Why well-meaning ideas to ‘fix’ F1 may not be the answer

The 2023 Formula 1 season was inescapably unspectacular. That was in no small part
thanks to Max Verstappen and Red Bull. The champion repeatedly snared pole position,
led into the first corner, then disappeared 20 seconds up the road to complete a damp squib. He humbled his runner-up team-mate Sergio Perez by 290 points. Meanwhile, second place in the constructors’ standings fell to Mercedes, which failed to muster even half the score of Christian Horner’s clan.

Amid that Red Bull monopoly, there’s reason to believe F1 is on its way down the popularity mountain. With the gripping climax to the 2021 Lewis Hamilton-Verstappen grudge match in the rear-view mirror, TV audience figures that the series readily shared when they were increasing are now no longer disclosed. Instead, social media interactions are the go-to measure of growth. However, recent third-party analysis – rebuffed by F1 – suggests these too are on the wane.

Further back in the pack, all was not well either. Too often the racing was similarly sterile. The success of these ground-effects rules, devised to make it easier for cars to follow to pave the way for passing, was under scrutiny in their second year. Drivers were backing off to find cool air to nurse temperamental tyres and duly formed neat DRS trains, thus establishing a stalemate.

It’s a classic case of unintended consequences. F1 commissioned sensitive tyres to introduce divergent strategies to improve the show. DRS was seen as a quick fix for an overtaking deficiency. Same for ground-effects and sprint races. Arguably, turning to sticking-plaster solutions is responsible for the spectacle shortfall. So, then, where might the championship top brass start should they consider more invasive reconstructive surgery to improve F1’s longer-term health?

Is there really a problem to fix?

The starting point is to assess how far F1’s
drama deficiency stretches. In an alternative world where Red Bull’s results are wiped, Hamilton theoretically pips Fernando Alonso to the 2023 spoils by 17 points, while Mercedes reclaims the teams’ trophy by seven points over Ferrari. That paints a far more competitive picture, indicating the solution is simply to restrain the runaway team.

For all Red Bull's dominance in 2023, teams relish beating them fair and square - as in Singapore - and don't want artificial performance-balancing measures introduced

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool

Trouble is, rivals were full of admiration as the RB19 set about winning a record 21 grands prix. They weren’t calling for the FIA to kneecap the Milton Keynes creation because, as the paddock proudly says, F1 is a meritocracy. The best team usually wins. That’s been the case since Tazio Nuvolari was in nappies. As such, a lassiez-faire approach should be maintained.

PLUS: The inescapable conclusion from F1's slowing Red Bull debate in 2023

Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff says: “If somebody is doing a much better job than everybody else, you can’t stop that as a matter
of fact. It is us and Ferrari and all the other teams that have to do a better job to compete with Red Bull. We can’t change anything.”

Granted, F1 has resisted anything as overtly interventionalist as success ballast or power-restricting Balance of Performance measures, which are rolled out to level the playing field in sports and touring cars. Nevertheless, legislators do have previous for stepping in to hobble the pre-eminent force of the time. Williams was the biggest loser from the 1994 ban on ‘active cars’ while the 2006 mid-season mass-dampers prohibition was aimed squarely at Renault.

If Red Bull isn’t to be pegged back directly, the series might simply have to accept that one or two more underwhelming seasons must play out to allow the cost cap and aerodynamic testing restrictions to reel in the leaders

Something similar would be harder to impose this time. It would look like a witch hunt since Red Bull has no single standout feature to outlaw. Team technical director Pierre Wache explains: "[The car] is average good for everything. It’s not very good in one aspect. Fundamentally, I would say we didn’t do a fantastic job. I was more surprised by others
who didn’t do as good a job.”

Beyond Red Bull, all drivers were more vocal about DRS trains and overheating Pirellis than in 2022, the first year F1 revisited ground effects. But the average number of passes per grand prix remained very similar: 39 last term played 38 the year before. Still, that marked a considerable jump over the 30-overtake mean from the revered 2021 campaign.

That suggests current complaints of a dull season are grounded in the lack of a fight for first place. As such, if Red Bull isn’t to be pegged back directly, the series might simply have to accept that one or two more underwhelming seasons must play out to allow the cost cap and aerodynamic testing restrictions to reel in the leaders.

Lighter, more agile cars would make for better racing

With the fuel tanks brimmed and a driver strapped in, the cars were nudging 925kg early in 2022. Teams couldn’t get down to the minimum weight limit for the start of the new-rules era, which prescribed a 65kg jump on the previous generation. Little wonder they look so cumbersome through slow-speed corners. It’s a sensation that doesn’t reward viewers or those nestled in the cockpit.

The weight of the current ground effects cars make them appear cumbersome in low speed corners

Photo by: Alessio Morgese

Since the overhaul left the underside of the car to produce 60% of total downforce, the sanctity of the floors massively increased. To protect them, drivers avoid clattering the kerbs so there’s less variation in the lines taken through turns. This effectively makes the track narrower – exacerbating a 2017 shift to ‘wide’ cars when F1 ill-advisedly made smashing lap records the priority over how well the machinery could race. The good intentions behind ground effects are undermined if there simply isn’t enough room
to get the pass done.

Verstappen frames the issue: “Is the DRS zone too short? Are the cars not good enough to follow closely? I think it’s a bit of a combination of both. The cars are probably too heavy, they’re too stiff, so you can’t really run a kerb to try to find a bit of a different line. Everyone is driving more or less the same line nowadays.”

Concessions to the width and weight woes are in the offing. The next-generation car model arriving in 2026 will be 10 centimetres narrower, have 20cm lopped off the wheelbase and a 40-50kg diet is mooted. Plenty of that saving will come from the wheels and tyres. The rims growing from 13 to 18 inches for 2022 was inspired by a half-baked desire to boost the resemblance to road cars. A new 16-inch design is expected to cut tyre width by 10%, which will save weight and reduce dirty air.

Pirelli motorsport head Mario Isola says:
“The target is not a secret, that is to design lighter cars, more agile cars and tyres are a
part of the weight of the car. So it can be that
we have to supply smaller tyres.” He adds that shrinking the rubber is the primary way to
save a few pounds since Pirelli already invests
in lightweight technology.

Ferrari’s new sporting director Diego Ioverno stresses that there are limits to slimming down, particularly with how the monocoques and crash structures can be modified. “Drivers would like to have a smaller car because they think, rightly so, that would be more fun to drive, possibly quicker, lighter, as it was in old times. It’s just a matter of how you define the technical regulations. We have to remember that our main target is always safety.”

Even a 50kg saving feels a little unambitious, though, once you consider the 2026 cars will have a smaller footprint, less rubber, plus the power units will ditch the complex Motor Generator Unit-Heat. Albeit adopting more active aero will offset some of the power losses.

A vocal minority argue that, thanks to the development of sustainable fuels, a return to large-capacity V10s is now viable to ditch even more weight. But the new engine specification was shaped around increasing the output of the electrified part of the hybrid powertrain to entice OEMs Audi and Porsche. That framework is now rubber-stamped, meaning F1 will stick by its replacement for displacement until at least 2030.

Audi has been signed up on the basis of electronically-assisted V6 turbos remaining in place, so a move back to V10s is not possible for now

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

How quick-fix aero solutions led to stalemate

It’s a thankless task to be F1’s sole tyre supplier. If the rubber is working well, praise is in short supply. When misbehaving, criticism comes from all directions. The current construction is firmly on the naughty step. Isola concedes: “When the drivers are not in clean air, they struggle to follow each other… we started to have comments about overheating. Teams are doing something on the aero package that is disturbing the airflow in the back, so they lose downforce when they follow another car.”

The chagrin stems from a 15mm raise to
the floor edge for 2023, an FIA sticking plaster applied to combat porpoising. The tweak was also forecast to hurt lap times by 0.5 seconds. But teams recovered this performance drop-off in double-quick time by aggressively adding downforce over the winter. Isola adds: “We
don’t know how much they are going to develop.
After three races, they already reached the
level of downforce that was predicted for the
end of the year.”

Enabled by a less-prescriptive-than-feared rulebook, the cars evolved beyond expectations to offset the ground-effects shake-up’s good intentions. After 2022, when drivers felt they could follow one another more easily, dirty air levels are spiking again. For the chasing car, the P Zeros suffer severe thermal degradation in the turbulence. It compels drivers to back off in search of clear air. They duly create an impasse in the form of a DRS train.

Proper analysis to inform an upgraded construction is in its infancy so new boots likely won’t land until 2025. By then, another year of tedious races may have played out

FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis says: “There were a few particular areas of the car where there were some loopholes we didn’t manage to close soon enough. That worsened, for example, the front wing endplate area, wheel furniture area, brake ducts.”

At least the way forward has been shown. When the field went out for a bitterly cold November night race in Las Vegas, overheating was all but eradicated – resulting in a thoroughly entertaining encounter. Pirelli wants to replicate the scenario on the Strip whereby tyres are harder to warm. But proper analysis to inform an upgraded construction is in its infancy so new boots likely won’t land until 2025. By then, another year of tedious races may have played out, and the cars will have developed further. The rubber is constantly playing catch-up.

If the spectacle is to improve, Pirelli can’t go too far the other way by devising compounds capable of taking endless punishment. Isola frames the balancing act: “I believe that most of the action on track is due to tyre [wear] and how you’re able to manage. If you reduce that, I am convinced that the risk is to have a train of cars because obviously, if you can push, I can push, everybody can push.”

Some believe a resolution could have been found by now. Pirelli, which has renewed terms with F1 until 2027 with an option for a further year, is valued at close to £4billion. Bridgestone, the rival bidder that failed to take over the
supply deal, is worth over £21bn. Perhaps Pirelli’s much smaller wallet has resulted in a research and development budget that’s not conducive to producing those ‘Goldilocks’ tyres to cure F1’s spectacle shortfall.

Qatar marked a return to sprint-style F1 racing due to concerns over tyre integrity on the vicious kerbs

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

Is DRS a crutch F1 can’t do without?

DRS is F1’s most overt sticking plaster, ushered in for 2011 as a supposedly temporary fix for a dearth of overtaking. But the most vocal advocate among the hierarchy for getting rid, Formula 1’s motorsport managing director Ross Brawn, handed in his notice at the end of 2022. The remaining movers and shakers haven’t
taken up the cause.

Drivers thumbing a button to open a rear wing flap has too often made passing a formality rather than something to be savoured. Arguably, it’s the threat of an overtake rather than the move itself that generates the spectacle. See hallowed defensive drives from Ayrton Senna against Nigel Mansell in Monaco in 1992 or Fernando Alonso keeping Michael Schumacher at bay at Imola
in 2005.

Critically, both blockbusters arrived when victory was on the line. Now in a period
of one-team dominance where Verstappen is
too often allowed to scamper to the spoils, it’s
left to low-stakes midfield DRS moves to struggle to get pulses racing.

The switch to ground-effects was a route to DRS being put out to pasture since cars could follow more easily. But dirty air making a major comeback has hit pause on Brawn’s cause. People are instead discussing the merits of an even more restrictive rulebook to restore the improved show for longer. DRS being an overpowered overtaking aid isn’t a talking point at a time when drivers can’t get close to their opponent so settle into uniform intervals to neutralise any effect it might have.

What’s more, for 2026, both front and rear wings will become active to compensate for power losses from the engines ditching the MGU-H. To argue for DRS to be binned any
time soon is futile. Even Adrian Newey admits: “F1 typically has been a good way to popularise things on road cars… active aero has to be the future of road cars, so I think it’s appropriate that F1 should be displaying the power of it.”

Besides, DRS can be an asset. When the FIA ignored advice and cut DRS zones by 50 metres in Australia and Azerbaijan last season, there was plenty of finger pointing when snoozefests played out. In Vegas, 50 metres were added, and the most entertaining contest of 2023 duly unfolded – though cooler temperatures helping the tyres also had an effect.

Likewise, the Bahrain and Saudi Arabian GPs that kicked off 2022 were spectacular for the protracted cat-and-mouse duels between Verstappen and Charles Leclerc. The pair took turns checking their speed, losing track position over the detection lines to gain DRS and surge back past. Hardly a purist’s dream, but entertaining nonetheless. Although, those dices were predicated on having a multi-car battle for the lead. To focus on a rear wing flap as the solution to F1’s current drama deficiency is to focus on the wrong thing.

DRS made for thrilling battles in the opening races of the 2022 season between Leclerc and Verstappen

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

The most obvious substitute for DRS is a
push-to-pass system, as used in IndyCar. For those offended by the gimmick of a movable
rear wing, drivers could more subtly activate a brief power boost to defend position or launch
an overtake. But that feels like swapping one quick fix for another rather than getting to the root of the problem.

How do you solve a problem like Saturday?

Under the ownership of Liberty Media, F1 operates to a policy of ‘more is more’. Although there wasn’t a fatal flaw with the traditional weekend model (three practice sessions, qualifying and the GP), chiefs saw fit to shake up the schedule to get the turnstiles off their hinges for three days rather than two. That was via the introduction of sprint races.

F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali explained their 2021 introduction: “We are excited by this
new opportunity that will bring our fans an
even more engaging race weekend. Seeing
the drivers battling it out over three days will
be an amazing experience.”

A 2023 schedule switch left Saturday to run as a standalone. This left the truncated race to preview, and therefore spoil any excitement for, the first stint of the full GP. A Red Bull monopoly only made matters more unspectacular

Sprint races generate higher gate receipts and help flog lucrative hospitality packages by giving punters greater reason to turn up on Fridays and Saturdays. The marketability benefits translate to TV as well. Even the most tedious of shortened Saturday races will garner more interest than anything mustered in practice. They increase the jeopardy: with less track time to perfect setup there’s a risk the frontrunners might drop the ball, paving the way for an upset.

While the suspicion is that overall viewing figures are beginning to decline, F1 boasted an average increase of 6% in its weekend audience for sprint race rounds compared with their conventional counterparts from 2022. Growth, no matter how small, is growth. So, when money talks, the most radical overhaul to the schedule in series history is going nowhere fast, even if sprints officially remain on a “trial” basis only.

United States GP promoter Bobby Epstein did suggest sprints weren’t a complete commercial success, though. He reckoned running one at the Circuit of The Americas in 2023 did little to boost ticket sales. He said: “It didn’t help. You have to decide at what point are people coming for the event, as much as they are for the sport. Why is Sunday still so strong if [Verstappen is dominating]? Saturday this year was a little bit less than Saturday last year, and yet we have a sprint race. That’s the only thing that moved.”

Since F1 isn’t turning its back on sprints any time soon, it makes sense to continue beta-testing the process because the first two iterations have left plenty to be desired. Beyond increasing the appeal of Fridays and Saturdays, sprints were supposed to improve Sundays too. Their results determined the grids for the GPs so the order could have been jumbled. But this didn’t work as drivers backed out of late overtakes to protect their starting position.

The addition of a sprint race did little to add to the US GP's spectacle in 2023 according to its promoter

Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images

In an attempt to fix the fix, a 2023 schedule switch left Saturday to run as a standalone. A separate qualifying decided the sprint grid. But this left the truncated race to preview, and therefore spoil any excitement for, the first stint of the full GP. A Red Bull monopoly only made matters more unspectacular.

For many, the adoption of sprints was the moment F1 donned its water-skis and jumped the shark. But if we’re already past the point of no return, there’s an argument for now blowing caution to the wind to make them entertaining. One-shot qualifying, a separate points table, sponsors coughing up a $1million prize pot, reserve drivers taking part instead – what were formerly flights of fancy needn’t be off the table.

Red Bull team boss Horner says: “We win a sprint race and nobody quite knows what to do because all the focus is already on the grand prix. Maybe one thing will be to have an enormous prize fund for the team and drivers. That’s always a big motivation. Then you will see some celebrating at the end! If you look at a football league, they have their main league and then have cup finals.
Maybe you have to look at something that is a little bit different like that.”

Stakeholders are aware of the disquiet. Tweaks are imminent, even if the F1 Sporting Advisory Committee failed to agree exactly what they should be at a November meeting. It’s likely that sprint qualifying will return to a Friday slot to be followed by the shortened race on Saturday and then GP qualifying later that day. That will plausibly allow for parc fermé to be reopened on Saturday afternoon to potentially mix up the competitive order – albeit, presently, it’s hard to envisage mere setup tweaks stopping Verstappen disappearing into the distance.

After two more tedious affairs in Austin and Interlagos last season, a surprising amount of momentum gathered behind the idea of partially reversed grids to artificially create overtaking. Heaven forfend! Will Logan Sargeant hang on for the spoils? How much progress can the frontrunners make?

The obvious objection is shunts are more likely, which trivialises safety, and covering damage would mean a rethink of the budget cap. But perhaps such thrilling, if even more contrived, contests boost audience numbers sufficiently to produce a financial shot in the arm. That would allow teams to spend on spares and repairs.

Second, artificially scrambling the order primarily to give Verstappen more to do would appear to be a thinly veiled way of hurting Red Bull, thus surely undermining F1’s precious meritocracy. Another mark against reversed grids is that sprints become so entertaining as to give the GP an impossible act to follow. But Liberty Media’s board members likely won’t lose too much sleep over that one.

Reversed grids for sprint races would only undermine F1's meritocracy, leaving its bosses between a rock and a hard place

Photo by: Andrew Ferraro / Motorsport Images