The changes that F1 rejected for 2021

In last month's F1 Racing we considered some of the philosophy behind the 2021 regulation changes and discussed the implementation of the rules that govern aerodynamics. This month we delve deeper into the aero objectives and look at some of the other technical aspects that were considered - not all of which came to fruition.

Starting with the aerodynamics, it's well known that the primary objective is to allow cars to follow each other closely in the hope that this will lead to more natural overtaking opportunities. But how can we implement this?

Essentially there are two elements that lead to the difficulties experienced by the car behind. The first is that the wake of disturbed air behind the leading car has very low energy which robs the trailing car of downforce, and the second is that the trailing car has aerodynamic surfaces designed to work most effectively in clean air. Unfortunately this low-energy wake is intensely turbulent and therefore anything but clean.

The objective of the 2021 rules is to produce body shapes that loft the low energy air over the top of a following car, while also ensuring that the surfaces on the car behind are less affected by poorer air than the current generation of cars.

Test results show this has been done with a fair level of success, but we must always remember how the good intentions of the 2009 aerodynamic regulations were thwarted by clever interpretation of the written word.

In other areas, the objectives were more focused on cost-saving although not all of the hoped-for savings actually materialised.

A lot of work was put into providing a standard gear cassette with the intention that teams should build this into their own interpretation of a gearbox case, which would carry the rear suspension loads as well as the rear wing and crash structure.

This wasn't popular with some teams, who were concerned about both reliability and the possibility that it may constrain design freedom.

A lot of excellent work was put in by some of the transmission suppliers working in conjunction with the teams but ultimately, and much to my surprise, the teams felt that the cost savings that could be achieved with a common gear cluster are insignificant.

Brakes also came under scrutiny. The current carbon discs are remarkably effective and the cooling problems of some years ago are rarely experienced. This is mostly because the large cooling vents once commonplace have been replaced by over 1000 small-diameter cooling holes which increase the heat transfer area - as well as the cost- very considerably.

The implementation of 18" wheels allows an increase in disc diameter and creates an opportunity to restrict this expensive machining.

The brake ducts themselves were also simplified to achieve both the desired wake characteristics and to limit the myriad configurations used for thermal management of rims and tyres. This went hand-in-hand with a new standardised wheel.

There was also heated debate around the suspension. A working group from the teams was set up to evaluate whether a relatively prescriptive active suspension should be introduced as a cost-saving measure.

It was decided that too close a control of the chassis may lead to exploitation of extreme aerodynamic solutions, which may have defeated the objective of the bodywork regulations.

So this proposal wasn't adopted, and instead passive suspension will be retained but further simplified by the banning of hydraulic connections and mechanical inerters (acceleration-sensitive damping devices which, although extremely clever, aren't road-relevant and don't add to the show).

The other big change on the chassis side was very much a concession to the teams. Initial thoughts centred on pushing teams to design more of their cars, but many of those who share components at the moment found this unpalatable.

The so-called 'listed parts' that previously defined a constructor have been expanded into several lists, some of which now contain standard parts, prescribed-design parts and open-source-design parts.

The objective is to save the teams money by removing the need to constantly redesign parts for marginal gain, while still allowing donor teams to gain income from selling parts to others - and allowing teams which didn't want to increase their engineering staff to purchase components at a reasonable price.

Ensuring fair treatment for all teams under the financial regulations while implementing this was more difficult than writing the technical regulations that governed the components themselves.

The prescribed-design components also brought a new dimension to F1. The veil of secrecy that has always surrounded the design of the cars was thrown open and teams actually collaborated to share their designs and arrive at a common solution for the good of all.

Interestingly, this mirrors trends in the automotive industry where the large manufacturers often share platforms and tier-one assembly designs.

The ultimate success of these rules will be judged during 2021, but at last the regulation-setting process has been based on sound research and evidence-based decision-making, as well as a remarkable degree of inclusivity from the teams.

There's always an element of resistance to change but I believe the regulations had reached a point where a root-and-branch approach was needed to allow for future stability.

A lot of responsibility now lies with the teams to bring the process to an effective conclusion for the common good of the sport. The regulator and the commercial rights holder have every faith they will.