\n<\/p>\n
Amid the debate over the new rules, what is more important, the entertainment spectacle or driver satisfaction? And with changes being considered, what sort of things are likely to be changed? – Kevin and Tim<\/b><\/p>\n
For this answer, I have combined two separate questions that came in. I hope Kevin and Tim don’t mind.<\/p>\n
F1 is a sport first and entertainment second. The hope is that it should be entertaining, and effort is made to make sure that’s the case, but sport can’t be entertaining all the time. You get 0-0 draws in football as much as 5-4 thrillers. Not all rugby matches are as compelling as that between France and England on Saturday evening.<\/p>\n
Most of the stakeholders in F1 recognise that as a truism.<\/p>\n
The new rules were not arrived at from an entertainment-first standpoint, at least not initially. The engine rules were changed to attract new manufacturers – successfully – and only afterwards was it realised that the chassis rules would be problematic.<\/p>\n
Primarily, issues revolve around the fact that with such powerful electrical systems, a nominal 50-50 split between internal combustion and electrical power, batteries of the current size, and front-axle recovery not allowed, the cars are energy starved.<\/p>\n
It’s fair to say that many people in F1 recognise the chassis rules are a mish-mash of compromises arrived at as a sticking plaster for the engine rules, while at the same time trying to align a series of competing political positions.<\/p>\n
It’s hardly a surprise that, in those circumstances, the rules are less than perfect, to say the least.<\/p>\n
The fundamentals of the rules won’t change, but it’s recognised that some areas could be tweaked to reduce some of the bigger compromises.<\/p>\n
It’s clear from some remarks Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff made after the race in China that certain changes that have come with the new rules are considered welcome.<\/p>\n
“From an entertainment perspective, what we’ve seen today between Ferrari and Mercedes was good racing,” Wolff said.<\/p>\n
“Many overtakes. We were all part of Formula 1 where there was no overtake, literally. Sometimes we’re too nostalgic about the good old years. But I think the product is good in itself. We saw quite some racing in the midfield also. And that is, I think, the positive.<\/p>\n
“Qualifying flat-out would be nice. But when you look at the fans and the excitement that is there, live, the cheering when there’s overtakes and also on social media, the younger fans, the vast majority, through all the demographics, like the sport at the moment.<\/p>\n
“We can always look at how we’re improving it. But at the moment, all the indicators say and all the data say people love it. And I spoke with Stefano (Domenicali, the F1 president). He says that, too. So, it is driving the car that, for some, is not most pleasant.”<\/p>\n
That sounds a bit like Wolff is saying the drivers can lump it if they don’t like it.<\/p>\n
That being said, there is widespread unease at the way the need for energy management has compromised the purity of not only the driving experience but also the essence of the sport – especially in qualifying, and especially in fast corners, many of which some drivers say are now being used for energy recovery and are no longer taken at the limit of grip.<\/p>\n
At the moment, there are two levels of energy recovery. When flat out, a maximum of 250kw, in what is known in F1 jargon as ‘super-clipping’. But 350kw once the driver has lifted and\/or braked.<\/p>\n
One obvious change would be to allow the cars to super-clip – the most efficient way of recovery – at 350kw. That feels like it could happen pretty soon, perhaps even for the Miami Grand Prix in early May.<\/p>\n
Another proposal has been to reduce the power from the electrical components from the current 350kw, to 300kw or 250kw. Then deployment would last longer.<\/p>\n
More extensive changes, such as changing the split between internal combustion and electrical power so it was more in favour of the engine, or increasing the fuel-energy limit, would require significant changes to the power-units. So that could not happen before next year at the earliest.<\/p>\n
It remains to be seen whether there is appetite for that – especially as people are already beginning to wonder what the next engine regulations will be, and exactly when they will come in.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n