28/01/2016
FEATURE BY MAX NOBLE
Ben Hur gave us a race to remember. It had overtaking, cheating, near-death experiences for all competitors, and a frothing at the mouth, blood hungry audience to cheer on the valiant charioteers.
Now while we did not have fan interviews after the race, it's a fair bet this (fictional) crowd ambled home discussing the actual events of the afternoon, rather than the legal size of the axles, the minimum weight of a chariot or the questionable use of "advanced hay" as horse food to power past the opposition. Yes what actually transpired within the race would have been the major topic of excitement and discussion.
Schumacher rolling into Hill's path in Adelaide might not have been the most sporting of moves (or accidents) but here we are many years later and this actual on track, in the race, incident can still be recalled and discussed with animation and fervour by fans around the world.
The precise car defining rules of that year escape me without going to a formal reference, with the exception of the engine, which was loud and frightening as it should be, and the wheels which were clearly wide and grippy, also just as it should be.
So since Ben Hur got it so right, a tradition of racing spanning thousands of years as it were, when did the rule makers go so wrong? Now it seems that we all forget the action from the past season (Lewis won nearly every race, all Tilke-penned corners look the bloody same, only fortnightly variations to anticipate being the totally illogical choice of podium interviewer), while obsessing over rules, and their agreed interpretation.
Pre-season excitement? Is Haas following the rules on being supplied by Ferrari, and how we count wind tunnel hours, or are they being naughty? Not for us the romantic-period excitement of a dawn duel as now captured by the America's Cup... where the current cup holder throws down the gauntlet by framing the entire match as "Meet me at this stretch of water at dawn with a bloody big boat and we will see who is master of the waves matey!" No arguing about who is exceeding what salary cap while using one too many super computers.
So how do we return to the path of virtue and enlightenment whereby we go back to focusing on the racing action?
Without question, simplification, and handing the role of policing the whole endeavour back to the not-for-discussion laws artfully drawn by Miss Physics.
Miss Physics has a strong no nonsense policy for providing precisely the same bounding laws to all who care to reside in this Universe. No exceptions, no cheating, no platinum frequent flyer promotion to the head of the queue. Not even take it or leave it. While she is demure and polite, Miss Physics does not take ‘no’ from anyone when it comes to compliance with her laws. She can be somewhat obsessive in her even-handedness one might say. And she is beyond corruption. One can walk or run up to the edge of one of her laws. One can bounce harshly off one of her laws. Yet one can never break one of her laws.
Sounds like the perfect police enforcement agency to me. So how do the FIA and Formula One get Miss Physics on the pay roll? Well it is amazingly simple. She asks for no remuneration, she works 24/7 without argument, and she never asks for holidays. All she asks is that you clearly recognise where she has drawn the line and behave accordingly.
Easy, right?
Well apparently not. We humans are oh so capable of complicating every aspect of life in this universe. The more of us involved, the more perceived power - remember it ultimately resides with quiet Miss Physics, regardless of how hard you try to make yourself the centre of your own little universe - and especially the more money - of no interest to Miss Physics remember - then we get in our own way and over complicate our journey into our next grand mess. The FIA and those involved in running Formula One are especially good at placing themselves at the centre of their own contrived universes, and then thinking they make the rules and are God over their special creation.
So step one in our rework of the rules is to get out of our own way. Or rather get all the vested interests of all the little pretend Gods out of the way.
Next we need to have a serious heart-to-heart with Miss Physics. Which of her lovingly crafted laws do we want to most clearly apply to our modest chariot race?
I put at number one on the list, safety. First for the drivers, then team members, and then all those at the track. Deformable crash structures, geometric compatibility between cars, and no nasty sharp bits, or unintentionally detachable high speed missiles, would appear to top our necessary rule list.
So crash tests and survival cells need the simplest defining words we can craft. Then we need to define maximum and minimum mass of the car, driver, and fuel trinity. Ah fuel. I recommend we say no to nuclear, and anything truly toxic in the event of an accident. Beyond that... Go on, be creative!
Now we need to define a three dimensional shape within which it must all fit, and the points of geometric compatibility we want to ensure trackside safety measures are effective, and that inter-vehicle crashes give each driver involved maximal protection.
Next we need a refuelling rule, and tyres rulings... Or do we? Surely encouraging the mix between multiple sprints on super soft tyres, compared to slow and steady as she goes with no pit stops is the sort of complex strategic trade-off we want to see teams sweating over during a race?
This is one area I think the FIA are actually pushing in the right direction. Allow Pirelli to develop a suite of tyres and the teams can specify in advance two types per race from a range all the way from super, super soft, right up to tough beasts with a chance of just about making a race distance. Now go figure. If it rains all teams have a standard issue intermediate and full wet, but can still only use the two dry tyres they have selected.
Having opened out the possibilities on pit stops (or not), tyre changes (or not) and refuelling (or not), would we need to address further aero issues outside of the weight limits and the 3D size limit?
My thinking is no. If you are going to try and sprint through the field you have to have a design that supports overtaking. If you are going for a steady as she goes approach you need to be able to run a consistent pace with minimal tyre degradation. So with this design freedom you should end up with differing designs, each uniquely addressing the "I cannot overtake" issue.
Or will you? Given the same set of corners on the same day, Miss Physics will be presenting our teams with the same physical limits on cornering. My hope is that a ground-effect medium-speed cruiser would be more fuel hungry trying to punch a hole in the air than a straight line screamer that (comparatively) tip-toes around corners. So the design freedom would return us to a situation whereby different cars possess different strengths, meaning overtaking points would be different for the different racers around a given circuit.
In the 1960's and 1970's the wit and skill of the driver was still ahead of the technical brilliance of the car. Since then, engineering brilliance of the car has moved beyond human capability to control it. We used to see cars dancing on the edge, because the limit imposed by Miss Physics was so very high, and the potential of the cars low enough for the drivers to be ahead of the game. Now the engineers can provide cars that only Miss Physics can tame, with the poor drivers simply too slow to react.
Consequently, more and more money is spent on smaller and smaller refinements within rules specifically designed to slow the cars down. So do we limit ride height (the plank), aero-grip (the wings), or raw power (the 'engine' or hybrid power train)?
My recommendation would be to redesign tracks to be a significant challenge at a level human reaction times were of superior importance to the core engineering of the car. Flat-out through Eau Rouge used to be a significant challenge as the cars could not cope, and the driver made the difference. Now most of the cars are flat-out through Eau Rouge with driver input an uninteresting second. So make the tracks such that running off track will see you lose significant time, or retire from the race (without injury thank you), and that corners are designed such that the cars simply will not go around them without significant driver input.
I personally love Monaco because the driver can make a real difference. Yes, overtaking is awkward, but this is one of the few races of the year where the grid can be a real mix-up because good drivers can move up the grid ‘out of position’. By which we mean skill has over taken engineering for a change. So track re-design has a part to play.
Then money. This is a significant issue, good, bad, and really horrid, within Formula One. Can a cheap long-distance runner, beat a high-speed high-cost sprinter over a race distance? As a rule the better financed team generally wins in any sport. Football (any code), any Olympic sport, the vast majority of motorsport categories. The universal rule (pun intended) sadly uniting these sports is those with the gold coin take the gold medals. All one can do is even the playing field enough to give the gifted, cash-poor, player a chance at a win. To attract the dollars to make winning a habit.
I'd love to see the FIA controlling computer resources for the engineering departments. All teams allowed the same computing power and processor time for their problems. That way it would be the speed and quality of the team's thinking that made a difference. Same with wind tunnels. Allow everyone access for the same number of hours in the same set of standardised wind tunnels. Then your smart poor teams will show an advantage in making better use of the wind tunnel.
Finally, testing. We need significantly more on-track testing so ideas can be tested, and drivers given a chance to shine in the real world. Formula One is strangling its own up and coming drivers by never giving them a chance to drive. The top teams have addressed the lack of testing by spending their huge former test dollars on mighty simulators. Well that was a real win for the fans and drivers. Not one budget was reduced as a result of the testing ban. Simply spent elsewhere by those who had it.
So! Stop trying to limit budgets, and rather supply the raw materials (computing, wind tunnels, track days) that level the playing field regardless of budget - well once one is past a certain minimum, but budget award is the subject for another article.
So! Let us remove the humans from the loop, and place Miss Physics back in charge of limiting cars by design. Then let us supply an even playing field of development tools, tyres, and re-profiled tracks. Then maybe, just maybe, the racing would be amazing, and the best driver would win.
Just ask Ben Hur, and it could be that soon our newly defined chariots are delivering epic battles that will once more pass into legend.
Learn more about Max and check out his previous features, here