Why a boring 2021 season is better for F1's future

It's been said many times in Formula 1 that one of the best ways to close up the grid is to leave the rules alone. By doing that, the law of diminishing returns at the front limits the top team, while the pursuing pack are slowly able to chip away at any deficit they had.

Such rule stability is why this season has all the potential to deliver a thrilling three-way fight between Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari that could become one of the closest we've seen in years.

But against the backdrop of what could be a gripping 2020 campaign, there lies intrigue about the impact that Formula 1's 2021 rules overhaul will have on the spectacle.

While stability has the potential to close the grid, shake-ups often do the opposite. Whenever dramatic rule changes happen, it's fairly common for the big spending teams to be able to stretch their advantage over their less well-funded rivals. And it's not uncommon for one outfit to hit the ground running and dominate proceedings.

Should that scenario play out in 2021, and result in a season characterised by a single team walkover, then F1 could find itself having to bat off suggestions it would have been better off not changing anything at all.

But, while F1's managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn concedes that there is a chance of one team being out front in 2021, he is clear that that does not mean F1 should give any second thoughts to what it has put in place for its new era. To him, there are far bigger issues at stake here than simply avoiding a scenario where one team is in front for a year.

Costs are too high - which means there is a real danger of manufacturers walking away if a financial crisis hits and emergency costs cuts are needed. The gap between the top outfits and the midfield is far too large. And, on top of that, the current concept of F1 car is flawed when viewed as racing machinery.

"These cars at the moment are terrible aerodynamically when they get close to each other. And how do we fix that? We have to change it," says Brawn, speaking from his office at F1's headquarters in London.

"There has never been enough consideration made to how these cars need to race each other. They've got a plethora of bits that fall off as soon as they look at each other.

"You don't want a tank, but you want something which is robust enough that you can race properly. And we've lost that" Ross Brawn

"How many times have we heard drivers say: 'my race was ruined because the widget fell off there and that fell off there and I touched the kerb and this bit flew off?'

"That's not a racing car. You don't want a tank, but you want something which is robust enough that you can race properly. And we've lost that."

Brawn is clear that any risk of one team having a clear advantage in 2021 is a price worth paying for securing F1's long term future.

"I can accept that maybe, rather like in 2009, someone gets it right, someone gets it wrong," he says, referring to his eponymous team's title-winning campaign based on an early adoption of the influential double diffuser.

"But I think you have to look fundamentally at the fact that only three teams won [recently], and are only ever going to win, because no one else even came close.

"And you are just leaving things at risk, with the budgets those teams are spending, to a slight downturn in the economy and then suddenly it becomes a problem [for F1].

"So there is a risk. There's a chance that in 2021, somebody will get a jump on the opposition. But I think it's a necessary reset. Otherwise, I don't know we are going to correct the situation we're in."

For Brawn, the mantra about rule stability being all that is needed for a closer fight is a form of propaganda that has been long been used by the top teams to retain their dominant positions.

Asked about the prospect of a super close 2020 because of rule stability, Brawn said: "Yeah. And that's been their defence, if I can put it that way, that as we carry on, then the competition will improve because with stability [things close up].

"But that stability is limited to three teams and its teams which are spending probably approaching half a billion pounds. We don't think that's a good situation. We want F1 teams to succeed in a much more sustainable way than that.

"We want Mercedes to be in a situation that it's such good value for money, there's no way they'll ever stop, because why would they? The amount they are spending, they are getting far more return than spending. And if there was a little tremor in their economic environment, it's fine because they can cope with it and it doesn't matter. And that's why we think there's a need for change."

One other factor that Brawn thinks will influence 2021 - and perhaps limit the chance of a single team being unbeatable - is the changes in governance that are coming in to play.

And in particular, a revised voting structure - where rule changes can be made with a 'super majority' of 28 votes from the 30 in play for the FIA/F1/teams rather than requiring unanimity as is the case now.

Brawn adds: "The governance in the past has been the teams have to all agree to make a change. We're pushing through governance where we can make changes, with much more short notice than at the present time. So, if you exploit a loophole in the future, you can be shut down the next race, which you could never do now.

"If one team stands out there with a solution that had never been conceived and had never been imagined, and destroys the whole principle of what's trying to be done, the governance would allow with sufficient support from the other teams to stop it. And this is a whole different philosophy.

Brawn says there is a clear difference between a good idea and an out-and-out loophole

"And what then happens, someone who has a loophole thinks to themselves, 'Do I want to use it and risk it being stopped? Or do I want to tell the FIA about it because it wasn't intended?'"

While some may argue that finding loopholes has been part of the F1 technical challenge for years, and stopping innovation is not something to be applauded, Brawn sees it differently. He says there is a clear difference between a good idea and an out-and-out loophole.

"We want people with an understood set of regulations to be the best at what they do," he says. "And I think they have to rely on us, and the FIA, that we're not going to penalise someone who has a great idea. And that is subjective.

"But is a great idea the fact that somebody put a comma in the wrong place in the regulation, which means a lawyer can interpret it in a diverse way? I don't think it is.

"I think a great idea is: this is what was intended, we realised we can do this. So it's a fine line, but the governance in F1 is just as crucial a part of the process as the other changes we've made."

In fact, it is the off-track processes - be it the cost cap, the new governance or the way research and planning is now done to evaluate ideas - that are most significant for Brawn as we head to what could be contrasting seasons. And he in unwavering that what is being planned is right for F1.

"Those of us who have been in F1 for any length of time know that until the last few years, changes in F1 were always reactive," he explains.

"They were knee jerk and there were crises and things got done in short timescales. They were done without proper research, or they weren't necessary, and they weren't always as effective as they should be, and in some ways they had counter results.

"Remember the crisis at the end of 2008/2009 when we were in the middle of the financial crisis, and suddenly we had all these cost control initiatives? Well, if those things had been introduced probably two or three years before, we wouldn't have found ourselves in that position where we lost a lot of teams.

"So I think this new era, where we try and identify what are the objectives of Formula 1 and how do we best nurture them and create the right environment, it is exciting and I think it is a necessary approach to maintaining F1 where it is.

"I'm pleased with where we've got to. It's been a struggle. Not so much internally but externally!

"It's been a challenge, but I didn't expect anything other than that. I think we've come a long way in the last three years and we can still continue to develop."