F1 had to change - deal with it

"Inevitably, no designer dares to suggest a radically new car and we see virtually the same old bangers wheeled out year after year. Some tiny change puts one team on top for a while, but the cars gradually become more and more alike.

"The less intellectual spectators adore this kind of racing, for they want close finishes above all things, and they get them. In any case they are far more interested in hero-worshipping their favourite drivers than in studying the cars that carry them to victory.

"For them, racing is fine the way it is and they want nothing to disturb its endless repetition.

"Unfortunately for them, life isn't like that. You can't put on the same show forever and there are bound to be changes."

The above are not my words, but the words of one of my illustrious predecessors at AUTOSPORT, legendary technical editor John Bolster. They were written for the July 14 1977 issue of AUTOSPORT in a story about the imminent debut of the turbocharged Renault RS01 at Silverstone. They still resonate today.

Bolster was railing against those lobbying for turbo engines to be banned amid fears that Renault would turn up at Silverstone and wipe the floor with the normally-aspirated masses. It wasn't such an unreasonable fear given the prodigious pace of Jean-Pierre Jabouille in testing.

Had those determined to maintain the existing status quo prevailed, F1 would have robbed itself of the fascinating era of technical development and ever-increasing bhp figures that it went through in the following decade.

The situation today, with F1's new 1.6-litre turbo V6s, is not precisely analogous. Back in 1977, the 1.5-litre turbo was just one engine configuration option among several, whereas today its adoption has been forced by regulation. But the basic ethos of what Bolster is saying is correct.

Last season, F1 was in exactly the situation Bolster was complaining about. Near-identikit cars with endless tiny iterations making the difference without even the variety produced by unusual suspects leaping to the front of the field.

The rules were far tighter than they were in 1977, so big ideas like ground effect, which would soon proliferate in F1, or the six-wheeled Tyrrell, then in its final season, still cropped up. But even then, the vast majority of cars were still built around the Cosworth DFV engine and Hewland gearbox.

By 2013, the level of knowledge and understanding of what makes a grand prix car work, even among the smallest teams, was so well-advanced that the differences between cars were tiny. At last week's Jerez test, it hit home that F1 really did need this major change of rules, even if it has brought with it unnecessarily ugly nose designs.

To co-opt what Bolster wrote, F1 really could not keep putting on the same show forever. Unlike the majority of sports, which retain fundamentally the same rules over time, albeit with changes sometimes making significant differences to the way competition works, F1 has to make constant conscious alterations to its formula.

It's easy to lament the loss of freer regulations. It's very tempting to say that engine rules should have been opened up rather than mandating a set capacity, a set number of cylinders, a set number of valves per cylinder, set engine mount locations, a minimum weight, restrictions on exotic materials etc.

But doing so does not guarantee change. Evolution requires some kind of environmental pressure to be applied and in F1, that ideally needs to be done through the regulations.

The turbo era only started because of a unique set of circumstances that existed at Renault, forcing everyone else to spend heavily to adapt. Without that impetus, was the turbo era really inevitable?

Renault's RS01 kicked off the turbo era and forced others to spend heavily to catch up © LAT

After all, rotary turbine engines sat in the regs for years and were rarely attempted, but had the potential to be hugely competitive relative to more conventional units.

Automotive understanding is such that F1 development can no longer be the wild west.

The days when designers could rely on nothing more than intuition and the basic principles of aerodynamics to come up with wings and bodies have gone. What has been learned cannot be unlearned.

While the bodywork regulations would probably benefit from being a little freer, there are inevitable concerns about a wider formula producing bigger gaps between cars and worse racing.

Bolster is proof that there is nothing really new in motorsport. Even three-and-a-half decades ago, the tension between the technological development that underpins F1 and the need to please the "less intellectual spectators" - better known in the 21st century as improving the show - was inescapable.

To call fans with little or only a passing interest in the technical side less intellectual is insulting, for there is nothing wrong with favouring the human, almost gladiatorial, side of the sport offered by those in the cockpit.

They remain the beating heart of these machines, the conduit through which its potential must be realised and those who try to argue that they are effectively drones controlled from the pitwall desperately undervalue the skill in what is happening behind the wheel.

But in saying that F1 cannot simply offer "endless repetition" and insisting that the show must evolve, Bolster hit upon a fundamental truth.

As human experience widens, challenges inevitably have to be more specialised. Once, the idea of reaching the North Pole was a dream, an undertaking that thrilled the imagination. Now, unless you unicycle there while blindfolded, it has little mass appeal.

F1's nose designs might be the talking point, but the 100kg fuel limit is the real game changer © XPB

F1 is in a similar position. It must set its own challenges given the depth of understanding developed and technological mastery established over the past century or more of motorsport.

The 100kg per race fuel allowance, derided by many, is the real game-changer.

There are those who complain it will make F1 races half-throttle, skill-less chess matches. Maybe at first there will be a degree of that but the rate of advance will be stunning.

The regulation recognises the challenges facing the world. It's not about simply saving the 50-or-so kilos of fuel each car now no longer uses in a race. Those who say that will make no difference to the environment are wilfully missing the point.

This limit is about making F1 relevant in the modern world.

It's too easy to talk about driving technology and transfer to road cars, but some efficiency ideas and energy management strategies will surely create ideas that can be adapted and advance human knowledge.

The integration of the available electrical power with that from the engine/turbo is a fascinating challenge and has the potential to create racing on-track that will engage even those spectators who wouldn't know the difference between a turbocharger and a trackrod end.

Maybe not at first, but history shows that as regulations mature the racing usually gets closer and closer.

Even the most myopic climate change denier should be willing to see the appeal of these regulations.

Give it time, and F1 cars will probably be going just as fast, if not faster, than they were on two-thirds of the fuel. The fastest drivers will remain the fastest, the cleverest drivers will remain the cleverest, the most diligent drivers will remain the most diligent and those who combine all of those qualities will continue to be the best.

All against a backdrop of a fuel limit that, superficially, sounds too draconian.

The challenge of these imperfect new rules is one that Bolster, and anyone who came to love motorsport in the 'good old days' would embrace.