The danger of ignoring a snapshot of how good F1 can be

Did a thrilling German Grand Prix give us a tantalising glimpse of where Formula 1 could be in 2021 and beyond if the rules play out as the FIA and Liberty Media intend them to?

That's not to suggest there will be chaotic pitstops, multiple safety-car periods and cars skating across slippery runoffs every weekend.

But what the Hockenheim race did achieve was to remind us that this championship is not just about the three pacesetting teams, with a cast of supporting players fighting for what we've all come to describe as the 'Class B' honours.

At various stages of the race, cars from Alfa Romeo, Haas, Renault, Toro Rosso and Racing Point ran in the top three. Indeed, after a mega strategy call, Lance Stroll actually led briefly for part of a lap, although he was passed by the end of it and was therefore not officially logged as a leader.

Of course, it was all down to the rollercoaster impact of tyre choice for the prevailing conditions, and the attrition among the regular pacesetters creating a void at the front.

In the end pure performance - from both drivers and cars - paid off, and the top two finishers could have made the podium on any given Sunday.

Nevertheless, the fact that teams other than Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull were able to play a starring role, and that the destination of the third podium slot became a major focus, added immeasurably to a fantastic and entertaining afternoon.

And that is at the heart of what F1's bosses hope to achieve in 2021, when the key target is to close up the field and do exactly what happened at Hockenheim: give teams from outside the established frontrunners a genuine shot at a podium finish and, if random circumstances allow, even the odd win.

A dire French GP in June sounded a few alarm bells about the current state of the series. Fortunately that was followed by exciting events in Austria and Britain, even before the German rain created last weekend's spectacular show.

"It's the best possible response to the unfortunate criticism the sport received after the French GP, some of it surprisingly vitriolic," F1 motorsport boss Ross Brawn wrote this week.

"I'm not saying everything is perfect, especially when you consider that Daniil Kvyat's third place finish is only the third time that a driver from outside the top three teams has finished on the podium since 2017, but I think it is fair to say that over half of this year's races have been anything but boring, despite the dominance of Mercedes, who have simply done a better job than any of their rivals."

He concluded: "Not every race can be [thrilling] at this level, but there are enough to make this the greatest motorsport series in the world."

Hockenheim was a reminder that there are a lot of good things in the current format. But, as Brawn admitted, not everything is perfect.

F1 can't rely on divine intervention from the weather gods a couple of times a season and, in an age of social media rants, short attention spans and massive competition for leisure time, it must be accepted that people now want to see the best show possible, every weekend. So change has to come, but without compromising the core values.

"I don't think we need to change everything upside down just for the sake of changing" Sebastian Vettel

"Wet races always create chaos, and chaos is something that can be very entertaining," Grand Prix Drivers' Association director Sebastian Vettel said after the Germany race. "We know that, we've seen it many times.

"But I think the job to do is that we make sure that we string the field together more in dry conditions when we have normal races, in order to put on a better sport [show] and for us to be able race each other harder and longer. That's the objective for the future.

"There are key elements contributing to that, and that's what we should focus on. Everything else, I don't think we need to change everything upside down just for the sake of changing.

"The DNA of the sport is correct, it's the same DNA it had 50 years ago, so I don't think that needs changing.

"I don't think you change football - the size of the goal or the amount of strikers - just because one match has been less entertaining.

"I think keeping the rules as they are, the format as it is, is the right way to go. There are some big things that we need to correct in order to have the right impact."

In June, the deadline for the 2021 rulemaking process was extended until October 31, with the laudable aim of ensuring that it is conducted and concluded as effectively as possible.

But, as the ongoing Brexit saga shows, the inevitable outcome in such circumstances is that Parkinson's Law comes into play, and the job expands to fill the time available.

Last month, a productive 2021 meeting took place in Paris featuring all the key players, including, for the first time, the drivers, and some good progress was seemingly made on finalising the technical and sporting regulations. The financial stuff, in other words the budget cap, was frozen in June as part of the agreement for an extension on the rest.

At the second of four planned gatherings, held in Geneva just before Hockenheim, that momentum stalled, according to many who were there. There were plenty of words spoken, but not enough action, leading to some frustration.

"It seems like we're talking about the same issue time and time again," says McLaren CEO Zak Brown. "And very little progress is made, because all the teams have stated their position. And that's not going to change.

"So it now seems like we revisit the same issues that the various teams have. At this point F1 and the FIA need to make the decision and get on with it, because I don't think they're going to hear anything new from the teams at the next Strategy Group meeting or the following Strategy Group meeting that they haven't heard for the last 12 months.

"The idea that 10 teams are going to somehow converge for the first time in the history of F1 in the next three months is just not going to happen. It's just time to get the show on the road."

Brown would have been happy to have everything sorted a lot earlier, without the October extension.

"Ultimately we went with the flow for what was best for the sport," he says. "But I would have been happy to lock down the regulations in June.

"I was of the opinion that we'll make some progress between June and October, but I don't think we'll make substantial change.

"My view was, 'Just land on the things in June, you're never going to end up with perfect rules so you're going to have to modify them along the way anyway', and so I don't think this extra four or five months that we have is going to make that much difference.

"And I think we'll be arm wrestling on October 30 like we were on June 20 or whatever the date was.

"There was definitely a strategy behind the delay tactics, that's why I think let's get on with it."

Opinions remain sharply divided on key points, and especially on the introduction of standard or prescribed parts.

The established top teams are understandably reluctant to back changes that might cost them a competitive advantage that they have spent years acquiring. They also feel that having agreed to working within the $175million cost cap, why should they then also accept efforts to reduce spending on certain parts of the car?

In addition, the huge topic of refuelling has gained a foothold and been added to the mix, and there are differing views on that.

The cynical view is that the big teams are slowing things down on the basis that they don't want too much change. Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto is certainly keen to urge caution.

"There are still some weeks, we need to decide by the end of October," he says. "The discussions are ongoing, and it's important for now to collaborate but also to discuss in detail what's important and what's not - [ask] what are the key points?

"Last time we met, what we stated is that we may need to react eventually, but we do not need to overreact because the level of risk we take in changing everything is very high for F1. The last races have shown that there are good things in the current format.

"It doesn't mean that there is nothing we should try to change. Certainly there are key points such as the budget cap, something which is important. [But] on the technical side we need to be very careful what we're deciding."

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff is also prepared to wait, and holds the view that the extra time that the later deadline allows can be well spent.

"I think the Geneva meeting was an important meeting because all the teams, FOM and the FIA and the tyre supplier sat on the table and we discussed future regulations, and we need to get it right," says Wolff.

"And of course, as you can imagine, there is heated debate about what is right and what is wrong, but fundamentally we share the same objectives - we want to have a competitive championship.

"I take the positives. Sometimes things are taking a while, and it's not always very rational. But I guess this is the way it has to be. Fundamentally I believe that common sense is going to prevail, and we're going to come to a good result."

"There were discussions of a few things that we thought were completely useless to us in terms of making the show better" Romain Grosjean

Others hope that the obvious lack of progress in Geneva will wake everyone up and kickstart the decision-making process.

"We are all in a business," says Haas team principal Gunther Steiner. "Some meetings you make big steps and some meetings you make little ones, but you cannot define the whole progress by one meeting - that everything is bad now.

"It was one of the meetings where there wasn't as much progress made as the last one, but that doesn't mean that there was no progress made.

"It's more than one meeting, there are two more to come, and maybe what we said this time and didn't make progress on paved the way for the next meetings to be more productive."

Racing Point boss Otmar Szafnauer echoes that view: "The good thing with going to Geneva and having it stall a bit is it's now refocused everybody that time is limited and we've got to hurry up and solve the big issues first, and start looking at the details later.

"It wasn't as fruitful as Paris, but I think it's just part of the process. Now that's come and gone, I think the next one will be better."

One intriguing aspect of the current series of meetings is the presence of the drivers. Lewis Hamilton and Nico Hulkenberg were in Paris, in company with GPDA chairman Alex Wurz, while Vettel was joined in Geneva by his fellow GPDA director Romain Grosjean.

"It was long, but it was very important that the drivers were involved," Grosjean notes. "We've got four really clear points of where we want to go, and there were discussions of a few things that we thought were completely useless to us in terms of making the show better.

"So we just need to keep on going on those four points, and make sure we keep the pressure on and help F1 to get better."

When pressed, Grosjean outlines those key elements as bullet points: "Out of four points from the GPDA number one is the tyres. Number two is the aero. Number three is the weight, and number four is money between the teams.

"So if you solve those four points, I think it will be fucking good."

The discussions continue, with the next big meeting scheduled for September. It can only be hoped that the Red Bull Ring, Silverstone and especially Hockenheim serve as powerful motivation to everyone involved of just how good F1 can be when the playing field is levelled - and that Liberty and the FIA dig in and are able push on with their plans, despite the inevitable opposition from those who are resisting change.

"The right thing to do is prioritise the big things first, and get that done," says Szafnauer.

"These are the most important things, let's fix those, then go to the secondary ones, and the tertiary ones, and move on down the list.

"That type of organisation is needed. Otherwise you are all over the place, and you do nothing."