Is equivalency the right path for F1?

So the second season of V6 hybrid turbo Formula 1 is underway, and already there are complaints that Mercedes is too far ahead and the competitive advantage it has spent so much time, energy and money accruing is now so great it is damaging the sport.

Leading the charge was Red Bull boss Christian Horner, whose star driver Daniel Ricciardo (a three-time winner last season) finished a lapped sixth as Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg collected yet another one-two finish for the Brackley/Brixworth/Stuttgart alliance.

Mercedes won at a canter, Ferrari and Williams were nowhere near, Red Bull has slipped back because its Renault engine is even less effective (relative to the opposition) than last year, and McLaren-Honda? Well, the less said about that situation the better...

Horner thinks Mercedes needs to be pegged-back by the FIA © XPB

Horner called on the FIA to intervene and use an "equalisation mechanism" to close up the competitive order.

"You will need to look closely within the rules, but it certainly exists if one manufacturer is out of kilter," he told reporters after the race. "The FIA within the rules have an equalisation mechanism. I think that's perhaps something they need to look at."

Though not explicit in the regulations, there existed an 'unofficial' equivalency agreement between the various engine manufacturers during the latter phase of Formula 1's previous V8-engined era. F1's key stakeholders basically agreed between them that no one engine should be more than a couple of per cent better than any other, thereby ensuring no one gained a significant edge.

Explicitly speaking, specifications were frozen - with alterations only permitted on grounds of safety, reliability, or cost (with a requirement to fully disclose the exact details of any proposed changes to all other manufacturers and the FIA).

Of course, the very same manufacturers designed and built engines for the current V6 formula under the same 'frozen' regulations, so one presumes the aforementioned private arrangement is no longer in place, given one particular engine was clearly better than the rest in 2014.

Complicating matters further is the engine 'unfreeze', which allows manufacturers to develop using a pre-defined token system, and the subsequent rules loophole identified by Ferrari over the winter, which means they are now permitted to 'spend' these tokens whenever they wish, rather than before a specific deadline.

The upshot is that F1's engine manufacturers are currently in proper competition with each other, attempting to improve complicated technology that nobody fully understands yet, rather than settled into the situation they found themselves in under the previous regime, where pretty much everyone had everything figured out. The result is that the field is rather spread out at the moment.

Honda has found its F1 return very difficult under the current rules © LAT

McLaren racing director Eric Boullier reckons there are big gaps to Mercedes at the moment because of the complexity and immaturity of the cars' technology. But he is convinced the rest will catch up eventually, as the intricate relationship between engine, hybrid systems and chassis is better understood.

The key question, then, is whether F1 can afford to wait. According to some inside the paddock, the answer is 'absolutely not'.

"The power unit is so complicated," says Horner. "Looking at a company the size of Honda, and the preparation time they have had, to come here and be so far off the pace on the back of the grid demonstrates how hard it is.

"And maybe these things are just too complicated. We have made life complicated and off the back of that is [rising] costs; which is why teams are in trouble. Manor couldn't even start their car. How right is that?"

Horner's point is that having one team unable to start its cars at all, one of the most famous and successful alliances in the history of the sport miles off the pace, and several teams struggling to make ends meet, suggests F1 is flawed and needs realigning.

But while it's fair to agree with the sentiment of what he's saying, the fact he represents Red Bull (a team that doesn't have the excuse of a later-to-the-party engine partner, or a small budget) renders the motives of his argument fuzzier.

"Everyone just uses the argument when it suits them," points out Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn. "This was the first race and I don't think we should start too many speculations about it. You are talking about a team [Red Bull] that has dominated themselves for so many years, and you can't say it was boring because they were dominating.

"If I look back a bit more, look for how long Ferrari dominated; you can't say all those years were boring. You'll always have a team which has got something really right and that's their advantage, it's nothing new in F1."

Those who watched Michael Schumacher and Ferrari dominate for so long in the early 2000s, before Fernando Alonso came along, might possibly disagree with her claim that those years were not boring!

The question of whether F1 should employ some explicit equalisation to close up the competitive spread is an interesting philosophical one for the sport. Certainly, it's difficult to argue the racing in the latter stages of the V8 era wasn't more competitive than what we're seeing today - remember a four-way title showdown between drivers from three different teams in 2010, or seven different winners in the first eight races of 2012.

The 21st century started with a period of Ferrari dominance in F1 © LAT

But from a pure competitor's point of view, pegging back the opposition (provided they are doing nothing illegal that should be stopped) is a cop-out, a cry for help because you've run out of ideas yourself. It should be down to the opposition to do a better job.

From an entertainment perspective, of course a closer competition would be better - but the danger of achieving it by such means is that you risk alienating your core fans in pursuit of the fickle 'floating voter', who will enjoy your improved show briefly and then flutter off to find the next big thing. After all, not every grand prix can be a thrill-a-minute classic.

One theory is that F1 should go radical and embrace the balance of performance rules that govern GT racing. This is arguably the only branch of the sport that is thriving in terms of manufacturer interest - because they all know (provided the balancing is done correctly) they have an even chance of success. This would encourage more companies to come into the sport and reinforce what is clearly a fairly shaky grid right now.

The downside (again) is that this philosophy doesn't encourage true competition or excellence, something both Williams performance chief Rob Smedley and Mercedes boss Toto Wolff were keen to point out is what F1 is "all about".

"If you come into Formula 1 and you try to perform at the highest level and equalisation is what you need after the first race and you cry out, that's not how we have done things in the past," Wolff argues. "It is always a political season; it was last year and it will be this year. I just think, 'Get your head down, work hard and sort it out'."

Ultimately, if you're a pure competitor of the sort F1 has always been populated by, it's difficult to disagree with him.