Banned in season testing, no aerodynamical development, engine freeze; these rules and many more have been introduced in F1 to make racing affordable. The desired result was to be an equalized field of machines that look fast at an economical price.
Rules pushed through for the 2008, and 2009 seasons appeared to be a genuine attempt at making the sport much leaner, exciting, and more 21st century. The result, the same type of racing, quite possibly at the same price as the previous seasons.
Half way through the 2009 season the F1 grid is being dominated by two teams. While there has been a resurgence of McLaren, Ferrari, and Renault performance, the team the fan is most likely to see on the podium, if not perched at the top of it is Brawn, or Red Bull.
A question must be asked, thus; if rules were rewritten to favor a more equally competitive field, why are fans witnessing a deluge of wins by one or two teams? Force India should be challenging for the podium, as should BMW, because the cars should not behave so differently when built according to specific rules.
Some fans will argue that while there are specific rules dictating almost every aspect of the car design, engineers tend to push the boundary and exploit specific details governing F1 design. Thus rules that were meant to change F1 have done absolutely nothing to the overall picture.
Yes, the players are different, but the final panorama appears the same. Thus one must ask, what is the point of these rule changes?
At the beginning of the F1 season the majority of reactions to the look of the 2009 machines were favorable. The fans were very satisfied that no longer was a Ferrari or McLaren covered with chimneys, fins, double fins, and so many other features.
F1 appeared to be rediscovering itself and its fanbase by following the simple rule of less is more.
The rules introduced to make the cars simpler in appearance were not intended to bring smiles back to the faces of the fans, but to make passing and racing more recurrent, and exciting. In the end, teams that were at the back are at the back, and those that once occupied the front row, are at the back ever so often.
It can be argued that the result is proof of the validity of the rules’ success, however the more likely explanation is that specific teams were able adapt to the rules much quicker, and easier.
Successes in the 2009 season, however will not translate into victories in the 2010 campaign, simply because rules are yet again being changed. Since refueling is to be banned, KERS is not considered a vital part of the design, F1 cars will once again change in shape and design.
4 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete