Ross Brawn, Bahrain International Circuit, 2019

Why Brawn expects teams to resist F1’s “very prescriptive” plans to limit development in 2021

F1 technology

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1 Management has revealed new details of its far-reaching plans to limit car development in 2021.

Its goals are to reduce costs and improve the quality of racing by bringing the teams closer together. But F1’s managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn admits the plans are “very prescriptive” and expects “push back” from the teams over the wide-ranging new limits on development.

The new technical regulations for 2021 are still being finalised, but will involve radically restyling the cars’ exterior aerodynamic surfaces to help them run together more closely. But this is only the beginning of the new restrictions teams will face, as the FIA’s head of single-seater matters Nikolas Tombazis explained at Silverstone.

“We have a simplified fuel system with certain internal components which have to be a lot simpler than what current cars have,” Tombazis explained.

“We have by regulation simplified the radiators. This is an area of huge expenditure by some teams because (a) they are very flimsy and they have to be changed very frequently and (b) they’re extremely complicated when they’re changed. These are being simplified.”

F1 2021 India concept model
How will F1 revolutionise the racing in 2021? Its new concept car analysed
The FIA initially issued a tender for a single supplier of gearboxes. This plan was shelved in favour of “a much more frozen specification of a gearbox” which will limit “almost any performance differentiation between gearboxes between different teams.”

“By keeping certain parameters of the gearbox frozen and to a certain specification so no team has a particular advantage, therefore a lot of R&D costs get reduced annually.”

Teams will also be forced to simplify their suspension systems. “We are banning the hydraulic suspensions that some teams have and we are limiting the components of the suspension to certain, simpler mechanical components,” said Tombazis.

“For example things like inerters which don’t have anything to do with the show and are just adding complication and have no road relevance whatsoever, we don’t think such should stay in future Formula 1.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

More standard parts will be used at the four corners of the 2021 car. “We are going for standard wheel rims,” said Tombazis. “This is an area of quite a lot of expenditure as you see the complicated shapes people have in order to maximise the heat transfer between the air and wheel rims on current cars. Therefore we’re simplifying them and making them standard.

Mercedes wheel, Circuit of the Americas, 2018
Wheel rims are one of several parts which will be standardised
“We’re going to have prescribed wheel hubs, nuts and pit stop equipment to stop an escalation of a war that has been happening.

“We are going for a standard-supply brake system. That’s going to reduce the annual expenditure of teams in brakes for medium teams, not top-of-the-grid teams, to about 25 percent of the current expenditure.”

Teams will also be prevented from using expensive, unusual materials to save weight. “We’ve got a rewrite of the materials regulations in order to stop some of the exotic materials while allowing innovation in some areas.

“We want to continue the trend of modern industry towards additive manufacturing but we need to regulate that, that was missing from the current regulations.”

While this will leave the teams with less development to do, the opportunity for them to do it will also be curbed further. “We are taking actions such as reducing the aerodynamic test restrictions even more and having less time in the wind tunnel and controlling the CFD resources better.”

Taken together, Tombazis believes the rules will bring “significant” cost reductions for the teams on top of the new ‘cost cap’ financial regulations.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Further restrictions could be added to these and will be discussed before the 2021 rules are signed off in October. These include some more controversial changes, such as the restrictions on ‘driver aids’ FIA president Jean Todt proposed last weekend.

Haas VF-91 steering wheel, Circuit de Catalunya, 2019
Drivers won’t get told to make settings changes
“We’re looking to reduce certain electronics on the car and certain driver aids,” said Tombazis. “That is quite a sensitive subject of course and we are working on it to make sure we avoid any unwanted consequences.

“We want to [and] are discussing to reduce car-to-pit telemetry. We would like to ideally leave the drivers alone during a race to handle all the technical aspects of the car.

“There’ll still be, of course, radio communication with any strategy or any safety information or whatever. But it wouldn’t be the ‘your temperatures are too high’ and ‘do that’ or ‘do this’, that would be something that we would prefer the onboard system of the car and the driver to have full responsibility of and not have that continuous assistance by the engineer and pit wall.” A reduction in the number of staff teams may bring to race weekends is on the agenda too.

The race weekend format is also being debated. “That’s a discussion that is heating up and getting quite interesting,” Tombazis admitted. Todt last week suggested reintroducing refuelling as a means of fulfilling the drivers’ call for a reduction in car weight.

Still further limitations on the design of the cars are under consideration. “We are looking at some further standard components and whether there’s going to be cost benefits for certain such components,” said Tombazis.

“We are simplifying the lower part of the chassis and we want to make sure we have structures under the chassis that protect the chassis from kerbs and damage. It’s also an area which is quite difficult to regulate for the permitted deflection, so we are working on that area.”

No area of car development will be left untouched by the new rules package. Brawn admits that while the goals of the changes are backed by the teams, the means of achieving them is likely to prove divisive. “We’re being very prescriptive to begin with because if we’re not we won’t achieve the objectives,” he said.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

However he described claims the rules will make all the cars look the same as “nonsense”. Brawn cited the example of a recent exercise performed by F1 chief technical officer Pat Symonds, who created images of the current cars with their liveries removed and challenged people to identify them.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Red Bull Ring, 2019
Current cars are largely indistinguishable, says Brawn
“You can’t tell the difference between the cars we have now once the colours are taken off them,” said Brawn. “You need to be an extreme geek to pick them out.”

He believes teams will be able to produce distinctive designs in 2021 to the same extent they can today, but the scale of performance difference between the teams will be reduced.

“We know that even with these very prescriptive regulations the fertile minds of Formula 1 will come up with different solutions. They will be very prescriptive because we have to make sure we achieve these objectives. But there is enough latitude there.

“Undoubtedly from the relative freedom teams have had so far it’s going to be frustrating. But if they can take the approach that these regulations are the same for everyone and ‘we’re going to do a better job than anyone else, we just won’t be two second faster, we’ll be two tenths faster’, that’s what we want in Formula 1.”

F1 technology

Browse all F1 technology articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

58 comments on “Why Brawn expects teams to resist F1’s “very prescriptive” plans to limit development in 2021”

  1. Less wind tunnel and CFD testing might be good for cost but there is a big risk on the performance side.

    Will all teams run the same models to get their results? Otherwise the risk is that some teams have much better correlation factors than the others and with limited testing, it will be hard to bridge the gap. It increases the likelihood that if a team get it right the first time, they might have a leading advantage over the concurrence…

    1. This is down to the engineering abilities of the team to sort out. If their correlations between CFD and IRL/Wind Tunnel data doesn’t work for them (which is largely a mathematical exercise) and then they can’t work out how to compensate for the differences, that is on them, and I don’t see an issue with the situation you describe. Should one team (let’s say Alfa Romeo) work it out on first go, and Mercedes/Ferrari cannot, given that this is supposed to be a “Sport” I don’t see any problem with a smaller team coming out in Melbourne with the fastest car. The monopoly of status-quo does need to be stopped, and if this isn’t the way, and someone like Ross (who knows all too well how to work around a set of rules for performance) can’t make it happen, then it really won’t ever happen.
      Cost capping has been talked about semi-seriously for longer than I can remember, but nothing that actually works has ever been implemented without a whole load of toys being thrown from very expensive prams. Its about time we leveled the playing field. In almost every other sport in the world, it is possible, with talent and skill, to rise to the top, but F1 has a higher ratio of money to skill required than almost any other form of racing or sport at all…. this has to change if it is to survive another 50 years as the pinnacle

      1. @graigchq And if it is Mercedes who come up with a massively faster car out of the box and the other teams are unable to catch up due to the development restrictions (as with the introduction of the Turbo Hybrid PUs)?

        1. THIS! All this restriction nonsense just ensures those w/ an advantage keep it.

        2. Well, @asanator, since there will be far less areas where an advantage can be found, and less scope to do so within most of these areas, the risk of that happening (and why would it be Mercedes? It could be Red Bull, or hey, maybe McLaren finally builds that “best chassis”) is far smaller. And as Brawn mentions, the differenc is unlikely to be seconds, rather tenths of seconds – i.e. numbers that can be overcome with better execution, better drivers, and teamwork.

      2. I for one don’t want to see all the innovation disappear and I sure as heck don’t wantF1 to “be like every other sport in the world”. Let fans who want to watch spec racing watch any number of other series. Glad to see ground effects aero coming for following. Bring active aero too. Sounds like they want it too prescriptive.

  2. Too bad these catastrophically bad engines will stay 2021 onwards. Massive weight increase, massive cost increase, massive political issues, awful sound, focus on fuel saving instead of performance, 2 tier f1, total mercedes domination, massive reliance on downforce to get back the lap time lost to overweight cars. Tire manufacturer struggling to build tires to impossible combination of heavy cars and high downforce. Not one single good thing has come out of these engine rules and yet these engines are the most ironclad part of the new ruleset only because the sport cares more about what the mercedes and ferrari executives want and not what everybody else want. Want to take 100kg of weight out from the cars without losing any lap time? Cost reduction of 90%. No more political gaming about how the big teams divide and conquer the midfielders with engine contracts. Race engines that sound like race engines. More engine manufacturers each with much shorter time from entry to possible race wins. Literally put any other kind of power unit into the cars and get all those benefits and more. Yet they go with these rules even if the entities who want these rules the most have not even confirmed their entry 2021 onwards…

    1. Nonsense.
      These engines are marvelous!

      1. No, really. Best engines ever. It is not a sarcasm.

        That is the only thing I am excited about for 2021 – these awesome engines.

        1. @dallein yeah no kidding. Engines are a marvel.

          Nothing else comes close no other internal combustion engine delivers 50%+ thermal efficiency.

          The one thing I wish to see in all road cars today. These engines.

          1. The current engines are a marvel and more needs to be done to tell the world about them. There is a great, positive message to get out there and a wonderful new potential audience if done correctly.

            By way of example, on Friday I watched some of FP1 and FP2 on the TV in my office canteen and a few people from our Energy team, who are very into ZEV and battery tech at the moment, came in and asked me some questions about F1. They had no idea the cars are hybrids and have been in some form since 2009. They had no idea F1 teams are working with FE on their battery tech. They had no idea how small and thermally efficient modern F1 engines are. They had no idea how little fuel they use to complete a race.

          2. no other internal combustion engine delivers 50%+ thermal efficiency

            @jureo – I don’t know if F1 has just done a poor job of marketing the marvels that these engines are, or if people just don’t care beyond the “vroom vroom” sounds. Andrew Shovlin (I think) made a great statement for the MGU-H, and that’s the kind of stuff we don’t hear enough of.

          3. @geemac – dang, beat me to it by a minute!

    2. try running 240Kph average for 90 minutes on 100Kg fuel in ANY OTHER CAR… it isn’t possible… these engines will save the internal combustion engine from complete dissolution, sadly Naturally Aspirated V8/V10/V12, are dead.. performance isn’t anywhere near the torque and power figures that we get nowadays.
      All other forms of motorsport are the same. Indycar’s engines sound like Honda Civics, yet Indycar is at its very best right now and shows no signs of stopping.
      The last two races show that we still love F1 and we still appreciate the fight, and when the right racers in the right cars all share the same bit of racetrack, it DOESN’T MATTER what they sound like, it is EPIC!

      I would advise going to historic meets, hillclimbs, local car shows… those older cars with older technology and obsolete technology are all there to be seen, and will never disappear completely, for the bleeding edge, we have F1… and that wheel will never stop turning

      1. Indycar’s engines sound like Honda Civics

        You need to show me which Honda Civics these are, because if they are for sale I would like one.

        1. A Honda B16 when VTEC kicks in sounds far more baddass than current Indy engines. All modern engines sound somewhat boring. Bring a Mazda rotary to the F1 safety car just for fun :)

        2. I owned a Honda Civic 1.5S in the late 80s and it was a marvelous car to drive. Solid, fast, nimble. And it never broke down.

          1. I owned a 2009 1.8 Honda Civic…it was great but it did not sound like an IndyCar.

          2. I crashed a mid 90s one, it sounded much the same as any other sliding along on its side towards the railway cutting at 60 ish, never liked it though. Slow ABS did not unlock after it hit a pebble, thus lost steering, missed bridge. Engine sounded like a Honda shopping cart, totally un-noticeable.

        3. @geemac, check out the new lotus evora GT410 @ Harry’s garage on youtube (ok it’s a toyota motor not honda) and start saving your pennies.

      2. Fuel saving is boring and it makes the racing boring. There is always some level of fuel saving in racing but it has never been this extreme and bad before.

        1. @socksolid, so, you claim that “There is always some level of fuel saving in racing but it has never been this extreme and bad before.”

          You have had a habit of making those sorts of claims before, but then refuse to provide your evidence – so, why don’t you then provide us with a breakdown of the fuel consumption rates of the cars from 1950 to today and a detailed breakdown of the fuel saving in the past to provide clear and unambiguous proof of your bold assertion?

      3. performance isn’t anywhere near the torque and power figures that we get nowadays.

        You don’t even know what power and torque means when we talk about race engines. If one car has engine that revs higher and has less torque than other then that doesn’t tell us anything about which is better. Power is the rate at which you can do work. When we talk about torque we have a very simple equation where power = torque * rpm basically. So when a v10 engine does work it outputs about the same amount of power at lower torque and higher rpm compared to hybrids.

        But torque alone doesn’t mean anything. You can take a steam engine that makes 2000Nm of torque at 1200rpm which means its power is 337 horsepower. Or take an f1 v10 engine. 930hp at 19200rpm which gives 345Nm of torque. Comparing torque numbers directly is just plain ignorance. Naturally aspirated engine makes its power at high rpm which emphasizes the rpm value in that equation I showed before. Turbo engines make torque at lower rpm which emphasizes the torque part of that equation. What makes the cars go fast is the combination of those two. Not just one of the values. Of course with steam engines and v10s the driver controls where and when the full power is used. With hybrids the computer is in control. The teams define where and when the electric power is used and the computer then gives to the driver in those places.

        It doesn’t take rocket scientist to understand that hybrid engines suck when you are getting 900hp out of hybrid engine which weighs 200kg compared to getting 900hp out of engine that weighs 100kg. All that stuff that you are going to say next about drivability and wider torque bands don’t mean anything either when you have 7 or 8 gears in a seamless shift gearbox. You don’t get anything from having a wider torque band when you can change to a gear that always puts you into the sweet spot in the engine rpm range. A gearbox after all is torque multiplier. Power that goes in = power that comes out pretty much but torque and rpm can change. You can put 2000Nm of torque in at 1200rpm and get torque of 10000Nm at 240rpm. At 240kph f1 rear tires turn at 1900rpm so if the engine power is the same then the output torque at the rear wheels is also the same. No ifs or buts.

        1. Lolol, well you certainly deserve last word with that rant lol

    3. @socksolid LOL. Again, the PUs aren’t the sole contributor to the current minimum overall weight. Yes, the minimum overall weight increased from 642 to 691 kg from 2013 to ’14, but other things have increased it even more since then.

      1. It was 95% the engine. Because the engines weighed so much there was no weight left for ballast either. Before the hybrids the teams had considerable amount of extra weight that needed to be added to the car so they had ballast to adjust the weight distribution in the car. First this ballast was eaten away by the kers and then completely swallowed by the hybrid engines. After the hybrids the teams could not even get the cars to the minimum weight anymore. Compared to v8 the hybrid engines are about 80kg heavier minimum.

        Racecar engineering 2013 engines special issue, page 11. Direct quote:
        ” ‘From that stage, one of the key areas we needed to investigate was the packaging of the power unit. The current V8 is 95kg, or 100kg if you add the weight of the MGU. This increases to 120kg when you include the ancillary parts, such as the radiators and other cooling devices. With the 2014 power unit, the V6 turbocharged engine will be a minimum of 145kg, plus 35kg for the battery.

        At 180kg, this is a 80 per cent increase over the current units, plus a further 20kg for the ancillaries such as the intercooler and other radiators.’ The additional weight is partly compensated for by an increase in the minimum weight of the overall vehicle to 685kg“”.

        1. The FIA mandated a lot of weight into the engines as well though, by cutting down on lightweight (but more expensive) material.

          1. @bascb, bear in mind that his source is a six year old article that Racecar Engineering now no longer quotes itself because it was based on a misinterpretation of the draft regulations – and you can tell that because a number of the figures that were being quoted by Racecar Engineering are actually wrong when you look at the final published regulations.

    4. If they are going to keep the current engines, they at least need to stop running the old ones. I hate being reminded what an F1 car is supposed to sound like every time they fire up the 2-seater or an old car!

    5. @socksolid I agree completely mate, I really do. Heavy, boring, quiet, economy, efficiency, reliability, and incredibly expensive. I can just drive my own road car to get all that (except the expensive part).

      Also I can’t help but think F1 is too advanced for its own good. Simulations, computer design, 1000s of engineers reading thousands of live sensors, 4 hours of practice each weekend. It ensures the running order is decided before the cars even start qualifying.

  3. “You can’t tell the difference between the cars we have now once the colours are taken off them,” said Brawn. “You need to be an extreme geek to pick them out.”

    Would be fun to test our geekiness. Time for a quiz, Racefans.net?
    One minute time limit should suffice to identify all of them.

    1. The noses would make it easy. Other body parts might be harder to varying degrees.

      Mercedes have a circular area at the centre of the nose that carries the three-pointed star.
      Red Bull have a tic-tac shaped duct/patched up.
      Vettel’s Ferrari will have nose damage from a rear ending.
      etc…

      1. @phylyp
        Vettel’s Ferrari will have nose damage from a rear ending.

        You bugger, I spat my beer. Rofl

      2. @phylyp that is the point though,you (and most on this site myself included) are one of the few geeks he was talking about.

    2. There was exactly this, a quiz to identify the cars by their bodywork/outline only on the official F1 fans website recently. I got 6/10 I think it was which surprised me.

      It was easier to identify the cars that are more regularly in the limelight in races e.g. Merc and Ferrari.

  4. “You can’t tell the difference between the cars we have now once the colours are taken off them,” said Brawn. “You need to be an extreme geek to pick them out.”

    Any chance you could run this test here @keithcollantine?

    1. that’s a great idea! +1

    2. I did this test quite recently, I wonder where if it was not on this site.

      1. @mosquito I think F1 Fan Voice did one but they didn’t black the cars out very well.

  5. Paul (@frankjaeger)
    17th July 2019, 9:43

    Most of this sounds great. Along with the ground-effect aero plans that were revealed recently, it seems it will level up the field, in racing terms anyway. It seems it will be more attractive to manufacturers entering the sport since they won’t have to sort out as much and play catch up.

    One thing I worry about though is the car designs. I fear we won’t get the radical designs we saw back in the late 00s. Is it possible for the regs to dictate simpler designs but with more freedom? or is that an oxymoron?

  6. That’s going to reduce the annual expenditure of teams in brakes for medium teams, not top-of-the-grid teams, to about 25 percent of the current expenditure.

    Everyone knows money buys performance, so letting some teams spend more on their brakes than other teams means those that can spend more will have a performance advantage over those that don’t.
    The first step in equalising performance is to get rid of special bonuses and to put that money into the “purse” used to pay all the teams as per the current Column 1 and Column 2 payouts. If a team wants to spend more or less of their equitably received income on brakes then isn’t that their business?

    But it wouldn’t be the ‘your temperatures are too high’ and ‘do that’ or ‘do this’, that would be something that we would prefer the onboard system of the car and the driver to have full responsibility of …

    I disagree with this notion that teams can’t tell drivers “this stuff” but not “that stuff”. How does a rule know what information is important and what’s trivial? Context is what makes a message important or trivial. Driving down the main straight with no one around is quite different from a driver defending their position going into a braking zone. And which “temperatures are too high”? Engine temperature, tyre temperatures, gearbox temperature, fuel temperature, battery temperature?
    As far as I can tell the use of the RT isn’t broken, so it doesn’t need fixing.

    1. @drycrust, there are also indications that the standardisation of the design of the brakes is expected to add at least 10kg onto the weight of the brake systems – so, for all the FIA’s talk about trying to make the cars lighter, the side effect of their standardisation programme is expected to increase the weight of a number of components, having the very opposite effect of what they publicly claim they want to do.

      1. Thanks for the update. Yes, that does sound plausible. I guess my feeling is those that run F1 should do their job first, which is to provide a fair and equitable racing series, and fundamental to that is how you divvy out the profits from the TV rights. The job of a team is to turn up with the best car they can at the start of the season.
        Yes, there’s a place for standardisation, but either it is everyone gets the standard parts or everyone is free to choose.

  7. @phylyp

    People do not care, as you eluded. When you are wasting petrol you want maximum enjoyment out of it not maximum power.

    When you want to win races you want maximum power.

    But back to F1 point, engines are amazing, technically they are far superior to anything else. 1000 hp when needed, at 33l/100km while racing. Our daily commuter car churns up 14l/100km when driving flat out at highway speed only producing about 125 hp.

    No road car is close to F1 efficient, despite more aerodynamic shape, ‘ECO’ tires, etc.

  8. “We want to [and] are discussing to reduce car-to-pit telemetry. We would like to ideally leave the drivers alone during a race to handle all the technical aspects of the car.
    “There’ll still be, of course, radio communication with any strategy or any safety information or whatever. But it wouldn’t be the ‘your temperatures are too high’ and ‘do that’ or ‘do this’, that would be something that we would prefer the onboard system of the car and the driver to have full responsibility of and not have that continuous assistance by the engineer and pit wall.”
    – Isn’t this what more or less was the case from the 2014 Singapore GP to the 2016 Hungarian GP, though. Nico Rosberg and Jenson Button even received a penalty for each for breaching these restrictions that were in place at the time although the latter case was questionable since it indeed was about a safety issue, and yet he still got a drive-through penalty for it in the 2016 edition of the Hungarian GP.

    “You need to be an extreme geek to pick them out.”
    – Well, it’d be interesting to test out my geekiness again after having once done a test somewhere earlier this year where I had to choose the right team for an image of an entirely blanked car/background combination and got most of them right.

  9. And because they’re engineering staff and decision makers are better than everyone else’s , when the season starts we’re going to have Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes out front with everyone else trailing by a significant margin. If the rules don’t contain a mechanism for the trailing teams to close the gap (more test days, more track time on Fridays, etc), we’re going to have the same thing that we have now.

    1. their engineering…

  10. As a general comment I think these proposals all sound quite positive. They do need to look at the weight of the cars as well though.

    We shall see how many of these proposals are actually agreed once the teams have had their input.

  11. It would be nice if any of this cost saving got passed on to the viewers so that it was actually affordable to watch legally

    1. It would be nice if any of this cost saving got passed on to the viewers so that it was actually affordable to watch legally

      I think the F1TV Pro product is pretty decently priced, or are you talking about a traditional TV sub required for viewing?

      1. Well it’s not available in the UK and even if it was, it’s still priced about the same as a Netflix subscription which isn’t good value for something only I watch for 60 hours a year Vs Netflix which my entire family use for hundreds of hours a year

  12. I am hardly surprised to see all kind of standardisation initiatives, apart from anything on the power unit side. How is any non-engine producing team going to make the difference if development is only limited on the Aero side and not on the power unit side?

    1. By making their own.

  13. “Why Brawn expects teams to resist F1’s “very prescriptive” plans to limit development in 2021” and the reason he will do exactly as they say will shock you.

  14. Excited to see how these changes end up playing out for 2021!

    We want to [and] are discussing to reduce car-to-pit telemetry. We would like to ideally leave the drivers alone during a race to handle all the technical aspects of the car

    Hoping we don’t fall back into this routine though. Does anyone else remember how frustrating and silly it was to have drivers playing the “what can I not say over the radio” game with their engineers before this rule was repealed a few years ago? I think frantic instruction over team radio totally adds to the spectacle. The problem is when the pitwall can remotely alter things on the car – thats what they need to be careful about. But visible realtime telemetry is part of the technological advancement and shouldn’t be artificially constrained. At least provide the info directly to the driver via some sort of HUD if you don’t want to transmit it back to the pits.

  15. I’m sorry, but isn’t a budget cap supposed to restrict the amount spent on development?

    If it doesn’t Ross, then it’s not low enough.

    Surely the should be able to spend time, effort and money on pursuing better, more efficient components that give them a competitive advantage, providing that they risk falling behind if they get it wrong.

    F1 has always been about building a better mousetrap. What Ross is describing is sounding too close to a spec series for my comfort.

  16. What I am hearing about the 2021 Technical Regulations sounds good to me, in general. I really thought Liberty Media and the FIA were going to totally wimp out and let the future of F1 be dictated by the dominant teams with the biggest budgets. Maybe someone has grown a backbone over the last few months. F1 have already knuckled under sufficiently on the money side of things, so let’s hope they stand firm on the technical side and don’t give it all away over the next coupe of months. Liberty should treat the sport as if they own it because they do. You may have to make certain concessions, but you can’t allow the dominant teams to design your business plan for their own benefit.

Comments are closed.