Why F1's approach to 2017 is crazy

Not for the first time Formula 1 finds itself in a right old pickle as it attempts to formulate a set of regulations.

When the plans for 2017 were first aired they were greeted with considerable fanfare as the Strategy Group finally seemed to get its collective act together.

At long last, after seemingly failing to agree on anything other than the date of the next meeting - to paraphrase F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone in this instance - the Strategy Group had managed to conjure up something with substance.

Who could argue with an attempt to make bolder, more aggressive cars that would slash up to six seconds off current laptimes?

After a period of aerodynamic stagnation, the door appeared to be opened again for the likes of Adrian Newey to sharpen their pencils and turn conceptual ideas into reality.

With wider front and rear wings, fatter front and rear tyres and the cars to be lighter, here was an opportunity for F1 to drag itself out of the mire it has been wading through of late and make a statement.

The prospect of a return to refuelling was also announced, but quickly shot down on the grounds of cost and, more significantly, its failure to improve the racing.

It has obviously added to the show on occasion with some spectacular incidents, but that's not a reason to reintroduce it.

Apparently at Ecclestone's behest there was another recent attempt to revive the idea, but for once the 85-year-old found himself overruled and unable to force the matter through.

So what of the remainder of the proposals?

In all honesty one wonders just how much thought went into them before they were declared public, because after the initial positive reaction what immediately followed was, 'How do you plan to do that then?'

And there was the old chestnut of overtaking. The car may be quicker, but the suggestion was the new rules would not lead to an improvement in the racing.

Wider tyres were at the heart of the initial proposals © LAT

The biggest stumbling block, one on which Pirelli has wrongly been subjected to all kinds of criticism, has surrounded the implementation of the new tyres.

Initially the suggestion was to increase tyre width to 320mm at the front and 420mm for the rear, taking us back to the type of dimensions seen in the early '80s, albeit with those sizes now trimmed by 20mm.

It was generally agreed this would be where most of the laptime improvements would be found as the significantly increased contact patch would reap rewards.

But from the off Pirelli found itself stymied, primarily by the regulations, and what has since transpired has been a chicken-and-egg situation.

With the significant redesign of the bodywork comes an increase in downforce and loading, primarily through the corners where most of the time would be found.

Pirelli can do all the simulation work under the sun, both via CFD and in various test facilities, but without actual track testing it will never gain the data required to produce the necessary rubber.

Ideally, Pirelli requires a '17 car to go testing, but no team could produce such a model so far in advance, especially without a definitive set of regulations.

And now for the crazy part.

You would have thought Pirelli could test a modified older car - such as a pre-2014 V8, for instance - as it's not relevant to current technology and would provide a relatively decent baseline with regard to the likely levels of downforce.

But not a bit of it; the Italian manufacturer is prohibited from using such a historical car for testing.

Pirelli operates within a very different testing framework in rallying © XPB

You only have to look at other series to appreciate what could be achieved.

In the World Rally Championship, Pirelli, Michelin, Hankook and DMACK are to be given 30 test days this year to develop tyres for 2017, which is in addition to the 42 days the manufacturers already enjoy.

In NASCAR, Goodyear has 20 days of tyre testing per year, split across 10 sessions with four teams, with those teams covering the costs.

Common sense and F1 rarely go hand in hand, but you would have thought in order to help Pirelli attain the goals required for 2017 the FIA would have opened up the rules.

Surely someone somewhere must have recognised the fact that without a car for adequate testing, Pirelli would always have its hands tied.

From day one, once the plans for 2017 were declared, the FIA - with agreement from the teams - should have made it mandatory for Pirelli to have use of a relevant, modified car.

At least that way Pirelli would have its baseline so when the actual '17 cars hit the track early next year, it would be able to tweak its tyres accordingly before the season begins in earnest.

Dare I say it, but if Max Mosley were in charge and he was acting on the rules then he would done whatever was required to guarantee their implementation, or as near as possible.

Yes, there is a tendency to reflect on Mosley's reign as some kind of golden era, but at least he was someone who got things done, even if he often deployed a carrot-and-stick methodology in tandem with Ecclestone.

The formation of the Strategy Group, giving the teams a greater voice, has led to a dilution of the powers of the FIA and current president Jean Todt, and Ecclestone, who has often bemoaned F1's democratic status.

Christian Horner and Ecclestone have been among the critics of F1's processes © LAT

Todt has obviously worked wonders for promoting road safety during his time in office, but it has often been said he is someone who lacks bite when it comes to F1.

In early December it was announced that Todt and Ecclestone had been provided with a mandate to make decisions on key issues regarding F1's future.

So far it would appear no forthright resolutions have been made, primarily due to the fact that Todt has no desire to upset people.

As a governing body the FIA should be authoritative, with Todt taking a lead, and taking a stand as and when required.

Again, if Mosley were still in charge, when it comes to the 2017 plans the FIA would have swiftly declared, 'Right then, these are the rules'.

Of course there would probably have been some resistance from the teams to some of the regulations, and perhaps the odd compromise here or there. But Mosley would have seen to it that the FIA's word was law.

Instead, we find ourselves in the middle of February and the technical chiefs of all the F1 teams are still arguing over the way forward.

Some, like Red Bull, are favouring a more aggressive approach to aerodynamics, while others prefer a more diluted version.

There is obvious protection of self-interest - it has always been thus - but we have reached a point when the rules need finalising.

The end of this month is the deadline, otherwise from March 1 through to the end of June there has to be unanimity when it comes to implementation or change of anything previously agreed upon.

We all know the teams have trouble settling on the time of day, never mind trying to draw up a set of complex regulations.

So instead of 2017's rules being firmly in place by now, a lack of leadership has resulted in what can only be seen as a scattergun approach.

There remains the outside possibility of a delay until 2018, which would at least give the teams another year to finalise matters.

That would be far from ideal, but when are things ever ideal in F1?