The strategy group want more fire and more noise.

Greetings Internet, 

In the week leading up to the most recognisable event on the calendar there was a meeting, a meeting of the generally useless 'strategy group' to decide what can make F1 better. Let use remember that this group was set up almost two years ago to, handle all the difficulties and problems facing the sport as it currently stands. In their time in power, they've made a grand total of no worthwhile decisions - as per Christian Horner himself the group has only managed to agree on the utterly pointless: "one helmet design per season rule". Bob Fearnley of Force India, who does like putting the boot in from time to time has declared the whole group as not fit for purpose. While I thought his complaints against Manor were out of line, this comment it entirely reasonable. If we were to evaluate the performance of this group it would be ranked somewhere between terrible and a complete failure. Before we mock the group yet further, it is worth pointing out that is was created with better intentions - the powers that be realised things were not working out, and then asked a small sample of the interested parties how to fix it. 

Thus explaining one of the core reasons this group has failed, and will likely continue to do so - only the top teams are invited to contribute. Which is utterly ridiculous, because these teams are the ones with the money and resources to carry out any foolish schemes. The teams that will suffer aren't allowed a vote. Furthermore including the teams mean that they will inevitably vote to include ideas and concepts that would further their advantage, while penalising others. So what was the big announcement following this meeting - the re-introduction of refuelling...
A decision that utterly contradicts the issues that the teams who aren't allowed in the group are facing. Shipping fuel rigs and crew around the world is expensive and completely disregards the cost-saving agenda of the poorer teams. On top of that, it flies in the face of the idea of improving efficiency - lowering the incentive for future rule changes to further limit the fuel allocations. Finally one of the reasons for bringing it back is to improve 'the show' which apparently means adding more fire... The theory is that fuelling means lighter cars during the race and therefore faster cars, while also reducing tyre wear. But, I can only guess that fuel load isn't the main contributor to increased tyre degradation - I think that the aerodynamic influence of running close to another car is far more destructive. Even on lower fuel at the end of the last race, we watched Raikkonen's tyres fall away faster once he was in the aerodynamic wake of Valtteri Bottas' car. But no making things more flammable is the answer we have not been looking for. 

It could be argued that this decision is another example of the terminally short-sighted approach that have been made in recent years, simply bolting on patches and 'quick-fixes'. It is starting to feel a little like the mid 2000's when there was all kinds of experimentation. Qualifying formats were changed several times, tyres that lasted an entire race in 2005, various rules on starting fuel loads. and modifying circuit design. All kinds of half-hearted half-attempts at correcting what they felt was wrong at the time - in the mid early-mid 2000's it was the issue of Schumacher domination, processional racing and little to no overtaking. Some of that was down to wider gulfs in car performance, and the rest of it is the same challenges we face today - struggling to get one car close enough to another car at speed. So it is not surprise to see that the ideas future development are weak and sketchy at best. It could be argued that since the collossal revamp in 2009, things have been a lot better - because a lot of those changes sculpted aerodynamic design. Taller but narrower rear wings and wider front wings were a natural improvement, along with the eradication of the huge proliferation of winglets that came to a head in 2008. I seem to remember that also in 2009, the FIA Formula Two series was re-launched and one of the key features of that championship was a reduced dependence on over-car aero. Instead they wanted to pursue the idea of ground-effect generated downforce, which creates much less turbulent air than over-car aero. 

It had been abandoned largely over the years to the issues that ground effect can create, it was unstable and could result in airborne accidents as we've seen in Indycar recently. As far as I know, and I am not an aerodynamicist, ground-effect functions by creating a sealed tunnel of air between the car and the surface of the road. Usually by applying side-skirts to keep the flow of air focussed. But as soon as that system fails to provide an isolated air flow - for example if a bump in the road lifts the side-skirt off the ground, allowing air to escape the amount of available downforce is immediately reduced considerably. Furthermore the shape of the underfloor required in a ground effect car means that if the car is spun at high speed, it increases the risk that the air will lift the car off the ground. Something that became a recurring problem in Le Mans prototypes of the time, and potentially the Indycars of today. The thing is, that this day and age, I seriously doubt that the technology doesn't exist to produce safer, more stable and more effective ground effect cars. 

Aerodynamics were mentioned at the strategy group meeting under theh ighly descriptive and insightful statement introducing an 'Aerodynamic rule evolution' whatever that entails. The evolution is one element of the second major point they wanted to make - "in 2017 cars will be 5-6 seconds faster". In addition to the aero this apparently is going to be created by several factors firstly wider tyres. I do approve of this idea because it adds more mechanical grip, which doesn't being with it the downside of aero turbulence. Secondly through reducing car weight - some of which will be through less fuel - but there is a slight problem with this idea. The bulk of the weight gain has been down to the ERS and hybrid gubbins in the car - which meant that before the minimum weight was raised recently, taller drivers were significantly disadvantaged. The extra weight they carried was never a problem, until the mass of the hybrid systems erased any surplus. So I have to wonder, does planning to reduce the car weight put pressure back onto the driver to be as small as possible. The output from the meeting was suspiciously vague in the sense that I can't tell if they intend to lower the base weight or refer to the weight reduction as part of the refuelling idea. Because clarity is over-rated anyhow.

Another aspect of the theorised lap time gain is through the engines, by increasing engine RPM - which I know doesn't necessarily increase speed. But the initial completely arbitrary figure of 1000hp has faded slightly, replaced by far more important engine parameters... One of the recommendations of the strategy group is more noise, I thought we'd had enough of this argument already. Yes the older V8/V10 engines were very audible and delivered an echoing blast of sound, but is it really anything wrong with how they are now. I think not, I like the extra detail that you can hear now that the engines are quieter. Radio communications are easier to listen to, and more of the atmosphere can be conveyed through ambient sound. The final statement in the list of apparent focal points for future development is a general recommendation for "More Aggressive Looks".

This could mean anything, but in the end I'm all for more aggressive looking cars, whether that means painting fangs on the cars a la pre 97-2000 Jordan liveries... which were awesome. The problem is that the current designs are a reflection of the optimum design for the current rule set. So whatever the future regulations state, the most aerodynamically efficient implementation is probably not going to match the aesthetic standards. It could be argued that the 2008 spec cars did look a lot more aggressive and purposeful, but proved difficult to race. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what the future brings on that note, but I imagine that a considerable overhaul of design regulations is not going to help in the cost minimisation stakes...

There was one other inclusion in the report and that referred to tyre allocation, and interestingly enough it was one of the suggestions I made in an article in the middle of last year. The idea is that Pirelli don't decide which tyres a car uses on any given weekend it is more open to the teams themselves in terms of picking which tyres to use. Teams can pick two compounds out of the four available to use during the weekend. An idea that has received reasonable support, but there is a slight caveat in the sense that in order to prevent pirelli having to manufacture considerably more tyres to handle any selection combination it would help if there was a pre-selection process. Say three or four races in advance - such that Pirelli only manufacture the same volume of tyres, just matching the requested compounds. That level of detail was not included in the recommendations - in fact no real thought was given to the implementation phase. But it is early days, and I imagine that further ideas and exhibitions of delusional foolishness might spring forth and the only reasonable ideas will fall by the wayside once more. So in the meantime we get to see team principles up and down the pit-lane complaining about the validity of the group as a whole. I guess the Monaco weekend gives the teams plenty of media time to explain their thoughts and theories to the world. 

From my perspective, I do understand the reasoning behind installing a strategy group - but they way is has been done is a little crap. Either take the decision making powers away from the teams as they will only ever seek to twist the rules for their own gain. A prime example of this was Christian Horner pushing cost cutting through banning wind-tunnel usage... as he has Newey instead giving Red Bull and advantage. So either remove the teams from the process completely or invite them all, so that the likes of Sauber, Lotus and Force India are allowed to fight their corner. Just because they are not as rich as the leading outfits does not mean that their opinions and ideas are less valid or important. As per the findings themselves refuelling is probably a bad idea, it will force more strategy passes in the pit lane, push costs up and risk setting people on fire. Yet, it does improve strategy options, which can make a race more interesting if not more eventful. In the years it has been banned I can't say I missed it. Faster cars and quicker lap times is always a good idea, but there is no real thought as to how these things are going to happen. In this respect the strategy group is more the group of whimsically wishful thinking - this could also be applied to the idea of aggressive cars and more noise. Maybe one day the actual issues facing the way things are might be dealt with...