Cost, Safety and The Show. If you want to get anything changed in F1, these are the three criteria you’ve got to satisfy.
So how do our ideas for making F1 better measure up?
Ordinarily I avoid using the phrase ‘Improving the show’ but I use it here to make a point: however much the powers-that-be in F1 talk about improving the show, the reality is they can’t do it by compromising costs and safety.
F1 has been preoccupied with cuttings costs for years. But the onset of the credit crunch inspired a new urgency in efforts to make F1 cheaper as the teams faced dwindling sponsorship revenues – which the blank bodywork on the Sauber and HRT cars makes painfully clear.
If costs get out of hand teams will drop out, leaving F1 races with dwindling grids.
Formula 1 has gone 16 years without a driver fatality and it’s nine years since the last death due to an F1 race.
But it will not prevent further fatal accidents by resting on its laurels – and the governing body understands that. Felipe Massa’s escape from a shocking accident at the Hungaroring last year was thanks to recently introduced advances in crash helmet safety.
But what about…
There are other important factors – but none as decisive as these three.
For example, there is a growing recognition of F1’s need to support the car industry in its efforts to reduce emissions and waste. But the teams’ collective decision to abandon KERS this year to save money shows that other priorities – containing costs – trumps that need.
What the 3D problem tells us
There’s been a lot of criticism of the number of small changes made to the F1 rules each year. This season we’ve had a new points system and a rule forcing drivers who qualify within the top ten to start the race on the same tyres they qualified on.
These can be seen as attempts to solve one part of the three-dimensional problem – improving the show – while not making the other two problems worse.
But even if these changes have helped in some small way I doubt anyone would say they’ve cracked the problem of improving the quality of racing in F1.
I suspect real progress will only be made when someone makes the call to sacrifice one of the three parts to improve the other. But that will not be an easy decision to make.
Can F1 afford to give track designers more freedom to create exciting circuits, with faster corners and less run-off, and improve the show – potentially at the expense of safety? Sebastien Buemi and Natacha Gachnang’s accidents two weekends ago are powerful arguments against relaxing safety standards at F1 tracks.
Over to you
We’ve all got ideas for how we would make F1 better – hundreds of them have been shared here in this series the past few days.
But are they all realistic? Can they pass the three-dimensional test? Pick an idea that you think would make F1 better and see if it does.
Are there any changes F1 can make that would improve the show without pushing up costs or risking safety? Are there some changes that are so important that accepting compromises on costs or safety are necessary? Have your say in the comments.ta
This article is part of “Making F1 better”, a series of articles looking at ways to improve Formula 1. Fore more information see the introduction: Making F1 better: a discussion series
Making F1 better
- Bowyer says NASCAR should race COTA before Rovals
- A brilliant race in Turkey shows F1 is on the right track (Making F1 better)
- Making F1 better: series round-up
- Addicted to aero (Making F1 better)
- Improving F1 means solving a three-dimensional problem (Making F1 better)
- What should F1 be? (Making F1 better)
- When was F1 at its best? The rose-tinted spectacles problem (Making F1 better)
- Making F1 better: a discussion series