That’s the question I asked Force India chief operation officer Otmar Szafnauer, in doing so triggering the beginning of a waltz down memory lane in an attempt to identify where and why Formula One decided to take itself to the contentious space it now occupies.
Force India is Formula One’s midfield bellwether. Its history is one of waxing and waning between feast and famine with entrepreneurs and wealthy car moguls taking their seats at the table before tapping out, having satiated their lust for Formula One racing.
In 2016 it is big enough to have a credible voice in Formula One – literally, as its fifth place finish in the last two seasons have earnt it a seat on the powerful F1 strategy group two years running – but still sufficiently small to feel the financial pinch of running a low-cost team in a big-spending world. It is from a team like this that opinions are most considered given its competitiveness despite a small budget.
With the sport still toing and froing over its strategic technical direction for 2017 – yes, it is April, roughly ten months before next year’s pre-season testing will likely start – Szafnauer gives voice to the competing interests at the rule-making table.
“We’d prefer to continue down the same road,” he says in his Detroiter accent, putting forward that swingeing changes to the rules puts most pressure on small teams without the budget to cope.
“But that’s from a selfish perspective,” he hastens to add. “If we all deem a change to make the cars go faster will help the show, we can’t be selfish.”
And Formula One has indeed deemed such a change necessary. The April 30 deadline for agreement on 2017’s technical regulations will bring to life long-formulated desires for faster and more aggressive-looking cars in a bid to liven the show.
“We’re here for the fans,” Szafnauer says. “If the fans benefit from it, then that’s exactly what we’re going to be doing. We’re changing so the cars will be a bit more competitive … that is what we should be doing, even though it costs us money.”
The phrase “for the fans” is one of those oft-used lines by the sport’s authorities to justify some change or another, and though so many of these changes are bungled, this spirit of rule-making is critical.
Television viewership is down. Grand Prix circuits are falling off the calendar because hosting fees are too expensive and too few people are shelling out for a ticket. The next generations of fans aren’t being inspired by the spectacle of top tier motor racing. Why is that?
“I’m not sure,” Szafnauer admits candidly. “I do not know if that’s Formula One or if that’s what kids are about these days – we’ve got to understand that.
“The first time I went to a Formula One race I was really impressed by the braking performance of the car. I didn’t think it was going to make that first hairpin in Detroit, but they all did. That really impressed me.
“I think kids today need to be impressed that way. I think with road cars being at 700 horsepower now and having good braking performance, we need to make the cars still quicker and more impressive.
“What you need to do is have kids look and say ‘Wow, I can’t do that. These guys are special’. Once that happens, then the drivers are heroes again.
“If you go and watch basketball and look at those guys at a professional level – I can play it, but I can’t do what they’re doing. Racing is the same.”
So we arrive at the contentious matter of regulations designed to make the cars three to five seconds faster in 2017, as is the stated aim of the group writing the rule changes, through a mixture of additional downforce and bigger tyres.
When these changes were made public last year, Williams driver Felipe Massa told this writer he was less than impressed.
“For sure I prefer to drive a faster car,” he started, “but let’s say you put more downforce on every car – you’ll still have one team that did a better job than the other teams, and they’ll have a better car and still be in front. You will see less overtaking – I know how it is to drive a car with more downforce.”
The likes of world champion Lewis Hamilton, Nico Rosberg and Toto Wolff have all hit out at the rules to increase downforce since then, among others.
Szafnauer, however, remains steadfast.
“It’s definitely a step in the right direction. It’s what we should be doing,” he says firmly, refusing to entertain debate. His mind is made up – and so, it seems, are those of the three levels of rule-makers, who are expected to wave these changes through in a matter of weeks.
The issue remains as divisive as the body making the gamble, but at very least Szafnauer gives us a glimmer of hope that when the decision is finally called it will truly be with the innocent, wide-eyed fan in being in awe of the spectacle – with keeping the cars cool – in mind.
Fingers crossed, anyway.
Follow @MichaelLamonato on Twitter during the #ChineseGP weekend.
woodart
Guest
F1 cars are incredible feats of engineering but are in no way cool, drag racing blown door slammers are cool, unlimited hydro boats are cool. cars that over-power there tyres are cool. but cars that track around like ,and sound like slot cars are NOT cool and wont convert the average person into being a fan. braking distances are amazing the first few times but compared to cars that need parachutes to stop, meh. as for being five seconds a lap faster, unless you are an anorak with a stopwatch, who cares? wheelbashing sideways action with large flames on the over-run will bring back the crowds, otherwise its just an engineering contest.
rayzaau
Roar Rookie
Not certain about F1 cars but look at a picture of Andre Lotterer standing next to his Audi R18 and you will see what definitely is cool :) Only 4 more sleeps!
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Yeah, I think it's great you can hear more of the car. A colleague of mine covers Formula E and said what was most fascinating about being trackside is that you can "hear" the racetrack — you can hear the grip level changing because the cars sound different every lap. Obviously F1 is not that quiet, but reducing the wail of the old V8s has opened up all these other sounds to hear and understand. I think people have underestimated this.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Probably a little bit! But to Mercedes's credit, it's been very cooperative with calls fro rule tweaks despite having the most to lose. The last time they said they were against a change was last year when the suggestion was to add heaps more downforce — Toto Wolff said he had concerns Pirelli's current tyres wouldn't be able to handle it, which seemed a weak excuse at the time, but Pirelli later agreed and said it would need more testing to provide a tyre that would suit the cars. Mercedes earns credit for that and its general behaviour, I think
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I agree with most of these points, Tommo. I think the power units are great with or without the noise (I actually quite like the current noise because it sounds interesting and more varied). But the aero rules definitely need simplifying. I think it's telling that you say drivetrains being ridiculously complex is cool but aero isn't, and I agree — new tricky aerodynamic parts are essentially invisible to the viewer and have no practical meaning to us, but if you say that these engines are X times more efficient than a road car engine and that before long we'll see this technology in our driveways, that's relevant to anyone. Developing this sort of stuff is what being an F1 constructor should be about.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
A man after my own heart! But F1 can't sit still when the teams with power aren't winning. Hopefully they don't make too bad a mess of it all, because hope is all we really have.
Dale D
Guest
1) Noise: I'm torn between this and my desire to see raw power. Noise is wasted energy. These quiet engines are incredibly powerful. My ears have already begun to associate the sound of the V6 Turbo with raw power. You can see it too on corner exit. Plus, I like all the new things I can hear, like the "brap" when they place a wheel on a kerb, or the howl of the tires when they are at their limit, or the howling and skidding sounds under braking. 2) I agree 3) Yes 4) Not a bad idea, not essential. 5) Yes. Yes. Yes. 6) I think a good compromise would be a car width strip of natural grass between the track and the runoff. You cant put your wheel off the track anymore, but if you lose control you still have the high grip asphalt to slow through. 7) Yep. 8) They don't delay for a little rain. They delay for torrential rain, and some of the places they go now get torrential rain. I was there in Austin last year for both "a little" and "a lot" of rain. It's actually a bit surprising the conditions they do allow racing in. I mostly agree with you on all this stuff. I think they just need to leave everything alone and let an equilibrium between the teams develop. The racing will be great at that point and we won't have anything to complain over.
Dale D
Guest
F1 cars are already cool. Actually, they are nothing short of incredible. Leave the rules alone. The gap between the teams will get smaller over time, and the lap times have already been decreasing significantly since the start of the V6 era.
Tommo
Guest
7. ENCOURAGE drivers to speak their mind. A driver vs driver rivalry puts bums on seats (think Senna v Prost, Senna v Mansell, Piquet v Mansell, and of course Lauda v Hunt) Unfortunately Rosberg v Hamilton comes off poorly in comparison as two whinging overpaid gits...the closest we got recently was Vettel vs Webber, (but unfortunately that was one where Webber was fighting the battle with one hand tied behind hisback by his own team owner) 8. Rain. Stop deploying the safety car every time it rains a little. Have a look at old races. Nurburgring - Jackie Stewart lead lap one by some ridiculous margin - everyone thought there must've been a massive accident. Watkins Glen 1979 Villeneuve seconds faster than everyone else in free practice (Scheckter was second fastest, on 2m 11.029s. Villeneuve’s time: 2m 01.437s). The final race of Hunt v Lauda at Fuji. Senna in an underpowered McLaren at Donnington (which some have called the greatest opening lap ever). With the amount of runoff the circuits have these days, (see point 6) why is the safety car being deployed? I have no issue with the drivetrains being ridiculously complex and impossible to explain to someone without a degree in engineering - F1 should be the technological pinnacle. The Williams FW14 had active suspension, ABS etc and viewers loved it.
Tommo
Guest
How to make the cars cool? 1. Noise. Formula One cars should make your ears hurt as they go past. The sheer violence of the noise is cool (yes, I know it causes permanent damage, but meh) 2. get rid of stupidly complex front wings. One main element, one adjustable flap. (see Williams FW-14 for reference) 3. underbody venturi. Indycars have used these for years, because they generate downforce without producing the massive aero 'wake' of complex rear wings. Have a spec venturi shape and maintain the skid blocks for ride height. 4. Since the cars are turbocharged, get rid of the high airboxes and just have the rollover hoop. (see lotus 79, Williams FW07 etc) 5. BIG slick tyres. Mechanical grip over aero grip will make handling more important that aero (which costs $$$$$$). 6. Stop putting tarmac in the runoffs. If you 'exceed the track limits', you shouldn't be able to keep your foot down and actually gain time over your rivals, you should be skittering through freshly ploughed gravel or better still trying to bring your three wheeled canoe to a halt because the concrete wall removed your left/right front. 7. ENCOURAGE drivers to speak their mind
#JB17
Guest
I'm a Lewis Hamilton fan, but I think Mercedes is scared of losing their huge advantage, but if it makes better racing, I am all for it.