In days gone by, the governing body wasn't quite so picky over
the kind of vehicles that took to the track. It was this sense of
leniency which allowed the designers of the day to come up with all
sorts of weird and wonderful contraptions: the six-wheeled Tyrrell
P34, the infamous Brabham BT46B fan car and Colin Chapman's
innovative ground effect Lotus 79, to name just a few. Some of
these extraordinary concepts delivered fantastic results (in
Brabham's case, too fantastic - it was banned after one race), and
many more were consigned to the rubbish heap of history. However,
the fact of the matter is that in Formula One's past, the rules
have allowed for some very daring designs.
These days, things are different. The popular myth goes that if
all the cars on the grid shared the same paint scheme, you wouldn't
be able to tell them apart. For all but the most hawk-eyed fan,
this is surely true. Indeed, the regulations have reached such
draconian levels that Sauber were disqualified from last year's
Australian Grand Prix because the concave radius of the Swiss
team's rear wing was around 3mm under the size prescribed in the
rulebook. A simple manufacturing error. You could quite easily
argue that such stringent enforcement is in strong danger of
turning F1 into single specification series. In a sport where the
onus has been on exploiting engineering genius for sixty years,
that would be wrong.
In recent years, we've seen bans on ingenious solutions such as
the F-duct, the double diffuser and now the reactive ride height
system pioneered by Lotus. The prohibition of these wonderful
little additions comes as a result of the FIA's paranoia: one team
will come up with something that renders the competition
irrelevant, and the sport is damaged as a result. The ethics of
banning something which is clearly allowed in the rulebook and has
cost individual outfits considerable time and money to develop
don't come into it. Is this right? Maybe the spectacle would
suffer, but the team which has jumped through the loophole that
others have missed deserve all the success they can get. That's
what it's all about.
So, do we want the Adrian Neweys, Ross Brawns and Mike Gascoynes
of this world to have a little more freedom to explore different
avenues? Well, maybe. It would certainly make the parade of
pre-season launches a little more exciting. This year we're set to
see twelve new cars, all of them featuring some of the ugliest
noses in living memory and probably not much difference elsewhere.
But there is a danger, which the FIA use to justify their policing
- it takes one lightbulb moment for one team to turn the series on
its head. And in complete contrast to what I said just a paragraph
ago, none of us actually want to see one team win twenty races in a
row.
Just maybe the FIA's got this right. After all, innovation isn't
totally dead in Formula One. The sight of Red Bull dominating last
season in such style (even without the best overall engine package)
is testament to the fact that with a razor sharp presence in the
drawing room - step up Mr. Newey - there's still enough leeway to
produce an unstoppable package. There is speed to be found out
there, you just have to be very good indeed to be able to unlock
it. Last year, Adrian's army were able to do just that. They were
rewarded handsomely for their efforts - but McLaren were still able
to steal six wins, and assemble some form of opposition. And that's
what the rules currently allow: room to gain an advantage, but not
enough to flatten the field. Everybody wins.
What is clear is that there is a very fine line to struck. The
F-duct, the double diffuser and most likely the reactive ride
height floor were not game changers. Yes, they boosted the
competitiveness of the overall package, but they did not go out
there and destroy the competition. McLaren (the F-duct) and
Williams (double diffuser) will tell you that in an instant. So
maybe we should let a few of these clever solutions through the net
- but at the end of the day, the rules currently in place seem to
work. They allow mechanical genius to steal an edge, but not the
show. And that's the way it has to stay.