It's Too Early to Get Too Excited About the F1 Strategy Group's Proposed Changes
The Formula One Strategy Cartel...er, Group...met again last week in London, producing an idealistic press release that is short on details.
Before everyone gets too excited about sprint races and a return to eardrum-shattering noise, though, let's remember that just because the group discussed something, that doesn't mean it will actually happen.
The ideas for improving the cars and the sport sound good, but will they get the agreement necessary to actually implement them?
.jpg?w=256 "Colts Jaguars Football")
Although ESPN F1's Kate Walker noted as a sign of progress the unanimous decision to change the complicated system of power-unit penalties and reduce the availability of driver aids and coaching, those are relatively easy fixes. Eliminating 25-place grid penalties and reducing radio chatter will not have a huge impact on the competitive balance.
But what about when it comes to something more substantial, like significant changes to the aerodynamic regulations or the race weekend format? Will the teams—even just the six sitting on the Strategy Group—agree on those?
I'll believe it when I see it.
And for the changes that do pass, will they have the desired effects? For example, last year there was a clampdown on driver coaching during the races, but, if anything, complaints about how much advice the drivers receive have only grown louder since the new regulations were implemented (which is why the group agreed to further restrictions now).
A lot of the angst floating around F1 these days has to do with Mercedes' dominance. There are other issues, of course, but if Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari were neck and neck (and neck) for the championship, the Strategy Group would not be meeting to, "assess new directions for the future of Formula 1," as the press release stated.
What if new regulations are voted in and Ferrari, for example, make the best of them and start winning every grand prix? Or what if Mercedes pull even further ahead?
Everyone wants faster cars and closer racing, but the teams have another agenda, as well: to win.
By definition, those interests conflict. Each team wants to dominate every race, not have four cars separated by half a second at the chequered flag.
You don't have to look further than this season for an example: It might be better for the sport if there was a closer fight at the front, but it is in Mercedes' interests to win as many races as they can. And when it comes to voting on new regulations, the teams can be counted upon to vote for their own interests.
The same goes for everyone else.
Formula One Management, which makes up another third of the votes in the Strategy Group, is trying to maximize shareholder profits. The FIA, F1's governing body, is the final third, and it should be looking out for the best interests of the sport, but the fact that the Strategy Group exists at all is evidence that it is not.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner told Autosport's Lawrence Barretto after the previous meeting, "If you leave it to the teams to try and agree a set of regulations, you'll never get everyone on the same bit of paper."
Even if everyone does agree, you can't legislate close races.
Shaking up the regulations every year or two doesn't help, either. As Mercedes has demonstrated since the introduction of the hybrid V6 engines, someone will find an edge in any new rules, and it will take the other teams time to catch up.
All that said, faster cars with looser fuel restrictions and louder engines will return some of the essence that F1 has lost in recent years.
Maybe this time the Strategy Group will get it right and all the changes really will improve the sport. On the other hand, this is the same body that voted in double points for the final race last season.
Maybe don't hold your breath.
Follow me on Twitter for updates when I publish new articles and for other (mostly) F1-related news and banter:
.jpg?w=480 "Colts Jaguars Football")
