FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

ESPNF1:
Formula One drivers have called on their sport to restructure its governance, arguing that the current rule making process has proved itself to be "obsolete and ill-structured".

An open letter issued by the Grand Prix Drivers Association (GPDA) on Wednesday took aim at recent rule changes that the drivers believe lack coherent direction. Instead they have called on F1 to restructure its decision-making process and come up with a clear "master plan" for the future.

"We feel that some recent rule changes - on both the sporting and technical side, and including some business directions - are disruptive, do not address the bigger issues our sport is facing and in some cases could jeopardise its future success," read a section of the letter. "We know that among the leaders of the sport - be it the owners, their representatives, the governing body, the teams or other stakeholders - every individual acts with the very best intentions.

"Therefore, the drivers have come to the conclusion that the decision-making process in the sport is obsolete and ill-structured and prevents progress being made. Indeed, it can sometimes lead to just the opposite, a gridlock. This reflects negatively on our sport, prevents it being fit for the next generation of fans and compromises further global growth.

"We would like to request and urge the owners and all stakeholders of Formula One to consider restructuring its own governance. The future directions and decisions of F1, be they short or long term, sporting, technical or business orientated should be based on a clear master plan. Such plan should reflect the principles and core values of Formula One."

The letter comes one week after F1's new qualifying system for 2016 came under fire from fans and drivers alike. The drivers had warned against going ahead with the plans before Saturday's debut, but F1's decision-making bodies followed through with the new system regardless. Following confusion in Q1 and an anti-climactic Q3, team bosses agreed the next day to revert to the old system ahead of the the next race in Bahrain.

F1's drivers have no official voting power on new regulations, which are devised by F1's Strategy Group, voted on by the F1 Commission and rubber-stamped by the FIA's World Motor Sport Council. The process has come under fire in recent years because of the self-interest of those involved, but this is the first time the GPDA has openly criticised the sport's governance.

The open letter in full:

Dear Formula One stakeholders, followers and fans,

The Grand Prix drivers would like to state our following position: We drivers love our sport! Since childhood, we dreamed of racing the fastest race cars from the top teams on the coolest tracks against the best drivers in the world. We seek competition and love F1 almost unconditionally, which makes us most probably the people with the purest interest for Formula One, beside our fans.

Formula One is currently challenged by a difficult global economic environment, a swift change in fan and consumer behaviour, and a decisive shift in the TV and media landscape. This makes it fundamental that the sport's leaders make smart and well considered adjustments.

We feel that some recent rule changes - on both the sporting and technical side, and including some business directions - are disruptive, do not address the bigger issues our sport is facing and in some cases could jeopardise its future success. We know that among the leaders of the sport - be it the owners, their representatives, the governing body, the teams or other stakeholders - every individual acts with the very best intentions.

Therefore, the drivers have come to the conclusion that the decision-making process in the sport is obsolete and ill-structured and prevents progress being made. Indeed, it can sometimes lead to just the opposite, a gridlock. This reflects negatively on our sport, prevents it being fit for the next generation of fans and compromises further global growth.

We would like to request and urge the owners and all stakeholders of Formula One to consider restructuring its own governance. The future directions and decisions of F1, be they short or long term, sporting, technical or business orientated should be based on a clear master plan. Such plan should reflect the principles and core values of Formula One.

We need to ensure that F1 remains a sport, a closely-fought competition between the best drivers in extraordinary machines on the coolest race tracks. F1 should be home only to the best teams, drivers and circuits, with partners and suppliers fit for such an elite championship.

Formula One has undoubtedly established itself as the pinnacle of motorsport and as such one of the most viewed and popular sports around the world. We drivers stand united, offer our help and support for F1 to keep it as such, and further to make it fit and exciting for many years and generations to come.

It is important to state that this open letter is intended in the best interests of all and should not be seen as blind and disrespectful attack. Thank you for your attention and granting us the liberty to put our thoughts into words.

Best regards, Jenson Button, Sebastian Vettel, Alex Wurz, on behalf of the Grand Prix Drivers

[overboost]

It's good for the drivers to step in and try to save the sport. Having respected leaders and world champions like Button and Vettel leading the charge adds credibility.

Providing a long term vision that allows for competition and close racing is critical.

[darwin dali]

ESPNF1:
The Grand Prix Drivers' Association has come out with a statement of dissatisfaction over the way F1 is being run. So, here's the question: what's the GPDA going to do about it?

Given the recent trend of everyone at the top of F1 being focussed on themselves and not giving a stuff what anyone else thinks, the GPDA has about as much chance of being listened to as Donald Trump agreeing that he is no more suitable than I am to run the most powerful nation on earth.

(On second thoughts, I probably could do a better job. I'd take his budget for a wall across the Mexican border and use it to upgrade Watkins Glen and Laguna Seca to F1 standards, knock down half of Long Beach and rebuild the original circuit, shut down Manhattan for a Grand Prix, make Roger Penske and Dan Gurney Deputy Presidents of the USA and place an Extradition Order on the board of CVC Capital Partners for criminal negligence and lock them up in Folsom Prison.)

Sorry, I digressed. While agreeing with every single sentiment expressed by the GPDA, it is regrettable to say that the words are likely to be falling on deaf ears. What they need is Niki Lauda on side. Then there would be every chance of the drivers turning up on Friday in Bahrain and finding Obergruppenfuhrer Lauda waiting at the front gate with a bus.

That's what he did at Kyalami in 1982 when the drivers were upset by a clause that had quietly been inserted into their Superlicences. Actually, not all drivers were upset, mainly because the silly boys had signed without reading the contract properly. Lauda soon put them right by pointing out a clause that would tie the drivers to their respective employers in the manner of a footballer to his team.

There was predictable outrage, wringing of hands -- and not a lot else. Or, at least, not until they were unexpectedly herded on board the bus for a mystery tour of northern Johannesburg that finished for the night in the function room of a hotel. With no drivers, there was no practice and nothing for the paying spectators to watch. You have to admit, that's a pretty strong hand in any dispute.
Klemantaski Collection/Getty Images)

Can you imagine it now? The physios, PRs and gurus back at the track wouldn't know what to do with themselves; race engineers would have no one to talk to and television presenters would have to spend even longer listening to team principals saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with F1 that an extra couple of million dollars of your money wouldn't cure.

There was none of that back then. In 1982 we had Jean-Marie Balestre running the FIA; a Frenchman whose blustering style of management makes Jean Todt look like a man from Mormons who doesn't actually knock on your door. The gospel according to Balestre claimed all drivers should be punished severely for such insubordination, but it was difficult to get that point across when they weren't there and social media was no more than a beer at Marlboro or Elf, the only watering holes in the paddock.

After a night of piano playing by Gilles Villeneuve and Elio de Angelis, supported by a spoof lecture on terrorism by Bruno Giacomelli, the drivers emerged to agree new terms and take part in the remainder of the weekend. Of course, Balestre had to have the last word as he fined the drivers, but only after the race had started. Compared to what the drivers had actually achieved, his was a pompous token gesture.

It's true that the GPDA now has a much wider roster of comments that can not be dealt with through a couple of calls on a hotel house phone. But even if they could choose just one point of order and go on strike for the sake of it, who knows but the increasingly disenfranchised spectators might do the same. And no need to worry about television viewers; they're likely to be as rare in 2019 as an 'obsolete and ill-structured' F1 management being seen to do something remotely coordinated and sensible today.
Maurice Hamilton

[darwin dali]

Bernie Ecclestone has written back to F1's drivers to agree with their assessment the sport's decision-making process is "obsolete and ill-structured".

On Wednesday the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) took aim at recent rule changes and the way the sport is run in an open letter "to Formula One's stakeholders, followers and fans". It called for a clear "master plan" for the future in both short- and long-term decisions but did not outline any clear proposals.

The GPDA letter followed the debacle around F1's new qualifying format at the Australian Grand Prix, which had been pushed through by the decision-making F1 Commission and Strategy Group despite opposition from drivers. After a farcical debut the system is set to be tweaked for the next race in Bahrain.

As revealed by the BBC, Ecclestone has written back to the drivers to agree with the main point that the governance of Formula One needs restructuring. The F1 boss calls on drivers to come back to him with ideas about how to make improvements as "it is better to think before you wish".

The response takes a bizarre and slightly comical turn in the final paragraph when Ecclestone appears to correct the grammar of a sentence in the original GPDA letter to him.

Ecclestone's letter to the GPDA in full:

Dear Gentlemen,

I am not sure if this is the right description. It is not always easy to agree with you but you are correct in stating that the decision making process in the sport is obsolete and ill structured.

We must as you have stated urge the owners and all stakeholders of Formula One to consider restructuring its own governance.

It is easy to analyse what is wrong so why not think and come back on this. At least it is better to think before you wish.

I have been in Formula One for nearly fifty years in an active role and another eighteen involved in some way. You state that every individual acts with the very best intentions. I am not sure if this is a misprint. If not, it should read "with their very best intentions".

Best wishes,

Bernie

[overboost]

Former F1 Doc Hartstein speaks out and he is through with F1. He doesn't hold much back.

https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ou-its-me/

[darwin dali]

ESPNF1:

On the face of it, the prospect of faster Formula One cars in 2017 is attractive. The sport's visceral appeal has always been its speed, and the potential for new lap records at every round is entirely possible under next year's aerodynamic regulations. But the laws of physics rarely allow win-win situations and there are increasing concerns that 2017's changes will have an adverse effect on wheel-to-wheel racing.

As the April 30 deadline for the signoff of the regulations approaches, arguments for and against the faster cars are becoming increasingly political. The 'yes' campaign, led by aerodynamic powerhouse Red Bull, argues the proposed changes do not go far enough, while the 'no' campaign, led by current champions Mercedes, warns of a detrimental effect on the racing. The irony is that while F1's decision makers have been arguing about how to make F1 faster, the natural development of the cars has seen qualifying times come close to or beat lap records at the opening two races of the season. As a result, it is becoming less clear what F1 is trying to achieve in 2017 and increasingly worrying what it could be about to sacrifice.

The science of overtaking

As Mercedes' managing director (technical), Paddy Lowe sits firmly in the 'No to 2017' camp, but he is also one of just a few people in the paddock who has dedicated extensive time to understanding the science of overtaking. In the mid-2000s overtaking was at historic lows in F1 (far lower than it is now) and the sport responded by setting up the Overtaking Working Group (OWG). The group was led by the sport's three top technical directors at the time, Lowe (then working for McLaren), Pat Symonds (Renault), Rory Byrne (Ferrari) as well as the FIA's Charlie Whiting. With a budget of €0.5 million raised collectively from the teams, an independent wind tunnel and McLaren's state-of-the-art simulator, the OWG embarked on a research project to understand how aerodynamics influence overtaking.

"It was the first time some real science had been applied to the subject of overtaking and I think it's useful to go back to that time," Lowe told ESPN. "Remember that in the mid to late 2000s the big story and the big problem with Formula One was overtaking. It was said there was no other problem with Formula One except overtaking, and various things had been tried and talked about before finally it was decided that we should actually do some proper work.

"Some very interesting results came out of it and many of them were not intuitive as well. The paddock is full of amateur aerodynamicists, amateur overtaking experts and car wake experts, and actually when you get into the experimentation you find that things were not actually as you expected."

Both then and now the "amateur overtaking experts" called for the underside of the car to be exploited for aerodynamic advantage through the use of ground effects. But the work of the OWG suggested that would be a retrograde step.

"The brief going into the project was that you wanted it all in the floor, all ground effects, and take the wings off the car -- even now everybody says that," Lowe explains. "A lot of the pieces tried were around those themes and we also had the Central Downwash Wing [a concept to split the rear wing into two sections].

"The first interesting thing that came out was that the Central Downwash Wing actually acted negatively on the following car and made it worse, but not far off that was having no rear wing at all. The best thing was to have a rear wing as we did, but refine it by having it narrower and higher. The reason is that the flow structures and the two vortices at the top of the two endplates are very strong energisers of fresh flow to re-energise the wake, whereas if you have no rear wing you end up with a very messy wake that hangs around. These two vortices bring in fresh air from the sides and dispel the low energy wake that's there. So actually you need a strong rear wing and, adjusting a few parameters, you can make it even more effective. That was unexpected.

"The second point is to work on the front wing of the following car because it is the first part of the car to see the replenished wake. We found that an important aspect is to have a disabled centre section of the front wing, so that it is working just off the outboard ends low down. Those were the two major findings."

Downforce discourages overtaking

The work of the OWG can still be seen on the wings of today's cars, but the 2017 regulations will do away with the tall and narrow rear wing while the front wing will widen in line with the wider track of the car. The impact such changes will have on overtaking have not been tested to OWG levels, meaning F1 could unwittingly undo much of its hard work next year. But there was another key finding by Lowe, Symonds and Byrne that was never realised and is even more significant for 2017.

"The thing that is forgotten is that there were two outputs from the OWG," Lowe adds. "The other half of the story was to halve the downforce. We actually ran some tests in the simulator with a car following and attempting overtakes around Barcelona. The reference point was that the following car needed two seconds per lap [of performance advantage over the car in front] to overtake and the objective was to get to one second per lap. We achieved that, and half a second came from the geometry [of the wings] and the other half came from the halving of the downforce."

A loophole in the regulations allowing teams to develop double diffusers meant the halving of the downforce was never delivered. As a result the OWG's work did not have the impact it could have achieved in 2009 and it was not until 2011 and the introduction of DRS and Pirelli's degrading tyres that overtaking reached all-new highs. But Lowe believes the success of those somewhat artificial devices are underpinned by the work of the OWG.

"Things are better than they were in the mid-2000s because we've brought in things like the DRS, which in my opinion, and I can't prove this, doesn't work on its own but works in combination with cars being able to follow each other. You need to follow in the previous turn to take advantage of DRS and make it work for you. It doesn't work as a standalone.

"The other thing we've got is a big difference between different cars on different tyres at different states -- that's been far more prevalent in the Pirelli era. We also got rid of refuelling, which was a big discourager of overtaking at the end of the day because you're better to overtake with fuel strategy than doing it the hard way on the track.

"We're not in a terrible place at the moment, but it is getting worse and in the last three years we have seen an aggressive reduction in the amount of overtaking and an increase in the level of complaints we get from drivers that they couldn't follow or get near the car in front. That isn't a surprise to me because we are at that point in the aerodynamic cycle where it is time for a reset and to go back down to a fresh lower level of downforce, as we have done over the last 20 years.

"We have periodically reset the aero to stay within a certain window and at the moment we are at a historic highs of downforce, so it would be time to go lower and that would give a benefit in car following and recover where we were in 2013.

"But we seem to be going the other way [for 2017]! We don't agree with that at Mercedes for a range of reasons, including the overtaking aspect. We think racing is not improved by constantly increasing aerodynamic downforce, you need to have the right balance between mechanical grip, aerodynamic grip, horsepower, weight -- those sorts of things need to be in a certain territory to encourage close racing. If you allow the aero performance to get completely unbalanced then you reduce the spectacle."

Pressure on Pirelli

The case for upping downforce in 2017 is based on a plan to match the aerodynamic lap time gains with mechanical grip from the tyres. Pirelli has been given a mandate to produce wider tyres for 2017, automatically increasing grip, although the exact details are still being thrashed out with the FIA. One of Mercedes' main arguments against the 2017 regulations is based on concerns that Pirelli's tyres will not be able to cope with the extra load created by the new bodywork. The Italian tyre company has said it will produce whatever tyres the sport desires, but it is worth highlighting the technical challenge it faces with less than a year of development time remaining.

"The worrying bit is that as we add load and increase the duty placed on the tyre, which at the end of the day primarily has to remain within safe boundaries, the main way to manage that is to increase the pressure, and that's what Pirelli has already been doing even with the current tyres," Lowe says "As a result of various issues last year, we now run at pressures far higher than had been originally intended for these tyres in order to manage the loads.

"We have been generating around 10% more downforce every year across all the teams and we have seen that Pirelli have had to respond to that with pressure and the trouble is that when you put the pressure up you actually reduce the tyre performance. We are already a little bit in that window, but if you push it too far you end up in a position where responding to added downforce with pressure eliminates your net lap time improvement. There's a great risk that we go into 2017 with cars that are probably going to have 30 percent more downforce than today but won't go any quicker because the tyre pressures will have been increased so much to respond to that load.

"The other difficulty is that Pirelli, quite correctly, want a platform to test those tyres on the track. So they are asking us to build mule cars to test the tyres and that is a problem. How do you invent a test car that has 30 percent more downforce than the current car? We have never faced that problem in the past because we have always gone the other way with downforce, but it's actually very difficult because all the suspension is not rated to 30% extra load."

What next?

In 2014 the cars were deemed too slow for the top level of motorsport, and arguably they were, but since then downforce has increased and lap times have reduced by as much as 3.5s (based on Lewis Hamilton's record-breaking effort in qualifying in Bahrain). It is looking increasingly unlikely that significantly faster cars will provide the silver bullet the sport is seeking, while a lack of research into the side effects on overtaking has raised genuine concerns. Ultimately, Lowe thinks the sport needs direction both on its overall aims and how to achieve them.

"I think the important thing is always to have clear objectives and agree on those objectives up front before people settle into pre-defined solutions. That also needs to be done at a distance so it's not acted upon in self-interest, because naturally, as we get closer to a regulation change, the teams start to work in self-interest. I think when you don't put that together, that's when things start to go wrong.

"There is a duty upon the sport to put the work in to deciding what is wanted and what the proper objectives are. That in itself is a research programme to decide what we actually want and then to go and decide on how to do it. That's how we all work in our teams as businesses, we are very structured in our approach and that's how we deliver the lap time that we do. The sport needs to be a bit better at that as a whole in terms of its regulation development."

[sagi58]

So, the age-old brain vs brawn argument rears its ugly head once again?