F1 risks creating Frankenstein's monster

Formula 1's current preoccupation with what it should be, what it shouldn't be and what must be done to breathe new life into it is becoming the most dangerous threat to its future.

This insidious threat to the sport comes so well-disguised that it not only appears to be a force for good, but genuinely considers itself to be so. Most 'stakeholders' will have inadvertently contributed to its power over the years, and with the best of intentions.

This is categorically not an argument against change, for there are many things wrong with F1 that need addressing (and, let's not forget, plenty that is right about it). But the patchwork assortment of nostalgia-driven tweaks and quick-fixes has led to the sport circulating in ever-decreasing circles, risking vanishing to nothing.

The latest suggestions are hard to criticise in isolation. Sparks? Nobody would argue against the spectacle of a pyrotechnical display during races as it emphasises the forces and energy going through the car. You could say the same about vapour trails.

Sparking cars were part of what made F1 dramatic in the past © LAT

But these are just two modular changes, bolted indiscriminately onto an ill-fitting mish-mash of regulations. They are nostalgia-driven band-aids, rather than part of a wider attempt to make F1's regulations coherent, sustainable and functional.

Just as with Frankenstein's monster, the intentions of those getting involved are overwhelmingly good. The vision is superficially beguiling, but the result will prove to fall far short of the reality.

As Mary Shelley demonstrated, you can create something for the right reasons, but do it in the wrong way and, not only will you reject it, but it may come back to do you harm.

It's a worst-case scenario to suggest that this endless tinkering will lead to the death of grand prix racing. But in a crowded marketplace where innumerable sports and interests are vying for the attention of time-poor potential fans, this problem is very serious. Often the corrosive effect isn't clear until the worst of the damage is done.

Some will argue that changes need to stop, citing other sports such as football that remain in a steady state. This is a shaky argument on several levels. Firstly, football has changed significantly during the past 60 years. The balls have changed, football boots have changed, referees' interpretations have changed, rules such as offside have evolved and backpasses have been outlawed.

Secondly, football is fundamentally a simpler sport. Motorsport requires powered vehicles and therefore complicated regulations that must reflect the changes in technology. Where once technology and money were the limitations that kept F1 under control, in recent years new forces have had to emerge to dictate change.

There has been much talk about safety recently, given the 20th anniversary of the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. As explained here, the real triumph of the safety drive was that it moved from an intuitive process to a data-driven one. A similar revolution is now needed when it comes to the direction of the sport.

Everybody has their own interpretation of what F1 should be, all equally certain not only that they are right, but that the majority agrees with them. But most are focused on outcomes - F1 should be this, that and the other - rather than the process required to reach the correct end point.

But through a data-driven approach, it should be possible to understand more deeply what makes the sport successful. Or rather, what makes it successful with the factors that are controllable, for there are also external influences.

Gathering such data is not easy. Whereas in an accident forces can be measured, simulations can recreate the conditions of the crash and the resulting numbers analysed, things are a little more difficult when it comes to defining what a sport needs to be.

But rather than people variously calling for shorter races, double points, more strategic variation, noisy engines or whatever your particular hobby-horse topic happens to be, such analysis will allow F1 to look at the big picture, perhaps for the first time. Create a protocol to analyse and understand what you're trying to achieve before trying to achieve it.

Yes, fans have been surveyed, but there is an art to creating such research in the way that gives you usable, understandable data. These techniques must be harnessed so that F1 can understand what the audience really wants, not just what the vocal minority claims to desire.

Fans called for more overtaking, but DRS is often criticised © LAT

The DRS is a good example of this. Fans demanded more passing, and F1 came up with a solution that, while inelegant, boosted overtaking more than any other measure. Yet still there were complaints. The right outcome is not the only thing that matters. It has to be achieved in the right way.

F1 needs to think big for once, rather than treating every new quick-fix idea as a panacea. No individual will have all the right ideas, just as no individual can be blamed for all ills. If F1 can create a genuinely collaborative process to do this, the results could be spectacular. To do that, it must rely on facts, not anecdotes or cursory surveys.

It's also dangerous to look to the halcyon past to try and recreate whatever happened to look good 30 years ago. That way will lead simply to F1 becoming a pale imitation of what it once was.

This process is profoundly difficult. But so is building a grand prix car and running a world championship, which F1 has proved pretty good at over the years. With the will to do so and the money to back it up, it can work.

It will take time, but a good starting point would be to appoint an individual or small group to evaluate how this could be achieved, to consult with the various stakeholders, and then propose a way to gather the kind of data needed to help F1 define its long-term direction. This working group can create the methodology for wider study, rather than simply proposing solutions.

There's no question that the current process - a raft of ideas, some adopted, some rejected mostly for political reasons, followed by an adverse reaction and more ideas - is unsustainable.

With an analytical approach, all of F1's objectives can be internally consistent and achievable. As the introduction of vastly expensive new engines at the same time as debates over vital cost-cutting have demonstrated, if you don't align your objectives correctly you end up at cross-purposes.

The path of decisions driven by self-interest and politics, along with well-intentioned changes based on poorly gathered feedback, cannot be allowed to continue.

F1 does not produce cars by shunning the data and understanding offered by technology such as windtunnels and CFD. So why should it not take the same approach to a process that could define its long-term viability?