Why motorsport still has something for everybody

Autosport regularly receives comments about how the sport was better 'back in the day', although it is rather harder to pin down exactly when that was. A perusal of the correspondence pages in the magazine going back to the 1950s illustrates that this feeling has been virtually ever-present. Rose-tinted spectacles, it seems, have been around almost as long as time itself.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that motorsport has changed extensively since 1950. Some developments have been for the better, while others have certainly not brought improvement. And some changes were necessary, while others are more debatable.

Media coverage and exposure has increased dramatically and, with so much demand on drivers' time, real access to them has become harder and harder. This creates the odd situation of fans hearing from drivers a lot, but not really knowing them - the PR situation often results in the impression that there aren't characters any more, but there are: you just don't get to see them. The increasing professionalism and focus required from modern sportspeople also means some of the more 'entertaining' characteristics of past legends would not result in success today.

Safety has increased immeasurably since the 1950s. While that has created certain issues to deal with - track limits needing to be policed due to runoff areas, for example - not having drivers regularly killed or injured has to be one of the most positive developments of the past half-century.

While fields are generally more competitive, the similarity of the cars is a common contemporary complaint. It's true that restrictive regulations contribute to that, but there are several points to keep in mind.

The first is that restrictions have been needed. The main motivations have been safety and expense. A free formula now would produce cars so fast that all circuits would be unsafe and the costs to develop all the different technologies would be astronomic. With so much electronic and computing power available, the drivers would also become less important (and it's the human element that most people are interested in), and the racing would be terrible: braking distances would be so short.

But there's basic evolution at play too. A whale and a shark look similar despite the fact that one has evolved from a land animal, because that is the 'design' that works in that environment. Similarly, given enough time - and it's now 114 years since the first grand prix - designers will end up with similar, optimal answers. The size and capacity of modern Formula 1 teams contributes to this.

"I think the biggest change is the number of people involved," says world championship-winning McLaren F1 designer Mark Williams. "When I worked for [Ensign boss] Mo Nunn in 1979 there was one engineer and Mo, who ran the car, and minimal staff. It's been a continual rise since then.

"One of the reasons cars look so similar is, because there are so many people involved, it's less autocratic. In the old days one designer would have the concept for the whole car and probably nobody would question the idea" Mark Williams

"As more and more money came in you got more people because motorsport is basically an intellect race. The more you've got the better; the more practical intellect you've got the quicker you'll be.

"One of the reasons cars look so similar is, because there are so many people involved, it's less autocratic. In the old days one designer would have the concept for the whole car and probably nobody would question the idea. People ploughed their own furrow."

PLUS: Why F1 designers can't be brave

Williams proposes something radical for F1 - the only rules being an 80kg fuel allowance and the requirement for the car to fit into a certain box - but even then he believes variety would be fleeting.

"You'd have 10 or 11 different concepts and then they'd all coalesce because everyone would look at the best ideas and have them on the car," he adds.

And that's the point. However restrictive or otherwise the rules are, there will be an optimal way of doing things given the knowledge within motorsport. That knowledge is now high - we know the engine should be in the back, that a monocoque is best and that downforce is important, to name just three examples - and there are many people applying it. Things can't be unlearned, even if rules change.

The same goes for reliability, which has improved, even with tighter restrictions such as the requirement for engines to last multiple races. Given that the first Le Mans 24 Hours in 1923 was designed to improve the breed, we shouldn't be surprised that motorsport has done just that.

"Because you've got so many more people now you can have a focus on reliability and you can have people focus on particular areas," explains Williams. "It's not like in the 1970s, when one guy had to design the entire car, so you were never going to optimise everything and things were unreliable.

"Process has improved. How many F1 teams in the 1970s had an inspection department? When I was at Lola we didn't have one until the late 1980s, and it turned out that many 'design errors' were actually manufacturing problems.

"F1 teams now are manufacturing companies, many tied to OEMs. You get good business practices filtering in and there's a lot more crossover of techniques from big industry rather than it being a cottage industry."

So, we're better at motorsport now. Does that mean it's better to watch? Of course not, because fans want unpredictability and variety. Even if it means the 'right' driver sometimes loses.

The plethora of single-make categories doesn't help matters, but you can find variety in GT and touring car racing. Here, though, the unappealing aspect of balance of performance or other means to level the playing field come in.

Given the expense of motorsport, teams and manufacturers are no longer willing to spend vast sums to lose, particularly if they have a 'baked in' disadvantage with their road range. To get them interested, organisers have developed ways of giving everyone a chance. The success of the GT3 category is a prime example. It's not pure, but it provides incredible grids and some fine competition.

How good or bad these changes are depends on what people value. If variety and unpredictability are the most important things to you, then motorsport's golden age has been and gone.

But if watching drivers and engineers push the boundaries of what is possible is your thing, then now is a pretty good time to indulge in motorsport. Going faster, being better, beating your rival is what motorsport has always been about, and that remains. Fans now have more choice too.

Much-loved elements have been lost, but things have been gained too. Everyone can point to things about F1 - or any series - they'd like to see change and discussion should always continue, but simply harking back is counterproductive

If you want to see cars that sound fantastic and go sideways, there is an enormous historic-racing scene. F1 and the World Rally Championship remain the pinnacles of the sport, with the top drivers truly brilliant at what they do. Sportscar racing has some of the most impressive and innovative machines in the world, while touring cars - whether helped by contrived rules or not - regularly provide good, old-fashioned drama.

Like the rest of the world, motorsport is going through a period of change, with the rise of alternative technologies and the beginning of the end of the internal combustion engine. In the past it has helped push development along and is doing so again. Much-loved elements have been lost, but things have been gained too. Everyone can point to things about F1 - or any series - they'd like to see change and discussion should always continue, but simply harking back is counterproductive.

In that vein, Autosport aims to celebrate both the sport's history and what it is now and could be. That's what we've always been about.