After months of testing, teasing, politics and drama, Formula One’s 2007 season has finally sailed past the green flag. If last weekend’s thunder down under is any indication, the 2007 season may (or may not) provide a radical change from the increasing (not to say relentless) routine of F1 seasons past. There are new drivers driving new cars for new teams, and “old” drivers driving new cars for new teams. And thanks to rule changes, F1 racing technology has also altered in several important ways. Here’s the inside dope:
Although new FIA legislation has led to some major technological differences from seasons past, few of these are obvious to the naked eye. First and foremost, the much-decried “engine freeze” is now a fait accompli. All F1 powerplants are hereby rev-limited to 19,000 rpm. No further mechanical development is allowed. Other than attendant tuning tweaks, the 2007 engines must be identical to the units raced at the last two GP’s of 2006.
Rumor has it that the teams’ engines are, power-wise, more similar than ever before (as was the governing body’s intention). Some experts suggest that only 10hp separates the most and least powerful engines on the grid. This, of course, places ever-more emphasis on aerodynamic performance, which continues to evolve at a rapid pace.
As for overall vehicle design, according to the Concorde Agreement (F1’s governing document), teams own the intellectual property rights to their car’s chassis. In other words, “customer” cars are disallowed. Skirting the new rules, the Toro Rosso and Super Aguri teams have chosen to field cars which are close derivatives of their A-teams’ designs.
The competitiveness shown by Super Aguri’s SA07 entry in Oz promises an acrimonious debate, scheduled for the arbitration docket once the European season begins.
On the tire front, ‘07 showcases the winner of the long-running tire war: Bridgestone. While many consider Michelin’s departure as a hit to the sport’s competitive nature, the FIA can now regulate vehicle performance by stipulating the level of grip provided by the tires. The change is bound to lower cornering speeds and increase emphasis on driver ability.
The regulations concerning tire use have also changed. Bridgestone will produce four dry compounds to be used throughout the season. At any given race, F1 teams will have two tire compound options (both chosen by Bridgestone). Teams will also be required to use both specifications of dry tire during the race, unless a wet tire is used.
In order to increase greater fan involvement, the FIA has asked Bridgestone to produce tires that are “visually distinctive” from one another. The softer of the two available compounds, the so-called “option” tire, is clearly marked as such.
This year’s F1 grid also sees a plethora of personnel changes. The headline: two-time and defending world champion Fernando Alonso has abandoned his reliable blue and yellow Renault for an unreliable silver arrows-throwback McLaren, displacing Big Mac driver Kimi Raikkonen. Raikkonen, widely considered the fastest man on the grid, has taken his title challenge to Ferrari.
The Scuderia Ferrari team has transformed itself in the off-season. Ross Brawn (technical director), Nigel Stepney (race engineer) and Michael Schumacher (expert in questionable and effective race tactics) have all left for greener pastures. Only a handful of Ferrari’s race-tested, battle-hardened upper-level team members remain.
And so to Oz, where, despite all the alterations, it was business as usual for Ferrari.
Starting from the pole position, Kimi Raikkonen’s Fezza dismissed all comers with the same sort of clinical precision the team’s former German driver displayed for the last ten years or so. Raikkonen led every lap save the few following his pit stops. It was solid confirmation of the team’s series-leading off-season pace, offering the terrible prospect (at least for non-Ferrari fans) of yet another season of potential domination by the Italians.
Anyway, in traditional Finnish fashion, Raikkonen competed in two races in the last two weeks. Before the F1 circus, Raikkonen entered and won a 24k snowmobile race. Kimi raced under the oh-so-telling nom-de-guerre James Hunt, the bon vivant whose epic off-track shenanigans make Kimi’s legendary exploits look positively tame.
This is not to say Raikkonen is Schumacher. The Finn is a highly volatile guy; it remains to be seen if his hard-partying lifestyle (read: drinking bottles of vodka and exposing himself to strippers) will prove detrimental to his title hopes.
Finally, the calendar has undergone some tweaks. Spa-Francorchamps returns after a one-year hiatus for track and pit facility upgrades. The San Marino GP at Imola has been dropped and is unlikely to return.
All these changes were designed to reinvigorate the sport after Schumacher’s departure, and set the stage for a new crop of F1 superstars. If you look at the struggle beneath Raikkonen, the Australian GP indicates that it sounds crazy, but it just might work.
The key goal of the engine development freeze was allegedly a reduction in overall cost for F1 teams thus allowing the non-factory entries to be competitive. It seems doubtful that they will achieve either result.
This year the big teams will spend hundreds of millions on computer simulation and wind tunnel testing, eking out tiny incremental improvements in aero efficiency. They’ll make hundreds of horrendously expensive carbon-fibre aero parts each week and throw them away. The teams without their own dedicated full-sized wind tunnels running day-in day-out won’t be any closer to winning than they would have been if engine upgrades were allowed.
And that is the problem with F1. Unless you force a common chassis / drivetrain / aero combo as in A1GP, which is the antithesis of what F1 should be about, then you leave open some technical grey area that teams with enough money will exploit.
The tyre regulations are probably going to artificially engineer some interesting scenarios (particularly with the new safety car procedures which, as I understand it, will mean that you cannot dive into the pits to take on fuel but you could swap tyres). None-the-less it is is artificial engineering of race excitement and it forces drivers to run suboptimal tyres for a period of the race. Arguably it might even be dangerous because drivers might have no choice but to continue longer than they would otherwise choose to do in the face of rapidly decaying tyre performance.
Of course it is not really true to say that Ferrari are picking up where they left off given the results in the past couple of seasons. In fact Ferrari is interesting this season because they are again running a ‘long’ chassis which was allegedly one of their issues in 2005.
There seem to have been some interesting gearbox changes and indeed gearboxes seemed to be problematic for a lot of teams in Oz.
When I was young, F1 was the epitome of innovation. The current rules absolutely stifle, limit, restrict, and prevent serious progress from being made in any direction. The rules are too restrictive.
If I had some serious money, I’d really like to start an F1 unlimited series, and a NASCAR unlimited serious. It would be run what you brung. The series could happen in the off season.
In the NASCAR race, don’t bring an F1 car to it because that’s not what is being raced there. Bring what is known as and accepted as being a “NASCAR”. No weight limits, no tire limits, no motors limits. Run whatever you want.
Same rules apply to the F1 races. Motors, turbos, tires, weights, aero. Do we draw the line though at 6 tire cars and ducted fans? Or have a separate race for the freaks of nature cars?
I think these races would be far more exciting then the current “drivers races”. The way they spin it, they try and develop the racing around the drivers and their lives and characters. I’m a car guy(engineering/tech type) and I’m in it for the cars. I’m indifferent towards the people aspect of it.
As long as F1 and NASCAR remain as they are, I won’t watch them.
Just imagine F1 with no rules.
I’d like to see rules related regulating exterior dimensions. Also, make the tracks bumpy as heck in sections, full of wild offcamber sweepers to reduce too much payoff from ridiculous aero, and a fuel consumption max. Otherwise You’d have infinite power downforce fans. With max dimensions like say a 911, You’d also avoid humongous aero surfaces that has no relation to ‘real’ cars. If surfaces are also varying, tires will be less singularily optimized. Other than that, I’d say go wild. Save on your fuel quota by regen & hybrid, stabilize the car with lateral aero etc. Another plus from ‘very’ bumpy corners is the racing line is less well defined, making for exiting racing.
I don’t like F1. They never overtake! It’s overcommercialized! It’s just an Ecclestone-moneymaking machine, and it’s seedy.
I like this article: It explains F1 better, and more concisely, than I have seen anywhere else. So now I can at least talk shop with my pals who, as it happens, like F1.
Is F1 existance acknowledgement new to TTAC? I absolutely love this place!
Not all that new – Click the “motorsports” tag on the article on the main page to see some other F1 pieces.
“The softer of the two available compounds, the so-called “option” tire, is clearly marked as such.”
I don’t know that I would call a small white dot on the tire’s sidewall, that requires the cameraman to dance around the pit crew to get a clear shot of a possible dot, “clearly marking” the tire.
F1 continues to prove that the more things change, the more things stay the same.
Put in a different, but skilled, driver in a big red machine and he will do what his predecessor did, whip the field. Despite the attempts by F1 to artificially introduce excitement by playing with engine and tire specs, Ferrari turns the race into the usual snoozefest. McLaren and Renault turn in respectable showings (with Lewis Hamilton providing the only real excitement of the race other than Coulthard’s flyover). Honda and Toyota struggles continue to mystify, and the other teams scrap for whatever points may fall from the big teams’ tables. How has this any different over the past 5 seasons? Clearly, what Bernie & Co. are trying to do ain’t working!
F1 has not learned the lesson that NASCAR has, and that is the big budgets go into aero. NASCAR has tightened the screws on engine development over the past few seasons, but it is still the big boys that win races and championships.
Watching Montoya getting whacked around like a pinball at Bristol this weekend was infinitely more fun than last week’s “Slumber Down Under “(TM).
BTW: Name me a series where cost containment has been successful? I didn’t think you could.
I prefer F1 to Nascar. F1 is more sophistated, more exotic. Nascar is like beer and hot dogs. Nascar is caviar and champagne. I like caviar and champagne. If that makes me a snob. so be it. HOWEVER – tell the TV commentators to SHUT UP if they have nothing to say so we can hear the sweet whine of those magnificent engines!!!
You know what I think would make F1 more exciting this season? An oval. :-p
A bit late to the show, but oh well.
I love F1 for the reason the cars are different from one another unlikes the “spec” series that Nascar and Champ Car have become, and there are no ovals on their circuit.
I also enjoy the fact that the engines used in F1 are not restricted to the point that the technology is 50 years old. We’re already seeing benefits in production automotives from things developed for F1 in years past.
Funky – Ferrari didn’t win the championship in 2005 or 2006, so you can’t make a blanket statement of plugging in a good driver into one and they automatically win. This year should prove very interesting from a driver and manufacturer standpoint since Michael is no longer racing.