Is the car overpowering the driver?

By Michael Lamonato / Expert

Sebastian Vettel has never been one to seek the limelight. He has sensible haircuts, dresses appropriately for the prevailing weather conditions, and hasn’t even once released a rap album.

But it doesn’t take a bottle of peroxide to be interesting – anyone who’s spent even a fleeting moment in the presence of the four-time champion, seen him on Top Gear, or watched as he riled up the feuding Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton throughout 2015 understands that Vettel has real character.

Combine these two distinct personality types and you have a recipe for intrigue – when Vettel talks, Formula One listens.

Because he isn’t in the business of making sure you know what he thinks (see: Jacques Villeneuve), when he does voice an opinion, it’s almost always reasoned and considered.

“I believe that primarily it should be about sport and accordingly which driver is fastest,” he mused this week on his website.

“The car currently plays a significant role, as it did in the past. However, we should not lose ourselves in complicated rules.

“The current regulations are too detail-orientated. I believe we should not lose sight of the motorsport’s roots and that in future we are able to once again identify with the cars.”

Vettel, as a self-styled student of Formula One, knows the debate over the future of Formula One is reaching a crescendo. His comments are well timed – next Saturday, February 28, the rules for 2017, for so long billed as the regulations that will frame the next generation of Formula One, must be confirmed. It’s a critical juncture.

Let’s work backwards. Are the current regulations too detail oriented? It’s certainly easy to construct an argument in the affirmative.

Whether it is the insane number of grid place penalties accrued by McLaren last season, the seldom explained usage and detection zones for the DRS, or the fact that no child will ever be able to draw a modern Formula One front wing in the back of their maths book, there are aspects of Formula One supposedly under the ‘competition and performance’ header that are difficult to understand.

Consider that next season, in addition to a new ‘ultra-soft’ tyre, teams will be able to mix and match their weekend’s tyre allocation using three different compounds. On paper it sounds like an interesting way to spice up the racing, but even Sky Sports F1’s TV heart-throb Ted Kravitz has difficulty explaining exactly how these rules will work.

Formula One has arrived in this place because it is too symptom focussed. Bandaid has been placed on top of bandaid until the original problem is hidden from view under a festering stack of medical plastic.

Here it is easy to understand Vettel’s concern that the skill of the driver is being masked by the technicalities of the sport.

But on the other hand oversimplifying Formula One would be equally dangerous. Introducing standard specification power units or customer cars risk dumbing down the sport into a WWE version of itself.

Since the turbocharged V6 hybrid power units have been introduced we have relentlessly been told by barrow-pushers how precipitously close GP2 lap times are to those set by Formula One cars – yet no-one switched over to GP2 at Formula One’s expense, despite the racing at the junior levels being insane.

GP2 is, by necessity, a watered-down version of Formula One in which all teams operate identical machinery. The driver dictates the majority of the performance while the team has an operational impact on the weekend’s results. But we do not consider GP2 to be somehow more gladiatorial than Formula One, because without an avenue for the teams to pursue performance GP2 remains only half a show.

Somewhere in between the two extremes sits the appropriate balance. Somewhere with development avenues targeted at areas that can accentuate a driver’s strengths rather than curtail them, and somewhere a bona fide team can innovate to control its own destiny.

We already know that restrictions on what and how much of the power unit can be developed will be lifted over the next 12 months, enabling the most advanced – and difficult to master – part of the car to come into its own.

Next the 2017 regulations must simplify aero regulations to a point whereby they can enhance performance without affecting a driver’s ability to race at close quarters – which in turn will allow Pirelli’s tyres to do their job more effectively without complex rules clouding the whole show.

Formula One is precariously balanced between competing performance factors. While the drivers are the centre of attention, so too must the design of the cars play a part.

Because without the prestige of the world’s best car manufacturers and racing teams genuinely battling each other in their area of expertise, Formula One’s claim to the top of the motorsport heap loses its credibility.

But Sebastian Vettel knows all this. The real question is whether Formula One’s power brokers have realised in time for next weekend.

Do you think Vettel is right when he says Formula One is too detail oriented? How would you change the Formula One regulations?

Follow @MichaelLamonato on Twitter.

The Crowd Says:

2016-02-21T23:39:21+00:00

Not convinced

Guest


For the first time in a long time I'm not even going to bother trying to watch what scraps of F1 are offered this year by Network 10. I'll follow any interesting tit-bits of information that may come out via The Roar. I'm no fan of Vettel but his comment “I believe that primarily it should be about sport and accordingly which driver is fastest,” resonates because as I've said in the past, F1 is now more about the business than the sport. Hence why it's in the situation it's in. In virtually any other sport, the opposition can do something to stem the dominance of a competitor. Whether it be a change in tactics or formation or introduce a new idea or player, but not F1.

2016-02-19T13:17:09+00:00

anon

Guest


"I’m a Hamilton fan, but I am not a Vettel or Schumi hater. I admired Schumi for winning in the Benneton (rumours notwithstanding)" I don't think you actually watched in those eras. And please, nothing about Benetton was proven, unlike Mercedes who cheated their way to victory in the Italian Grand Prix last season. Do you realise that in 1994, Ferrari and McLaren also had dormant launch control code in their systems. "ths worst I can say is that F1 was pretty boring in the Ferrari and Red Bull eras" You actually didn't watch. 2000 was one of the great seasons of all time, 2003 went to the final race and was a title fight between 3 teams. Not to mention the title went to the wire in 97, 98 and 99 as well. In Vettel's 4 seasons he won the championship, the title went to the final race twice in 10 and 12. In 2013, teams gave up on the season after the summer break to put resources towards towards 2014 despite. Up until summer break it was a close championship with Red Bull, Lotus, Mercedes and Ferrari all winning races. So clearly you didn't watch. "At least we now have some real challenge coming from Williams and Ferrari." Please. These are two of the least competitive seasons we've ever had. Even in Vettel's most dominant season (2011), other teams still managed to win 6 out of 19 races. Since 2014 we've had teams other than Mercedes have only won 6 OUT OF 38. In 2012 8 different drivers won the first 8 races of the season. Please....

2016-02-19T11:19:19+00:00

Custard Cream

Guest


I'm a Hamilton fan, but I am not a Vettel or Schumi hater. I admired Schumi for winning in the Benneton (rumours notwithstanding) - ths worst I can say is that F1 was pretty boring in the Ferrari and Red Bull eras. At least we now have some real challenge coming from Williams and Ferrari. I'm a fan of saying to the manufacturers Here's a box, your car must fit inside it, and letting them loose.

2016-02-19T05:34:34+00:00

anon

Guest


It was clear since the first day of testing in 2014 that Mercedes would romp to the championship, yet two years down the track the FIA has done NOTHING to blunt their advantage. Any time a team has had an aerodynamic related innovation in the last 10 years the FIA has been swift to outlaw it the following season. Yet, Mercedes have been allowed to maintain their engine related advantage for what will be 3 years by the end of this season. The argument that Mercedes spent a lot developing their engine is moot. How much did Red Bull spend developing their double diffuser, blown exhaust or flexible front wings? Swift regulation changes are just a part of life in F1. Hamilton fans see these three consecutive championships as some kind of warped "payback" because the hated German Vettel won 4 in a row and the even more hated Schumacher won 7 all up. They had the formula right in the V8 era with effectively homologated engines. 2006, 07, 08, 10, 12 were as exciting seasons as you'll ever watch. Even in 2013, where Vettel won every race after the summer break, was a very close, competitive season up until the summer break. But from the summer break onwards, teams other than Red Bull decided to commit resources to 2014 and gave up on 2013. This year will be as bad as 2014-15. History will judge Hamilton harshly for these 3 championships in a row. Schumacher "earned" his dominant cars by sacrificing championships in his prime by going to Ferrari after winning 2 in a row at Benetton. He only ever got a truly dominant car in 2002 and 2004, and both those cars weren't quite as dominant as the 2014 and 2015 Mercedes. The 2016 Mercedes will likely be just as dominant.

2016-02-19T04:02:00+00:00

Naveen Razik

Roar Pro


Pull back the regs, set a size, engine and shape of the car, let the teams go berserk, then pull them back as necessary with balance of performance regulations GT3 style.

2016-02-19T00:15:14+00:00

paty305

Guest


Give every team a cost cap and let them do what they want... I want to see cars that are pushed to the absolute extreme by drivers and that are as fast as possible... much like a rodeo cowboy trying to hold onto an angry bull... It could also let the major manufacturers do what they want in terms of road car developments through F1...

Read more at The Roar