One thing F1 must not ignore for 2021

While much of the interest surrounding Formula 1's 2021 regulations has revolved around the cars and the new financial rules intended to make the grid closer, there is one pillar of change that must not be ignored if the championship is to seal a successful future. The tracks.

Even if future money rules work in establishing a level playing field, and there are cars that are super competitive and can race each other hard, it could all mean nothing if F1 does not ensure that it is racing on the right type of circuit.

Recent weeks have already demonstrated how much influence a layout can have on the spectacle of a race. Paul Ricard, where sequences of consecutive medium-speed corners make it impossible for cars to follow each other close enough to pass, produced one of the dullest races of the season.

And yet, at the Red Bull Ring and Silverstone, the same cars and drivers produced two thrilling events where there was passing aplenty, wheel banging and a fair bit of controversy.

At Silverstone, I was lucky enough to get a Pirelli Hot Lap with Martin Brundle - and the circuit took on a new sense of brilliance while zooming through the corners on the limit of adhesion.

Time and again, the Sky F1 commentator was amazed at how corners where he was having to brake and shift down were, for the bravest at least, flat in grand prix cars. It's no wonder drivers rave about Silverstone.

Having the right kind of circuit is something that F1's current owner Liberty Media is well aware of, and F1's managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn spoke at Silverstone about how the new race in Vietnam will be a test bed for the future.

"Vietnam will be the first circuit that has been designed from ground up to be a great racing circuit," he said. "We will see how we get on. Nothing is ever 100% - and we will probably make one or two mistakes - but it will go a long way towards the sort of circuit we want. And we will learn from Vietnam and do the next one.

"But we don't want all circuits to be the same. It would be incredibly boring if we had great racing circuits but they were all exactly the same templates. We want countries to have their own identity and we want circuits to be unique."

The real issue is that F1's calendar has evolved with a growing number of tracks that were designed not to be the best for racing, but to act as a show-piece for the host country

Brawn's beliefs are not revolutionary, and few would argue against them. But there is difficulty in pulling together a dream calendar of tracks and then making it a reality. The stumbling block is simply: who pays the bill?

If it is decided to do something radical and spice up the Sochi or Abu Dhabi layouts, then it can be certain the teams will not want to pay a penny; and Liberty would be reluctant to dig into its own coffers.

And what incentive is there for the current track bosses, who are already paying top whack for the race hosting fee, to pay out even more themselves to try to help make F1 look better?

The real issue is that F1's calendar has evolved with a growing number of tracks that were not designed to be the best for racing, but to act as a show-piece for the country hosting an event.

The Sochi track was hemmed in by the desire for it to run around the flat 2014 Olympic Park. Abu Dhabi wanted its layout to include ground-breaking features - which is why it runs underneath a hotel, has a pit-exit tunnel and has many slow speed sections that appeal to spectators.

There is already some scepticism about Zandvoort returning to the calendar. In the rush to capitalise on Verstappen-mania and the boom in Dutch interest, F1 is heading to a layout that will be great when the cars are gunning it out alone in qualifying, but will almost certainly lead to a procession on race day.

Time and again there have been new tracks that have tried to include features that make them stand out - the longest straight, the biggest grandstand - or have some other feature that doesn't actually help the spectacle.

Perhaps one of the only venues that broke the mould in trying to outdo its rivals was Austin, which was created with the simple aim of having a layout that was good for racing. It is why it took the best features from a lot of other tracks - such as the Becketts/Maggotts sweeps and the Hockenheim stadium - and brought them all together.

So it is little wonder then that Austin has more often than not produced some real thrillers and earns rave reviews from drivers, while places such as Sochi and Abu Dhabi never seem to generate much enthusiasm from those in the cockpit.

The make up of the calendar, and the number of tracks on the calendar that are not the best for racing, is something that Mercedes duo Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas picked up on recently.

Bottas said: "I'm sure many of the track selections for the calendar, it's just pure political reasons and money, rather than actually focusing on whether it's good for racing or not. From our side, it's not that nice. We love racing. Everyone loves good racing, so that's how it should be."

A lot of criticism for boring modern tracks is often levelled at circuit architect Hermann Tilke, who has played a key role in helping put together most of the modern F1 tracks. However, he has often been working to a brief from the track owners, who may not necessarily have put 'great racing' at the top of their wish list.

That demand does appear to be a driving force behind the Vietnam layout, which has 'done an Austin' and elected to take some of the best bits seen on other tracks.

At those venues where change is impossible, why not allow some flexibility with the weekend format and do something different?

The tight Turns 1 and 2 are modelled on the opening sequence at the Nurburgring. The section out of Turn 12 will weave through the barriers in a manner similar to the climb out of Ste Devote at Monaco. A later section of the track - through Turns 16 to 19 - is similar to the Esses at Suzuka.

But, going back to Brawn's comments, doing this equivalent of a 'cut and paste' job and recreating the best sequences from other tracks is not an ideal solution.

Tracks need their own identity as much as teams and drivers.

There is only one Eau Rouge. It doesn't work if half the tracks on the calendar end up building facsimile versions.

It is also important that F1 doesn't rip up some of its best heritage for the sake of introducing corner sequences that could help overtaking.

This weekend, F1 heads to a short Hockenheim track that is actually pretty good for racing. But, it is just a shame its arrival on the calendar was at the expense of the older longer venue that stretched out into the woods.

Not every track can be superb, and it would be wrong for each venue to look alike, but that does not necessarily mean that having some of the less brilliant tracks on the calendar should mean F1 automatically produces boring races.

At those venues where change is impossible (mainly because the price tag is too high), why not allow some flexibility with the weekend format and do something different? A reverse grid race at Paul Ricard? A mandatory two-stop strategy at Sochi?

Then, however good or bad a layout is, F1 might just ensure there is a calendar packed full of excitement.