Why F1 needs MotoGP's benefits system

MotoGP produced a thriller with its epic race at Mugello last weekend, but it's all too easy to sneer that top-level motorbikes only produce greater overtaking fests than Formula 1 does because two-wheeled machines have more room on track to pass each other.

Indeed, the passing and repassing duels between Danilo Petrucci, Marc Marquez, Andrea Dovizioso and Alex Rins that lit up Mugello took place on the kind of corners where F1's current wide-body cars would struggle to get around two abreast.

But it is a huge mistake to suggest that MotoGP's mega Italian Grand Prix was down to just bike size and a lack of the kind of aerodynamic interference that stops F1 cars following each other so closely.

There are some deeper fundamentals that are key to understanding why the racing in MotoGP is so good right now, which perhaps offer clues about where F1's future focus needs to be.

There's just over a week before the next meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council, which will place on June 14. This is likely to reveal the first proper draft of the rules overhaul that Liberty Media is planning for F1 from 2021.

For most fans, the most eagerly anticipated aspect of this news will be the indications of what the new cars will look like and what changes are being brought in to the sporting regulations to help make the racing better. This is why people got so excited about what is potentially to come when images of the 2021 concepts leaked at last year's Singapore Grand Prix.

But what will be much more important for the racing is the framework of rules in the background that are aimed at levelling the playing field - this means both a more equal prize money distribution system and also a cost cap.

The reason why this relates to Mugello's MotoGP race is that that event was so brilliant not because of bike dimensions, aero parts or tyres. It was actually brilliant because multiple manufacturers were so evenly matched as the result of a historically stable set of regulations that are tailored to deter massive spending at the front of the grid and help give the less competitive manufacturers a leg up.

Sure, the good racing was helped by the fact that bikes can pass each other, but if the lap times of the machinery were not so evenly matched there wouldn't be a close battle in the first place. The MotoGP field would have quickly spread out - as often happens in F1 - rather than having three manufacturers all locked in battle for the lead.

F1 and MotoGP certainly have adopted different paths when it comes to the formulation of rules. One has gone down the route of regular changes to spice things up, while the other has believed in the mantra that the best way of closing up a grid lies in ensuring rules stability.

Other than minor tinkering over aero developments, since MotoGP moved to 1000cc engines in 2012 there have not been that many dramatic rule changes, and certainly none of the magnitude that F1 has repeatedly implemented.

Where MotoGP has been especially clever is in formulating 'concessions' rules, which help the less competitive teams to catch up much quicker

In 2016, MotoGP moved to a standard ECU to try to make things more even between the manufacturers in the power stakes (although some 'gaming' is allowed), and that year Michelin took over from Bridgestone as the standard tyre supplier. With engine rules locked down for seven years now, it's little wonder that power has levelled out pretty much.

F1, on the other hand, appears set on a path of constantly trying to shake things up. It repeatedly goes through a cycle of rule change after rule change - especially when one team is clear of the field or the racing isn't good enough.

In 2014, F1 had the move to turbo hybrids. In '17, there was the aerodynamic overhaul to make cars quicker, and this year featured another major aero shake-up to try to improve the racing. Plus, let's not forget that the 2019 rules set under which Mercedes took a record-breaking five one-two finishes at the start of the season came about because of concerns over the overtaking levels at last year's Australian GP.

The three most recent major rule changes have left F1 in a scenario where the biggest three spenders have moved well clear of the midfield. Even finishing on the podium is a rare occurrence for any team other than Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull these days. In fact, it's become so bad in 2019 that no car outside of the big three has finished in the top five so far this campaign.

F1 motorsport director Ross Brawn has talked repeatedly of his dream for the 2021 rules to help allow teams such as Racing Point have a shot of winning every race; but is it reasonable to expect another new rules era to really close up the field that much - especially when regulatory change has never done that in the past?

New rules actually provide an opportunity for the top outfits to throw more resources at finding the best solutions early, and that helps them get out of the blocks better when the changes come into effect. It takes time for the smaller outfits to catch up.

So where MotoGP has been especially clever is in formulating what is known as 'concessions' rules, which help the less competitive teams to catch up much quicker.

This essentially means that any manufacturer that doesn't win a race or secure a set number of podium finishes gets certain rules breaks. These include unlimited testing, engine update allowances (where the established manufacturers units are frozen), or the use of more engines over the course of a season.

It is widely accepted that such concessions have been key to helping Suzuki, which had a dire 2017 season, make a march forward and step up from podiums last year to become a race winner this season. It's also been important for enticing KTM and Aprilia into the top class.

Just imagine what effect a concessions system would have on F1 if it used a similar structure of opening things up for those teams or manufacturers that do not finish on the podium a couple of times over the course of a year. They could be handed testing breaks, the continued allowance of unlimited updates (chassis and engines) while the successful squads are restricted, or more windtunnel/CFD use for their current designs.

As F1 has only had two non-Mercedes/Ferrari/Red Bull podiums in the last two years (both of which were scored in Baku, by Sergio Perez in 2018 and Lance Stroll in '17), currently every outfit outside the big three would qualify for such benefits.

Yes, part of F1's attraction has always been that it has avoided certain gimmicks - which is why there has been a reluctance to introduce success ballast or reversed grids - but is handing a team like Racing Point some extra testing or more windtunnel time any less 'pure' than Mercedes and Ferrari being able to buy more staff or better equipment to make their cars quicker?

Such concessions would not automatically gift podiums or wins in a fake way (as a lighter car or better tyres for certain squads would), but they provide a helping hand in closing up the field. In simple terms, they would accelerate the learning curve to help manufacturers and teams reach their full potential sooner.

As F1 begins its countdown to 2021, there will likely be tremendous excitement roaring away about how much better things will be. But the reality is that it is highly unlikely F1 will be able to live up to those lofty expectations and instantly break its current mould of the big spenders staying clear at the front.

MotoGP has a ruleset that is working right now and a championship that is producing fantastic racing. F1 would be unwise to ignore the underlying reasons for this situation.