The growing 'GP1' fear over F1's future

Are the 2021 Formula 1 technical regulations too restrictive in terms of aerodynamics - and does that mean all the cars will look identical when the new era kicks off?

That concern has been expressed by many team bosses and technical chiefs in recent months, including the man who has successfully explored the envelope of the rules more than anyone else over the last three decades.

When Autosport asked Adrian Newey for his thoughts on the apparent lack of freedom in the 2021 regulations he rolled his eyes and said simply, "Why don't we all just buy Dallaras and be done with it?"

Many others have aired similar views - including Newey's boss at Red Bull Racing, Christian Horner.

"I doubt there's any aero department that's read those rules and got particularly excited about them," he says. "For any aerodynamicist, a prescriptive design is not in their DNA."

"Is it restrictive?" asks Racing Point technical director Andrew Green rhetorically. "Massively. The cars are going to look identical.

"There's very little scope for freedom. We're going to have nothing to talk about technically, that's for sure."

One term that keeps cropping up is 'GP1'; a shorthand - inspired by the old GP2 and GP3 names for what is now FIA Formulas 2 and 3 - for a version of F1 so restricted in development scope that it's effectively using one-make chassis.

"I do not support GP1 racing," Haas team principal Gunther Steiner said at Suzuka last weekend. "The last thing we should lose is the DNA of F1, which is a certain amount of freedom, and if the cars all look the same, the big teams will still have the biggest advantage. But then we lose interest because we all then have the same car."

The restrictions have been a major element of the 2021 debate over the past few months, which continued in Wednesday's meeting in Paris as the last significant gathering before the rules are published on October 31.

A group of six teams have been resisting change, preferring to stick closer to what we have, and while the move to standard mechanical parts has been substantially diluted, the basic aero package remains in play.

The regulations have been refined and tweaked by the FIA in recent weeks, and that process will continue even after the deadline as teams test the details and find loopholes that have to be addressed.

So what are the complaints about? In essence, the 2021 rules offer less leeway for aerodynamic development than what we have currently and the "boxes" within which teams can work - on wings and so on - are more restrictive.

That's a result of the efforts by the FIA, working with the F1 organisation's team of engineers, to change the aerodynamic concept for 2021, with a particular focus on making cars easier to follow and improving overtaking.

Bargeboards and wings are things of technical beauty when viewed up close - but do we really need all that incredible detail, which costs so much to develop?

Having seemingly found the holy grail, the rulemakers naturally don't want it to be negated by the teams taking development off in a different direction, and putting bits on their cars that make it harder for them to follow once again. Some dilution is inevitable, but limiting what teams can do makes it less likely.

The Liberty/FIA approach makes a lot of sense, but there are counter-arguments, such as the DNA one expressed earlier.

Most would agree that F1 has always been about teams pursuing their own route and trying different things, even if the current cars look a lot more like each other than they did 40, 30 or even 20 years ago. Certainly fan surveys have suggested that the relentless technical battle is part of F1's appeal.

Teams see aero as a key area in which they can demonstrate their skills and find an advantage. It's worth pointing out too that existing windtunnel and CFD restrictions mean that, in theory, a clever midfield team can do a better job than a top team - because they both have the same access to those finite resources.

A more cynical view is that F1 has become an engineers' playground in which aerodynamicists and designers indulge themselves and that over the years they have had too much say in shaping the rules to suit themselves and the interests of their teams, with not enough regard for the bigger picture.

Yes, bargeboards and wings are things of technical beauty when viewed up close - but do we really need all that incredible detail, which costs so much to develop?

After all, for 2019 front endplates were massively simplified in order to improve cars' ability to follow each other. Has anybody really missed the previous complex shapes, other than the guys who used to spend their time designing them?

With Liberty and the FIA pursuing a clear strategy of cutting costs, closing up the field and increasing overtaking, the philosophy this time around is that the players don't direct the rulemaking process.

While they have had some input and have been offering feedback, essentially the teams have to take what they are given. The man at the heart of the debate is Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA's head of single-seater technical matters, and a classic poacher turned gamekeeper. An aerodynamicist by training, he spent several years as chief designer at Ferrari, pictured below, and had spells at Benetton, McLaren and Manor.

"If we want to reduce costs," he explains, "and we want to reduce by quite a lot, not 5% or something like that, then we can either say we reduce everything to half what it is now, or we can say some areas are free and some are less free.

"We're trying to reduce costs in a bigger way for what has the least effect on the sport, on the engineering challenge, and leave other areas free.

"On the aerodynamic side you have to keep in mind you're speaking to somebody who has been in aerodynamics for many years. There's a very distinct problem in aerodynamics that affects cars following other cars, that is fundamental for the excitement and spectacle. We have achieved, with the work done at F1, what we think are very good behaviours.

"We want to keep aerodynamics as a performance differentiating factor, but we can't just say well, we have to weigh the fun of some people versus the whole product we are offering. So, unfortunately, the rules have to be more restrictive."

Tombazis challenges the claim made by team personnel that all the 2021 cars will inevitably look identical.

"I don't think the cars will all look the same, we've analysed that. To some extent if you ask a not very close fan of motorsport they'd say the current cars all look the same. My mother used to say the cars all looked the same back in the nineties! If cars looked the same then what hope do we have?

"I don't think they will end up being identical. There will still be some differentiation, but we need to guard some areas which will be fundamental for aero performance.

"So yes, a lot of us would like to not have to do any rules at all and say, 'Here's a box, you do what you like in it.' But we need to protect what you have as a sport. It's not an easy decision taken light-heartedly, and I understand why certain people may find that not what they would want.

"But I really struggle to see what the alternative is. Let's say not do anything, let's just leave it free?"

Tombazis says F1 aero has become unnecessarily complex: "I have to say if you look at some areas of the cars - the obvious one is bargeboards - I know from an engineering and aerodynamic point of view it's very exciting, I've done it myself. But is that actually what F1 needs? I don't know.

Tombazis remains convinced that the FIA and F1 have got their sums right - and there's no reason to fear that we'll get GP1

"A lot of money goes into that stuff, and it does mean that cars become less able to follow each other and to race on an exciting way. It has no relevance to any technology that's road relevant, and it is massively complicated.

"It looks impressive, as if you're looking at the inside of a watch, but is it actually what makes a car look pretty? I find it pretty from a functional and engineering point of view. But is it really what makes a car be a racing car?

"I don't think so. Cars didn't have those features in the past, and they were still racing cars that were impressive and creating passion in people."

Not all the teams have been aggressively resisting the push for change, and the likes of Renault and McLaren have been more supportive of the FIA's plans.

"They're doing what they said they will do," says Renault's executive director Marcin Budkowski. "They said they would try to make the cars follow each other easier and be able to overtake, and I think they've done a brilliant job of it.

"That's before we start developing these cars. They will probably then fall somewhere between where they are now and where the current cars are, but it will still be an improvement at the end of the day, and at the moment it looks like it'll be a significant improvement.

"And the objective was to get a closer grid. If you're going to close the grid, you need to have a bit less differentiation. For some people it's too much, for some people, it's not enough. With the low budget cap, you could argue for more open rules.

"At the moment the budget cap will start impacting teams for the 2022 cars, because it will come in place in 2021, and it will affect four teams out of 10. So you could argue that's not really sufficient to get the grid closer together. I think they're attacking from both ends."

Budkowski concedes that it's engineers are likely to be frustrated: "It's less challenging. Some people say it's a spec formula. It's not, but it's much more limited. From our point of view let's get the rules done first, move forward, and then we can always fine-tune.

"There are plenty of ways of opening some areas that are not too massive in terms of drain of resources, and still get the cars to look better and teams to be able to differentiate."

Budkowski's boss Cyril Abiteboul makes the significant point that 2021 is not a full stop - in the years that follow the initial restrictions could be relaxed if it makes sense to do so.

And Tombazis remains convinced that the FIA and F1 have got their sums right - and there's no reason to fear that we'll get GP1.

"To be clear, we want F1 to remain a technological sport," he says. "We don't want it to be a one-make series or something which just has a power unit, and everything else is the same.

"We are conscious that the DNA of F1 involves it being high technology. And that is going to remain. The exact percentage of that for the overall result will be a bit different."