Will 'miracle' vote actually improve F1?

The positive result of the Formula 1 Commission vote on wing changes intended to improve overtaking for 2019 came as a surprise. FIA president Jean Todt called the April 30 decision "a miracle".

That description reflects just how close the proposals came to not going through. Had one or two teams changed their minds and voted against, that would have been the end of it, and the current aero package would be in place for the next two seasons.

So who stands to gain from the changes? And will they really work?

That debate ran through the Spanish Grand Prix weekend, and it's one that will no doubt continue until next year's cars race for the first time in Australia 10 months from now, and we see if they really can follow each other more easily.

It was Todt who, having watched this year's processional Australian GP on TV, decided that it was time for action on overtaking. He subsequently set the research process led by Nikolas Tombazis in motion. The fact that it was fast-tracked through in a matter of weeks, and against all the odds, has to be seen as a victory for the president.

Sometimes criticised for being too laissez-faire when it comes to F1 - in marked contrast to proactive predecessor Max Mosley - Todt will deserve credit should the wing revisions work as intended in 2019 and '20, and make for better racing. It was a win-win situation for him, because had the proposals not been passed, he could rightly say "we tried" and point at the teams for stopping them.

"I feel that if we understand that something is wrong we should try to find a solution," he said when he shared his views on the changes for the first time at Barcelona last weekend.

"We all say we want to have a better sport, a better show, so let's do something.

"So on one side people say, 'Let's wait for 2021'. And it's the start of the 2018 season, so we would go through 2018, '19 and '20 knowing that there's a problem which is damaging the sport.

"So we are trying to make the sport better. We try, using the proper governance - which as you know is not the easiest thing in Formula 1 - to make a proposal. So that's why we made this proposal. And by a miracle it was accepted."

It was a miracle because it could so easily have been blocked, had enough teams been against it.

The FIA never issues a breakdown of who voted which way, but the teams were split 50/50. Mercedes, Ferrari, Force India, Williams and Sauber joined the FIA, FOM and the other voting parties by backing the changes, and Red Bull, McLaren, Renault, Toro Rosso and Haas were against. Some of those choices to vote in support became apparent so late that rivals were not expecting them, and they were left wrong-footed.

The vote was an interesting test case for the governance of F1, given that so many more changes are coming in the next couple of years in the build-up to 2021. Longer term the strategy is to streamline F1's governance, and it will be fascinating to see how much of a voice the teams will retain.

"The future is different," said Todt. "At the moment we have to deal with 2019, 2020, with the actual governance. In due time we will speak about what can be improved for the future governance in 2021. Clearly we've tried to observe the most professional standards, we've worked hand-in-hand with the teams, with the drivers, with everybody involved to make things better.

"We know with the present governance it goes through the Strategy Group, then the F1 Commission, and if you want something to be achieved within the F1 Commission it has to be by the 30th of April to be implemented the year after, with a minimum of 18 out of 26 votes.

"So to get 18 is not easy. That's why I was wondering if we would get 18, knowing with whom we were dealing. And we got it, so that's what I call the miracle."

"We all say we want to have a better sport, a better show, so let's do something" Jean Todt

Those in favour were in theory voting for the common good, in terms of improving the show and backing the joint efforts of the FIA and F1. Still it would be naive to imagine anyone voting other than in their own interests, which is always the way in this championship.

Sauber team principal Fred Vasseur, who by coincidence or not voted with engine supplier Ferrari in favour of the changes, described the process perfectly.

"It's a good opportunity for Sauber for sure," he said. "If you're considering altogether that it will improve the show then it's a good move. But all the boards' thoughts were more based on whether it's going to be good for each team or not - we are always in this kind of game.

"For Sauber it's the right moment to have a change in the regulations."

What it came down to for the teams was simply this: do you want a significant aero change that triggers a major reset and forces everyone to start afresh with their concepts, or do you want to maintain the status quo and await an even bigger change in 2021? And more specifically are you confident that you can do a better job than your immediate rivals of adjusting to any change?

Presumably Mercedes and Ferrari both believe that in addressing the changes they can out-think regular aero pacesetter Red Bull, as well as each other. Lewis Hamilton - possibly not quite on the Mercedes corporate message - summed it up well.

"I heard through the grapevine that a lot of the teams opposed it, and we supported it," he said. "I assume that's because my team are confident in their ability to take on whatever challenge that we face, just like the new 2017 rules. We faced it head on, and we still won the world championship in that crossover.

"As a team we are the most confident in that respect. Not overly confident, but confident that if we work the way we have in the past, we can do it, and that's a great position to be in."

His boss Toto Wolff offered a more altruistic view, suggesting that Mercedes didn't want to be seen as the team that is always trying to block change in order to maintain its advantage.

"We were slightly in favour of staying where we are," said Wolff. "Maybe 60-40, because these are rules we know, we seem to be competitive under these rules, but then we felt that this study that Nikolas Tombazis and the FIA made was directionally correct, and solid.

"And we felt that as the current reigning world champions we didn't want to be in a situation where we were constantly saying no to everything that would come up. And that's why the pendulum swung in the direction of voting in favour."

Mercedes has no doubt earned some credit with the FIA and Liberty for offering support on this occasion, and the same goes for Ferrari. Stuttgart and Maranello voting in tandem - it's not the first time that we've seen that scenario in recent months, and it may not be the last.

It was something that did not go unnoticed by Red Bull's Christian Horner, one of the most vocal opponents of the change.

"I find it a little surprising," he told Autosport. "Going from the Strategy Group where no one supported it to a week later a couple of big teams supporting it. It was amazing.

"The regulations have been rushed through, a lot of them are in conflict with existing regulations. The problem is that it's very immature research, it's focused on 2021, and so there's no guarantees that it's going to have the desired impact that's required. Cherry-picking invariably never works.

"But in the meantime it's a completely new car, because obviously the front wing dictates everything that goes over the car. So everything changes for next year. The cost involved in that is absolutely enormous. For some of the smaller teams it's going to have a much bigger impact financially.

"For me it's not been well thought through, it's been rushed through, and the consequence of that is no guarantee to address the issues that they're looking at, and a huge amount of cost. And inevitably the grid will separate again."

Given the financial squeeze you might think that Force India, Williams and Sauber acted like turkeys voting for Christmas in supporting the change, but they also feel that they will benefit from the reset.

For such teams it's perhaps not so much about closing the gap to the frontrunners as getting one over on your immediate rivals, because inevitably the big teams will have more resource to throw at the problem over the next nine or 10 months and will stay at the top of the pecking order.

"There are two schools of argument I suppose," said Renault technical director Bob Bell. "If you throw all the chips up in the air and there's a chance that that disruption will allow the teams that are behind to catch up in some way, there's more opportunity, it levels the playing field.

"I'm not sure, I think it tends to play to the strengths of the bigger teams who've got more resources because we are now faced with a decision that will be worse than it would otherwise be, in that when do we start backing off on the development of this year's car to focus in next year's? If you've got more resources, more people, then it's a slightly easier decision."

Perhaps there's also a little wishful thinking on the part of Mercedes and Ferrari if they believe they can peg Red Bull back, given the proven strength of the Milton Keynes R&D department. Horner may have preferred to have carried on with the current package, but no doubt his team will do as good a job as anyone in adjusting to the new regs.

"To be honest it's a great challenge for the aerodynamicists," he said. "So we don't have any fear of what those regulations present.

"It just seems entirely unnecessary to be effectively creating a new concept of car for '19 and '20, and then to do it all again in '21, at a time when we're supposed to be being responsible about the cost drivers in F1."

Just a few weeks ago most technical directors voiced some scepticism about the changes, but by all accounts when they met with the FIA again at Barcelona on Sunday morning - so that any loopholes or grey areas could be discussed - they were already focused on the challenge ahead. This is what we've got so let's get on with it, was the consensus.

"We felt that as the current reigning world champions we didn't want to be in a situation where we were constantly saying no to everything" Toto Wolff

Nevertheless some, like Horner, still harbour doubts about the validity of the research.

"I'm not against the principle of changing the design of the cars to try and improve overtaking," said Renault's Bell. "Nobody would be. But I think what I would be against is trying to do it in a hurry without really fully proving that they are the way to go.

"I don't think that it's been fully proven, the extent that these changes will bring. And we're introducing them at the last minute. I personally would have preferred to wait, put all our effort into getting the 2021 regs right, and not try and introduce in a hurry something that hasn't necessarily been fully thought through."

Such assumptions have been batted away by Tombazis, who remains confident that he and his colleagues at F1 have got their sums right.

"Any rule changes have a degree of risk and these are no exception in that regard," he noted in Spain. "I think the probability that we will make it better is very good. The probability that we will make it better but not by a huge amount is also there.

"The probability that it actually makes it worse is close to zero, if not zero, in my view.

"But clearly people who maybe haven't seen the data as much as we have can express their doubts and worries. That is understandable."

He also made a valid point: with no change to the rules it would potentially have become even harder for cars to follow each other over the next couple of seasons.

"The way development is going in current racing, one of the key tasks of aerodynamicists in a Formula 1 team is to move the wheel wake further outboard for the benefit of their own car. The more outboard it is the less it affects the diffuser or the rear wing and they gain performance. So that is their key objective.

"That key objective is also bad for the following car. So our expectation is that if we didn't do a rule change the next two years, '19 and '20, would be gradually getting worse. So part of the rule change was also to stop that trend and make a step change.

"We feel that these performance characteristics would have actually been worse for '19 and '20 if we did nothing."

Perhaps, then, there's every chance that Formula 1 will reap the rewards of Todt's miracle.