Motorsport on Monday: 22/09/14
Radio rollbacks - how far should the communications cut go in motorsport?
Daniel, you must stop smiling. Got it?
Edged out for pole pole by an ugly, Platypus-style nose - 0.007 seconds - the German struggled to get his car to the grid come race day, eventually taking the start after a steering wheel change.
More problems during the race for Rosberg meaning only his gearshift paddles were working (also meaning no hybrid power or DRS) was eventually traced to a knackered wiring loom in the steering column, putting him out of the twilight Grand Prix on lap 14 and redressing the reliability balance that's been so far weighted towards Hamilton this year.
This means it's now game on for the title with five races left, including double points at the last round.
How much influence should they have?
But this weekend was interesting for another, potentially very important reason. It marked the introduction of an FIA directive clamping down on the use of pit-to-car radio to improve vehicle and driver performance - something that could impact a number of other FIA-governed race series around the world, from the World Endurance Championship to European F3.
As a trendsetter (take KERS and DRS, for example), the FIA's decision could filter down to other national championships as they look to make F1 copycat moves.
With immediate effect last week, all communications to the driver from his engineer with intent to make him or the car go faster was ruled out, which, where my two cents are concerned, is definitely a good thing. Refreshingly, it's been welcomed by drivers, too.
A quick recap: this includes contact about lines, riding kerbs, changing car setup for certain corners, details on sector times and corner speeds, gear selection, braking points and throttle application - absolutely and compared to other drivers - car stability, use of DRS or any electric motor energy and driving technique. So, in short, pretty much everything a driver is employed to do.
And there's a championship back on!
Driving by committee
The man has a point. Article 20.1 of the FIA's Sporting Regulations states that "The driver must drive the car alone and unaided." Up until now, that's been a delightfully vague statement that's been left open to interpretation and loophole finding by teams.
My view is F1 shouldn't be a process of driving by committee. The current cars are incredibly complex, but they shouldn't need an engineer to extract the speed - if they did they'd have a second seat for a co-driver. And then it'd be called rallying.
In Singapore Rosberg reckoned the team was telling him about 20 per cent of the stuff it would have done prior to the new rule, meaning it's a big challenge for the driver - but that's what spectators watch the sport for, isn't it?
Driving 'alone and unaided' always vague
Any driver in tier one motorsport should be able to feel the car, sense the tyres going off and develop a strategy to drive around any problems that might arise, more than likely grip related.
They should also choose when to deploy any battery energy, where they need to brake, how the diff should be set for individual corners, and the brake bias, and the brake migration, and work out how much time they're losing/gaining through a particular corner, and how to make it up or make even more on their opponent.
That's quite a lot of things to do in a lap, which is why the best drivers would rise to the top quicker, rather than those whose ultimate talent limit is masked by an army of data experts in the back of a garage - or even a warehouse somewhere on the M4 corridor.
And we've not even talked about adding a third pedal and a stick yet...
Why stop at simply removing radio?
It's a debate that's taken up a hefty chunk of PH server space in recent times: manual gearboxes vs automatic paddleshift transmissions. Whether it's on a 991 GT3 road car or a top echelon single-seater, this one's not going to go away.
Dealing with the above takes a lot of brain processing power - and that's without the physical aspect of driving a car either. So should F1 return to manual gearboxes?
It'd slow speeds and lap times down, and prove a technical challenge to get a hybrid powertrain to work with an H-pattern 'box. But that's what F1's about, devising clever solutions to complex problems.
But it's more about driving. A great driver can make a lousy car go quicker than it has any right to, but I'm not so sure the reverse is true. If the FIA is going to stop driving by committee in cutting down comms between car and pit, do it with conviction.
Cut down communication between ECUs and let the main computer processing data inside a car be the driver's brain. Some might say that's dangerous (I'm not sure I agree), but it'd certainly be interesting. It worked with banning traction control again.
Give them a clutch and a stick and put a pedal cam inside the foot well of each car like they used to in V8 Supercars and watch 'em dance. Involve fans in it like this and it'd be a success, I'm sure. What do you think?
This is the pinnacle of the sport. You don't have footballers playing with headsets on, and that is the better for it.
Instead, in football, you have a manager seething with rage, or frustration, shouting and gesticulating wildly, and that is that.
If the drivers need advice on anything, then they could come into the pits and ask. Ron Dennis, Niki Lauda etc could then shout instructions into the ear of the driver. That would be fun.
Or just ban the actual TV transmission of the air traffic control instructions if we insist on having them?
Also, ban the different compounds of tyres as this is just complicated for the sake of it.
F1 should be glamorous, not a lecture that feels as if it has started before I got there.
F1 should be glamorous, not a lecture that feels as if it has started before I got there.
F1 is not that difficult to understand in 2014; it's probably easier than ever. The commentators still explain things every week, and they run features on the technology during the race build up/post race. There are also things like teds notebook, which is free to watch on Sky F1's website. F1 cannot ever be as accessible as football, because it's always going to be more complicated than kicking a ball into a net. That's just the way it is. Football is so popular because any idiot understands it.
If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
Don't use yesterday as your only sample. There is no denying that two compounds produces more racing that 1 compound. Split strategies has given us countless fantastic closing laps as the strategies play out.
Football... I meant it's easier to understand, easier to enjoy instantly than F1. Like I said, F1 is complex by nature. To simplify it wouldn't make it F1. F3 is simple and a darn sight easier to extract enjoyment from for someone new to motorsport.
It would be a lot simpler/easier to understand to anyone if it were not so complicated in the first place.
There must be a lot more people leaving/losing interest in the sport then being newly attracted to it. I agree coverage is there if you want to understand what you are seeing, but I could do something a lot more rewarding with my time instead.
It is a sport, obviously a business too. But if people/sponsors/their customers don't understand a lot of what they see they'll spend their money somewhere else-like football, for example, or Moto GP (BMW did) and TT Racing etc.
Tyres-we don't need different compounds when we have no perception of what that actually means. Either tyres are new, good, or worn out. Why not just have the same compound and change to newer ones if that is the best way forward? It has worked before, and as I said previously there is no road car benefit from these compounds running now. It is a gimmick. Yes, we've had some good races, but also when it rains it is good, when on the same tyre...
And I know it is one of 'those' things, but Rosberg (title leader at the time) retired because his car had an electronic issue, in this 'modern' world we live in? The team couldn't sort it out or whatever? That is like Ronaldo not playing because he only has one boot lace. People want to see Hamilton and Rosberg racing, not that sh*t. It was poor for the sport (yet again). Hardly a positive talking point, was it?
As discussed by many people around the world, the sport is seriously out of touch and I'm quite happy to act as a paid consultant if my services are required by Mr Todt, Mr Ecclestone etc.
I'll await the call/email/carrier pigeon message...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff