F1 stuck in a catch-22 over its revamp

When the FIA revealed plans for "faster cars and thrilling races" - its own words back in May - in Formula 1 from 2017, it was greeted with some fanfare.

At long last the much-maligned Strategy Group, which Bernie Ecclestone often accuses of coming up with nothing more than the date of its next meeting, announced a raft of recommendations designed to spice up F1.

Via a range of proposals such as an aerodynamic rules revolution, wider tyres and a reduction in car weight, the masterplan was for the cars to be five-to-six-seconds quicker than at present.

The only problem was that while the ideas were good on paper, the reality of trying to turn them into something more tangible has posed the usual migraines associated with F1.

More often than not it really does require someone to go and lie down in a quiet, darkened room before the madness of F1's strategy - or lack of it in many cases - lifts and awareness dawns that more has been bitten off than can be chewed.

Evocative memories of classic wide-tyred grand prix cars have stoked excitement for the 2017 revamp © LAT

It is another case of F1 being in a catch-22 situation of having had a eureka moment, believing it has found a solution to numerous ills, but only then thinking it through and realising it does not know how to actually get there.

Pirelli finds itself at the heart of it all.

The initial proposal for the wider tyres was 325mm front and 425mm rear, an increase of 80mm and 100mm respectively, before it was decided to reduce the sizes to 300mm and 400mm.

Despite that decrease the tyre's contact patch would still be considerable, which in turn would help to significantly improve laptimes, even without amendments to the aero.

But like any major overhaul concerning F1's rubber - and it's an issue that has been a thorn in Pirelli's side since it returned to the championship in 2011 - it needs to test to make this a reality.

The Italian manufacturer stated from the outset it required 18 days of testing - six sessions of three days each and with one of the team's main drivers at the wheel - for it to adequately produce the new tyres required, before later reducing the request to 16 days.

The problem, of course, is how does Pirelli go testing without a 2017 car, complete with the planned aero package?

Pirelli is once again in an awkward position © XPB

Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery has confirmed it can simulate the overall loads likely to be generated in various rigs at its disposal should they be required.

The recent concerns regarding safety are something of a red herring because as Hembery remarks: "If you can land a jumbo jet weighing hundreds of tonnes, then you can certainly make a tyre to resist the loads in Formula 1."

But what Pirelli cannot do is adequately evaluate the compounds as the new width of the tyre, and with it the increase of the air chamber inside, will naturally alter how the compound reacts compared to today's rubber.

Therefore, Pirelli requires track time, and for this to be worthwhile it does a 2017-spec car, and those won't be up and running until... well, 2017, basically.

There has been talk of some form of a mule car being provided, but who builds and pays for such a vehicle?

Hembery has suggested a current car's suspension could be modified, but again which team will dip into its pocket, and if there is a willing participant, will it not gain an advantage?

After all, this is not Pirelli's call - unlike tests such as next week's in Abu Dhabi where it is looking into the new-for-2016 ultra-soft compound - and so not its bill to foot.

Keke Rosberg's 160mph Silverstone 1985 pole lap was long an F1 speed record © LAT

F1 itself announced the changes, but again there appears to have been a complete lack of foresight as to how to go about matters. A stated aim has been declared, but one of the fundamentals in testing has not been thought through.

And what exactly does F1 want to achieve anyway? There would also appear to be a lack of any clear objective for 2017.

'Faster cars' are all very well. Certainly if they are to become the fastest in F1's history, as has been mentioned, that will be a coup of sorts, and the fans will hopefully be able to spot the difference.

And I am sure with the aero changes planned, wider front and rear wings, the latter potentially with a swooped effect, a few flicks of other bodywork here and there, and in conjunction with the fatter tyres, they will probably look far cooler.

But will that actually result in the "thrilling races" declared by the FIA?

We all know thrilling racing means an increase in overtaking, and for the past two years since the introduction of the 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged power unit there has been a marked decline in that area, especially at the front of the field.

Pirelli's high-degradation rubber increased action levels to begin with © LAT

Pirelli became a dominant factor in F1 car performance and action levels in the three years when it was asked to produce greater degradation, but now it has taken a back seat as the engine took precedence.

And if an increase in speed is all that is on the cards then that is hardly likely to bring to an end Mercedes' current dominance.

If Nico Rosberg can lap everyone bar team-mate Lewis Hamilton and the two Ferraris in Brazil in 2015, then surely a lighter Mercedes with increased downforce and wider tyres can do the same in '17. This year's predictable results have not come about because laptimes are 'slow'.

As Hembery points out, it all comes down to what the actual brief was in the first place when the FIA, Ecclestone and the top teams sat down at a table to discuss potential exciting changes for the future.

"We need to go back to the question asked about creating more interesting and exciting racing because at the moment all we are doing is trying to make the cars go quicker," said Hembery.

"Unfortunately, if you talk to 10 people out there, quite frankly you will get 10 different answers, and that certainly appears to be the case.

The planned revamp might not curb Mercedes' dominance of F1 © LAT

"Probably more analysis needs to go into those moments when we have had interesting and exciting racing.

"You would have to go back 20 years because you would have a lot of rose-tinted viewpoints about what was good, but when you analyse it, it wasn't that exciting at all.

"What makes interesting racing, in reality, is when things are out of control of the teams.

"We often joke if there is rain or a safety car you get a great race, but those are the two factors, that in the majority of races, provide the most exciting racing."

Maybe Ecclestone's widely derided sprinkler system idea had merit after all?

Moreover, F1's democratic process - where more viewpoints are being aired than ever before, especially compared to when Ecclestone and former FIA president Max Mosley ruled the roost - is simply creating confusion rather than clarity.

Yet again F1 is left talking about its need for a leader with purpose, focus and single-minded vision, to ensure it avoids these catch-22 moments.

Surely, hopefully, one day the penny will drop.