift or similar device. Think about how much faster these cars could go if you did not have to worry about driver safety.

zke007
Guest
zke007

Like someone below said, RC cars.
Get rid of Drivers, Engineer on pit wall can now be the goat/savior
Or get streaming internet next. For 99.00 you can race any picker-head in the world from your home.or 159.00 at trace side.
What ideas. They could do this now at all the track, RC racing with F1 cars.
Anybody got start up money.

Gram
Guest
Gram

I don’t know about you guys but to me F1 critics are like the GOP to the Obama administration at this point. They have yelled fire too many times to be taken seriously. Some people just suffer from chronic critique syndrome. Is F1 perfect? No! The problem with F1 is the genie has been let out of the bottle. The mystique of the cars and drivers of the 70-80s is gone. I would argue F1 has not changed. What has changed is the amount of info that has been given to viewers. The viewers are too informed. No matter what… Read more »