It’s become as common as “for sure” and “turning the wheel” but “improving the show” seems to be one of the sport’s newest common phrases and is one of the great concerns at the moment, sparked off from the first grand prix being snubbed as ‘Bore-rain’.

We may have had the thriller of a race downunder in Melbourne and a pretty good race in Malaysia only a week later, but without wanting to sound negative, you’d be a fool to miss the fact that the main reason these last two races were good fun was purely to the weather causing slippery tracks and mixed up starting grids.  It’s a worrying truth that the rest of the races in 2010 (especially Valencia) stand a good chance of being as entertaining as watching paint dry with a re-run of Bahrain 2010 on in the background.

The ridiculous

As a result, rather predictably, good ol’Bernie has said to the press that he likes the idea of reverse grids, i.e. qualify on pole position and you’ll be in 24th for the race and so on or some kind of similar turnaround to put the quick cars at the back.  Then, to go up a notch there are suggestions for a qualifying lottery.

Although, on the face of it, the reverse grid idea sounds feasible, in reality it would be as good as Bernie’s idea to have shortcuts on the tracks.  The idea of sprinklers to artificially recreate the thrills witnessed in Australia would work in theory, but would also make a mockery of the sport.  As for the lottery idea, well that would just take qualifying away from us – i.e. often the most exciting part of a race weekend.

To KERS or not to KERS

So what else could be done to “improve the show” – KERS (the energy recovery systems that give effectively a power boost) was introduced and then quickly dropped by some of the teams in 2009 and they’ve agreed to not run it at all in 2010 due to costs.  In our eyes, KERS could be a double hit of goodness for F1 – it would boost the current lack of any real ‘green’ emphasis and if worked out properly could definitely go someway to add a touch of entertainment.

KERS failed largely due to the costs, but also due to the ridiculous limitations – limited power boost and the fact that it could only be used for 7seconds per lap – with the added weight, the benefits were clearly outweighed – just ask McLaren and Ferrari who arguably put a great amount of effort into the system and consequently had dire seasons, whereas BrawnGP and Red Bull had beautifully developed cars, KERS-less but quick and we all know how well they did in 2009.

Cleaning the ‘dirty air’

The ‘dirty air’ phrase has been used in every race so far in 2010 and no doubt will be for the rest of the season.  In short, ‘dirty air’ is the name given to the wake behind an F1 car.  When another car is following, looking to possibly overtake they get stuck in this ‘dirty air’ and lose grip and hence, cannot overtake.

The best analogy for this is if you look to boats – i.e. imagine a large boat on the seas powering along – the water it’s approaching and traveling through is calm and uniform, whereas the water behind it is all over the shop, going off in different directions and would be referred to as ‘rough’ and unpredictable.  If another boat was following this one, it would have far less control when following, with the wake left from the boat ahead compared to when it was happily sailing along all alone.

Back to F1 – how can this ‘dirty air’ be cleaned – simple – lose the reliance on wings – the massive regulation change  of 2009 forced cars to lose the little intricate ‘winglets’ and went someway towards reducing this reliance, but with double diffusers and the huge front and rear wings the dirty air is still a problem.  Back in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, with less effective aerodynamics the cars were able to follow more easily, and further more, back in the 60s with no wings at all, dirty air wasn’t much of an issue.  So is that the answer – go back in time?

See the evolution of grand prix cars in this video:

Putting your foot down

Often referred to when accelerating hard, but back in the day, drivers had to put their foot down hard on the brakes too to ensure they stopped in time and the skill of out-braking the competition made for terrific action and overtaking manouvres.  With modern brakes being so powerful the cars can stop in the blink of an eye.  Also, ignoring Vettel’s issues in Australia, the brakes aren’t of great concern in terms of reliability and can easily last a race.

Should the brakes be less powerful?  It certainly would reintroduce the skill of out-braking other drivers because there would be a greater margin to for braking and just as with tyres, if they are over-used they’ll wear thin.  What’s more we’d also hear the commentators using the classic “he’s the last of the late brakers there” – again this going back in time…

Tired of tyre talk

The ban on refueling for 2010 was music to our ears here at the Sett – in one swift change, grand prix racing is back to being grand prix racing rather than short sprint races.  In theory.  The only problem is that over time, the tyres in F1 have got so good that they can last an entire race, even the softer, grippier ones.  Also, the difference in performance of a set of rubber that’s done half a race distance isn’t too different from a brand new set.  The only reason the drivers are pitting to change tyres is because they have to, due to one of the most ridiculous rules ever introduced – drivers must use both types of tyre during a race.

The rule ensures Bridgestone tyres are the talk of at least some of the race weekend, which will please their marketing chaps and also Bridgestone won’t make tyres that don’t last a race weekend because that will make their product look ‘weak’ and creates a potential PR disaster – a little short-sighted if you ask us.

Seriously though, imagine that rather than having a rule that said drivers must change tyres, instead they introduced a super-duper soft tyre that took over 2 seconds off the laptime, but would be worn out within 20 laps – that would be mega exciting, generate over-taking opportunities and also ensure that tyres get as much publicity as possible.  The rule for drivers to change tyres would become defunct. Good idea?

Looking for freedom

If you look through any grand prix history book, you’ll find yourself reading about cars with turbos, skirts, active suspension, having fan-power, six, or even twelve wheels as well as strange wings and layouts – so much so that the starting grid could look more like whacky races than the current, more uniform grid of samey looking cars, resembling a company car park for sales reps (go with us hear, we’re fully aware that an F1 car is better looking than a Focus)

There are pros and cons to design and engineering freedom and if you asked any engineer in the sport, they’d relish the chance to design a car from a blank canvas rather than to the tight restrictions of modern day regulations.  It could create more excitement too, but by equal measure could create a grid of cars that differed in performance so much that no one would be able to overtake anyone.

Back to the future

Now, from reading this, it’s clear that we (as in fans of F1) aren’t short on ideas, and that there are definitely ways to ‘improve the show’ but the only problem is that most of these points are looking back at previous decades of F1 and then there’s the argument that F1 is the pinnacle of technology as well as the pinnacle of motorsport, so why should they not be allowed all the wings, fancy tyres etc.  Tough call, but here at Badger we just want the sport to live up to our tagline “Formula 1 isn’t boring…” – if that means taking onboard lessons learned from the past, then so be it.

Do you have an opinion?

Of course you do – share it below in the comments and enjoy some Badger banter.

• Further reading:
• Doughnuts and other ways to make F1 more appealing
• Breaking the Formula – Rules are there to be.. changed?

Thanks to Chris Labrooy for use of his stunning graphics, see his website for more and hi-res versions

Now then, it’s a Badger fact that Formula One has seen more rules changes than Jordan* has seen tabloid headlines and more changes than Toyota have recalled cars – and that’s a lot.  So many that every year, rather than tweaking them a little bit, they change three or four different rules.  That may sound clever, but if it’s a great season or even more crucially, if it’s a poor season, how will they judge which rule change is the cause of it is?  They won’t be able to – how very clever.

WHO ARE ‘THEY’ ?

Who are ‘they’ you should ask – ‘they’ are various ‘groups’ involved in F1 – namely the ‘Overtaking Working Group’, the ‘Sporting Working Group’, and then there’s the teams’ association known as FOTA and the governing body, the FIA.  Now that’s a lot of groups of folk sitting around large tables having discussions about the racing, the sport and the overall spectacle F1 – sounds quite fab doesn’t it.

There’s only one problem – they seem to work about as efficiently as many public sector organisations do, i.e. meetings about meetings that only end up reversing what has been done before or missing the point entirely – that may sounds harsh, but seriously, what good has come of all these people having a natter?

if only F1 had a Haynes manual eh?

WHAT’S THE POINT…?

2010 follows the recent trend and sees a tsunami of changes – but this time mainly looking at the races rather than the cars – they did that in 2009.  First up, it’s the much hyped points system.  For many many years points were awarded to the top 6 finishers, 10 for the win, 6 for 2nd and then 4, 3, 2 and 1 point for 6th – this worked pretty well, there were some super close races for the finishing line with the 2nd place driver always challenging as much as possible for 1st and the championship battle often went down to the last few races at least with the points gap never being more than a handful.  Then, the powers that be made the system that we’re all familiar with today – 10 for the win, 8 for 2nd and so on, down to 8th position.  This also worked well – or so we thought…

…because the subject of ‘points’ was obviously on their agenda for 2010 and now there’s a brand new (or MotoGP inspired) points system where the winning driver receives a massive 25 points – a full 150% more than the previous decades of F1.  They’ve also realised that if the driver in 2nd place is due significantly less points than he would get if he were 1st, he’d try harder for the win so now the 2nd place driver is in line for only 18 points, with 3rd getting 15 (see the new scale here) – now that’s genius isn’t it – they’ve worked out that if there’s an incentive to go for 1st, there will be more exciting racing – well that’s the plan.  In reality – every driver (bar Piquet Jr – he’d rather crash) goes into motorsport to win, so the greater points incentive is unlikely to make the massive difference it’s intended to… (oh and it means comparing historical points scores a whole new nightmare for statisticians…)

BANNING OF THE HOSEPIPE

Next up for 2010 is the removal of re-fuelling during grands prix.  The reason – to cut costs.  Now this is a good idea, but hardly rocket science – the fact that they ever introduced it into F1 at all is beyond us here at Badger.  It does nothing for the sport.  What used to be an test of endurance, speed, skill and stamina for the chequered flag became 2 or 3 part sprint race.  Why would you risk a manoeuvre when you could wait a average maximum of 20 laps to do it via a pit stop.  Ok, so we had flames now and then and of course Massa’s comical Singapore pit stop in 2008 – but that hardly makes re-fuelling worth while.  It’s good that it’s banned – there may be some real racing now, with drivers making their tyres last as long as possible…

Not just the Ferrari livery changed for the 2010 season © Autosport

…except ‘they’ have gone and changed rules to do with tyres too – the intelligence and forward-thinkingness of these ‘working’ groups continues to astound us.  Now a new rule has been put in place that means the top 10 drivers after qualifying all have to start the race on the tyres that they did their final qualifying laps on, whereas the other 16 drivers can do as they please.  You don’t have to be Einstein to see what the idea is – to introduce another level of strategy for the leading drivers, i.e. play safe or take a punt for pole and pay for it at the start of the race.  Again, we have to ask – is this rule really needed – all it does is give the commentators something to talk about and makes the sport seem even more complex than it is to the new and casual fans. Well done.

AS IF WE AREN’T ‘TYRED’ ALREADY

‘They’ must like tyres because they are also keeping the ‘drivers must use both types of tyre’ during a grand prix – jay-sus, are they actually trying to make talking about F1 racing as exciting as not winning the lottery – if so well done again, that’s another tick in a box.  Whether it’s true or myth, the story that Bridgestone wanted this rule in place so that people would talk about its tyres is worrying.  What if Tango want everyone to talk about its fizzy orangeade – are drivers expect to drink some during a pit stop… we hope you’re still following…

…now, the other significant change is that the front wheels and tyres on 2010 cars are narrower than they were in 2009 – that’s exciting isn’t it.  It’s as clear as day an admittance on the OWG’s part that the massive car regulation changes introduced for last season didn’t have the desired effect so they are reducing the grip by ensuring there’s less rubber on the road in 2010.  Great, but then that’s directly against what they set out to do – i.e. to enable cars to race nose-to-tail for overtaking and out-braking manoeuvres – with less grip at the front of the car, surely that’s going to make it more trickier than before… no?

OUR FINAL THOUGHT

So that’s it – here at Badger we’re all looking forward to the new season and are hoping it’s a close-fought, action-packed fun fair with a few office politics and not yet another step to make F1 an over technical, inaccessible sport – don’t get us wrong, we love it, but just wish there was more freedom for teams and drivers with less of the tiresome geeky rules that do nothing for the spectacle except reduce its appeal.

One final thought before we go – the FIA have launched their annual survey for fans to fill in and submit – that may seem like a good idea on the face of it – the FA do the same for Premier League fans (only if they have been to a match), but with the plethora of fan-driven F1 sites scoured across the interweb you would think hope ‘they’ have heard of a little website called Google – it will tell them what the fans are thinking.

If you do fancy filling our the FIA fans survey, you do so here, but we can’t guarantee they’ll read, acknowledge or act on your comments – tickets prices still increase year on year and despite the majority of fans being European or from across the pond from here in the UK, ‘they’ continue to stage races on the other side of the planet – know any Korean, Singaporean, Malaysian or Bahrain based F1 drivers?  Thought not.  Do us a favour and add a link to this article on your survey response…

*as in Katie Price, not the Irish fella that once owned an F1 team

FIA check & approve BrawnGP

As we have come to expect from Formula 1 – politics seem to be taking over the racing in the headlines and after the recent Lewis/McLaren fibbing saga, the real story is set to unfold early next week – over the legality of the Brawn, Toyota and Williams cars.  There were murmurs from upset teams over the diffusers before Australia, but the Aussie stewards deemed the three teams’ cars to be legal.  In response to this news, Ferrari, Red Bull and Renault appealed the decision.  This appeal will be heard on Tuesday (April 14th) and could affect the championship rather dramatically.

“Hang on a minute… what exactly is a diffuser?” I hear you ask.  To be straight-forward, a diffuser is the name give to an aerodynamic part of the car that you’ll find underneath, at the rear.  Many high-performance road cars have diffusers because, just as F1 cars do, they need lots of down-force to give them grip.  When air rushes under a car at speed it creates down-force (the fast moving air underneath compared to slow moving above creates pressure pushing down on the car) which is great until the air reaches the back of the car where things can become untidy.  Diffusers help the air and it’s transition from being at high-pressure under the car to the ambient pressure around the car.  See below for an Road/F1 car comparison.

There’s not a great deal different in the general appearance between this Ferrari road car and the BrawnGP F1 car and the same can said for the appearance of the F1 cars designed by Red Bull, Renault and Ferrari.  The diffuser is the plastic-tray like gizmo bit that sweeps up from under the car with fins on it.  F1 cars have always had such aerodynamic additions, but with a new set of rules giving the designers more of a blank canvas than usual, there was always going to be an argument somewhere over what’s legal and what’s not.

The reason that the BrawnGP, Williams and Toyota cars are being deemed as illegal by the protesting teams is because their diffusers have an additional gap. This additional gap (or hole) is between before the end of the ‘floor’ of the car and the diffuser, which means the airflow from under the car is split into two channels just as it reaches the diffuser.  This means air can be rushing under and also through the diffuser.  With this airflow through and a around, a cleverly designed diffuser shape could effectively create an additional wing, which would create some extra down-force at high speed.  All other teams, bar these few do not have the additional gaps with cleverly designed diffusers and believe that such a design contravenes the rules and regulations created for the 2009 season.

Left: Brawn: arrow points out the hole to feed air. Right: Ferrari - no holes, just the diffuser fins to channel air (credit - f1.com)

So, what’s with all the handbags style protesting then? The main problem is a lack of clarification within the wording of the rules.  Nowhere in the rule book does it state that a design such as on Brawn is forbidden, but it seems that many of the F1 teams have seen what the rules are getting at and have acted accordingly – with no holes in the floor of the car acting a way of ‘feeding’ air through the diffuser to create additional down-force.

The two sides to the argument:

1. The opposing teams (Red Bull, Renault, Ferrari and co) missed a trick to gain extra down-force – a loophole in the rules if you will and should just get on and make their own new diffusers.
2. The Brawn, Toyota and Williams teams have acted in a manner and designed cars that are not in the “spirit” of the rules and should be penalised and their diffusers should be outlawed.

Before we go on to look at the possible outcomes of the appeal hearing on Tuesday, let’s just make one thing clear – the FIA appointed stewards declared the diffusers legal at the Australian Grand Prix and all the three teams were allowed to race.

Possible outcomes for Tuesday – complete with Badger’s “likelihood rating.”  We’re 100% sure something will happen and the percentage weights after each statement indicate, which we believe the more likely:

• BrawnGP, Williams and Toyota designed diffusers are found to be illegal and an infringement of the rules.  For the FIA to now go back on their Melbourne judgement and penalise the teams would be far more than farcical – possibly apocalyptic for Formula 1’s credibility.   Badger’s likelihood rating: 20%

• The ‘alternative’ diffusers are deemed to be legal and well within the rules.  The rest of the teams rush out and design their own clever diffusers for the forthcoming races.  This will be tricky with very limited testing allowed, but no doubt the majority of these teams’ designers will have already started/finished their new gadgets.  Badger’s likelihood rating: 50%

• The opposing teams win their appeal with the ‘alternative’ diffusers not being in the spirit of the rules and they are outlawed from here on for the rest of the season, leaving Toyota, Williams and BrawnGP with some work to do.  For anyone to win a case in courtroom claiming something was not ‘in the spirit’ of a situation would be just ridiculous and prompt the usual Ferrari International Assistance conspiracy theorists to rise from the wood work.  Badger’s likelihood rating: 25%

• Something else happens.  Badger’s likelihood rating: 5%

From elsewhere in the media; David Coulthard has said:

“They said in Melbourne that the cars were legal and I think the FIA will confirm that judgement on the fourteenth.  The other seven teams are probably going to have to change their cars.”

DC: Wise words

In response to the fact that 7 teams having to spend lots of money on new diffusers in the midst of a recession DC responded:

“That is right, but it does not mean that the diffusers are illegal, you shouldn’t necessarily be punished because you have interpreted the rules differently and thus taken an advantage. Those three teams also spent money to develop their aerodynamics, so that money would also be wasted.  Formula one is not just about saving money, it is also a championship!”

Well said David.  Then we have Flavio Briatore – who’s well known for Alonso-like childish outbursts and who took a shot at Ross Brawn who heads up the Overtaking Working Group (OWG they collectively designed the new rules) by saying that Brawn should have told everyone else what his designers were up to – you can imagine how this made the rest of the F1 paddock chuckle!  F1 designers are sworn to secracy and keep their cards close to their chests – as you would with many millions of pounds at stake in front of a global audience.   Flavio’s outburst clearly indicates the fact that his team’s appeal doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on – he’s just annoyed that his car isn’t as fast as the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars.

Also, to add salt to the wound that is likely to be the result of an embarrassing outcome for Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull is Williams and their little jab at around the time of the Australian Grand Prix.   After the protests were announced, Williams launched a counter-protest at the legality of the Ferrari and Red Bull front wings, only to later withdraw this protest and publicly state that they did so in the ‘interests of the sport‘ – a brilliant PR stunt makes a mockery of the current diffuser confusion.

One has to hope that come Tuesday, a sensible decision is made and that F1 can have it’s next grand prix in China without any more controversy over aerodynamic bits of cars – here’s novel idea – why don’t we see who can go the fastest over a long period of time and then make them the winner.  Genius.

• For another take on this subject, take a look at Maurice Hamilton’s piece in the Guardian

The F1 Drivers Choice?

The pre-season hot topic has been KERS – the new technology for F1 in 2009.  It stands for Kinetic Energy Recovery System and in english this means that rather than wasting energy that’s created through braking it can be re-used in the form of boost.  Sounds like a Whacky Races type gadget and almost as cartoon like but it’s for real.

F1 cars can brake from 200mph to just 60mph quicker than a bank can collapse – which is every few seconds if you believe the media hype.  The energy created is massive with the brakes glowing red hot and reaching temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees.  Blimey.

Rather than have this energy wasted in the form of heat, with KERS it’s stored in a battery which drivers can then use to give them whats equivalent to a turbo boost of power in a straight line.  Sounds magic and which ever team can make this work best will have a massive advantage in the 2009 season.

There’s one problem, the batteries used are not the double A ones you’ll find in your TV remote, they are as you’d expect pretty big and therefore very heavy.  The lighter drivers are ok but those over 5′6″ will struggle more.

For example: Mark Webber is the Australian pilot of Red Bull Racing and his team mate is the German youngster Seb Vettel, the latter is the size of jockey and weighs less than an empty crisp packet whereas Mr Webber is a big lad who on this relative weight comparison weighs more than 5 packets of Walkers ‘Big Eat’ crisps.

The combined weight of driver and car has to meet the F1 regulations and the cars are often made lighter than this on purpose so teams can put ballast in areas of the car to make it handle better.  By this measure little Seb will be fine but the Australian is at a severe disadvantage. So the question all fans have been asking is which teams have been pondering using KERS at all for the start of the season.

As yet no team has confirmed that they are to employ KERS, but F1 Badger really hopes someone does because it could inject a further slice of excitement pie into Grand Prix racing and the little boy or girl in all of us would see a ‘turbo boost’ button on the steering wheel as being very cool…  If this means Mark Webber and other tall drivers have to enjoy less pie and look to Slim Fast(er) then so be it.

The KERS effect...