Sgt Dixon of Dock Green actually said "Evening All". And as sure as I am that Hercule Poirot never uttered trois "Bonjours" in a row, I'm not too sure if any policeman real or imagined ever sternly mouthed the three-hellos greeting, rapidly followed by an open-ended question.
No matter! Formula One has delightfully gifted us the Halo, and any fan not asking "What's all this then?" Has, like sleeping beauty, been comatose in a lofty tower for too long.
So, treasured reader, what is all this?
The Halo makes this year's cars look very technical and modern, they could not have come from an earlier era. I've actually zero issue with them. If they subsequently go on to save a life, well even better! As I've previously noted it only took a few minutes of pre-season testing footage for them to blend into the background. During the races I have ceased to notice them, and yes, I have been awake for the races. When our fearless pilots pull into Parc Ferme one then sees that getting in and out is clearly more of an expert, narrow-hipped, wiggle, but nothing too taxing for your average world-class millionaire sportsman.
So please, like the HANS device before it, let the Halo fade into a non-issue, safe in the knowledge that it has the potential to save life. And any life saved is priceless.
"Move along please" (as Dixon intoned in simpler times I'm sure...)
The cars, the rules, the racing? Oh yes! I think those are at the centre of what makes us tune in race after race.
So, really, Chase, Brawn, what is all this?
We have an overtaking issue... caused by a micro-management issue. Just like governments measuring and fining us for more and more petty issues, just because you can measure it, does not mean you should measure and then enforce control of it.
Colin Chapman, and other greats before and briefly after him (Gordon Murray I'm looking at you at the back of the class, pay attention!), and still, remarkably, under the existing rules (confound them!) Adrian Newey, have all thrived on brilliant thinking framed by rules allowing room to be creative. Note, not expensive, creative. These brilliant minds generated amazing solutions to the problem of; "How do we go faster within the, ah, spirit, of the rules...?"
So with this question still vexing the engineers, Liberty has changed the theme tune, banned grid girls (expect for where they have not), and continued to serve ice-cubes on the Titanic as the good ship F1 presses on at full steam. All the while tinkering at the edges of the sport, while ignoring the highly aero-sensitive elephant in the middle of the wind tunnel.
Some years back the mighty Ferrari F40 was the last Ferrari to have a monster "rear wing" placed proudly on its hindquarters. When quizzed about this Ferrari stated two reasons. The first was, roughly: "Everyone is now doing it, so it is time for us to move on". The second was far more interesting, it ran along the lines of: "We manage the air flow over the car to not actively generate lift, but we do our best work with the aero management under the car."
So what creative wonderment does the FIA push for under-car aero management? Why, a block of wood to stop such cheeky thinking and actions! We appear to be having an aero-induced "cannot follow the leader" problem in F1, and one area where all the teams could have better control over the aero, is formally blocked, by a block of wood. This is neither high technology, nor road relevant.
Surely we can frame new aero regulations that allow the cars to follow one another, allow creative thinking to pay off, and yet do not cost crazy amounts of money.
I'd suggest the following as potentially beneficial to closer racing; First allow under-car aero management, electronic ride-height measurement is now far more possible in real-time than it was in the 1990's, the wooden plank is no longer required. Then define the front wing in terms of a maximum total surface area that can only be spread across two main elements and two end plates. Precise details left to the teams. Then allow this front wing to be adjustable under driver control. This gives control back to the driver and allows him to dial in additional downforce, or ease it back, depending on when he is following another car, or where he is on the circuit.
As with the front wing, the rear wing needs to be simplified, and the rules containing it made as open as possible. Specifying a maximum number of elements and total surface area could well be enough. I'd then bin DRS, and place the adjustment of the rear wing under driver control. Again allow them to trim the car to best effect depending on the circuit and who they are following.
Bargeboards, and turning vanes could be similarly simplified by defining a maximal number that can be deployed, and a total surface area for all such devices. This gives the teams flexibility in terms of size, number and location.
Driver adjustable aero and under-car aero management could be the perfect approaches to tune out the current extreme sensitivity of the cars to following one another. Both are also more road relevant, as top end sports cars have both, and it will cause a divergence in car design, which will naturally cause the cars to work differently on different circuits, when taking different corners, and when following one another.
Further introducing an area under direct driver control in real time introduces an area for making mistakes, and just like missing a gear in the old days of manual gear changes, setting a touch more wing than necessary, or taking a little too much off, could result in the drivers fluffing an overtake in running wide at a corner. Again helping to make races a little more unpredictable. What's not to like?
So as Dixon retires to the Dock Green station (long closed and turned into an Aldi - Ed) for a well-earned cuppa, surely over a few strong coffees, the FIA can look in the mirror, and gazing deep into its own eyes ask, "What's all this then?" And not blink before it sees the truth.
Max Noble.
Learn more about Max and check out his previous features, here
sign in