The 'utter stupidity' that leaves F1 flawed

For 2018 Pirelli is extending its range of dry compounds from five to seven, and the hope, as Christian Horner has said, is that this will enable the company to pick the right range of tyres for each grand prix. This, he added, should provide exciting races, with at least two stops, and sometimes maybe three: "I think that going softer into the range can only create better racing and fewer one-stop races, which are the worst scenario."

Well, we'll see. Horner speaks of 'better racing', but while more stops may indeed lead to more order changes, that's not the same thing as cars passing each other on the track. It will be remembered that refuelling was reintroduced for no reason other than to disguise the lack of overtaking, but if that, happily, was done away with, tyre stops remain.

Having grown up in racing at a time when planned pitstops were not the norm, I've always been equivocal about them. They may provide entertainment for the TV audience, and for spectators who have sight of the pitlane, but for those watching elsewhere on the circuit they serve only to confuse.

Back in 2005, you may remember, Max Mosley's FIA suddenly decreed that tyre changes were banned, and if the motive for that decision was unclear, undeniably it had its up side. Michelin and Bridgestone duly built tyres capable of running 200 miles, but driver discipline also had a role to play - if you hammered your tyres in the early part of a race, you were in trouble in the latter stages. One consequence of this was that - unbelievably - in the late laps there was overtaking at Monaco!

Personally, I thought the 'no tyre changes' idea worked well, but Michelin - apart from the major glitch at Indianapolis, where all its teams had to withdraw, following failures in practice - did a much better job than Bridgestone, whose leading team, Ferrari, was suddenly nowhere after years of domination. That being so, no-one was too surprised when, after a single season, the rule was revoked, and for 2006 tyre changes - together with Ferrari competitiveness - returned.

It was around this time that Bernie Ecclestone murmured to me that tyre wars - traditionally an intrinsic feature of grand prix racing - had to go: "I want to see a 'one manufacturer' rule - and I think if we don't do it, we're going to be in plenty of trouble."

The need for this, Ecclestone argued, was based on cost. Testing, other than pre-season, is effectively banned nowadays, but back then was a non-stop activity, much of it devoted to tyres. "We've got to reduce the necessity for so much testing," said Bernie. "Most of the teams test constantly, and that takes a big chunk out of their budgets. I don't think it's sustainable."

"Cars ended up more than two seconds a lap faster than before but with half as many overtakes! The rulemakers got it wrong, and continue to do so" Martin Brundle on F1's technical regulations

In the Formula 1 of those 'pre-credit crunch' days, the financial brakes were indeed off. Major sponsors abounded, and there were no limits on the number of engines, gearboxes, whatever, a driver could use in a season. Much changed as a consequence of the financial meltdown in 2008, but such as Mercedes and Ferrari have long been back to 'bottomless pit' spending, much of it these days going on things like making three engines last for 21 races. An unfathomable amount, too, is given over to constant 'aero' development, not least to the huge, unsightly, front wings.

For the last 10 years or so, Martin Brundle and I have met for lunch to talk over the events of the season just past, and if most of several hours is given over to drivers and teams - the subject of a story to appear shortly in Autosport - we also fall inevitably to discussing 'the state of the nation' in Formula 1.

"In 2017," Brundle said, "aero was increased, together with tyre sizes, and - except at some circuits, like Monza, where increased drag was a big factor - we ended up 2.45 seconds a lap faster than before: all that money spent - and half as many overtakes! The rulemakers got it wrong, and they continue to get it wrong.

"Look at Force India. Very well run, a great little car, excellent drivers, the best engine - although probably not up to Mercedes 'full works' spec - and in Abu Dhabi they finished more than 90 seconds behind. This is the top of the second tier of teams, and it tells me everything that's wrong with Formula 1: if you haven't got around 1000 people working on two cars, you're nowhere, so Force India will never close that gap - they don't have the resources to come up with a new 102-piece front wing every other race, or whatever..."

The current front wing, I said, is one of many things I find farcical about contemporary Formula 1. As a technical director said to me recently, "Every time some clown cannons into somebody at the first corner, and loses his front wing, that's more than 200 grand."

"Yes," said Brundle. "Crazy, isn't it? In Baku they had to red-flag the race to pick up all the pieces that had come off the cars. The front wing's ridiculously expensive - and the way it is they can't even put any sponsorship logos on it."

As well as that, I ventured, nor does it do anything for the show.

"Actually," Brundle said, "if you think about it, unfortunately it does do something for the show - it makes it worse. It scatters the pack - and they can't follow each other.

"What I find amazing, though, is that when you talk to the teams about it, they just don't get it. I say, 'Guys, why are you spending millions on these bloody things?', and they don't agree with you! It's utter stupidity, and, looking ahead, I think the changes for 2021 are totally critical to the future of F1: at the moment the product is very seriously flawed."