Have the FOSG got it wrong?

Formula 1 may appear to a ‘non-fan’ to be running like clockwork and making the Sunday night news every couple of weeks or so, but in fact the sport is in dire need of restructuring in order to become sustainable in the long term. As such, on the 14^th May the Formula One Strategy Group met with the business of directing which path F1 will pursue in this pivotal time in order to increase the global appeal of the sport to stem the flow of falling audiences.

A return for in-race refueling from 2017 on wards.

As a result of the meeting, an assortment of changes to the cars and to the format of a race have been made. These include increasing the width of the tyres, front and rear wings and of the car itself. Furthermore, although the development race of the hybrid power trains means that proposals for 1,000 bhp engines have been rejected, as the current engines are running close to 900 bhp, the group meeting has also established the need to increase the noise levels of the cars by reducing the number of gears to 6 and increasing the rev limit to 15,000 rpm up from 8 gears and 11,000 rpm respectively. From 2016 onwards, the teams will also be able to choose 2 of the 4 Pirelli compound tyres for each weekend freely. But the headline change is the reintroduction of in-race refuelling from 2017 onwards. So why did the sport’s most influential decide to reintroduce an old policy that was abandoned at the end of the 2009 season?

Firstly, F1 viewing figures are falling. Down by 5.6% last year alone, despite a championship that went down to the wire. So in order to stem the flow, the aim is to increase the on track spectacle to re-entice viewers and to engage a younger audience. One such way is to make the cars faster. Since the mid noughties the cars have been getting incrementally slower. One reason for this drop in pace is due to employing a single make tyre. Rather than have the competition of Michelin and Bridgestone pushing each other for the fastest compound, the new Pirellis are designed with degradation in mind to increase the importance strategy, management and pits stops, all of which result in a loss of lap time. So how does reintroducing refuelling amend this? Well, when running with a full tank of fuel the cars are carrying approximately 160kg of fuel at the start of a race. Remove this weight penalty and the wear of the tyres is lessened, the acceleration is improved and so is the cornering speed. All of which will boost lap times and aid closing the 6 second deficit to times from a decade ago.

This makes for the added benefit of satisfying the drivers. Since the introduction of the Pirelli tyres, even in the political world that is the F1 paddock, the drivers often speak out against the FIA’s current direction. They want to be employed as drivers pushing themselves and the car to the limit on every lap. Not as people paid to sit through an extended economy run where managing rather than pushing dictates the race. 

What’s more, it will increase the multiplicity of strategies used during a race. Rather than Vettel simply pitting a lap later than Rosberg in response to the Mercedes, the return of refuelling gives scope for a much greater range of short or long fuel stints. This encourages the diversity of tactics, and therefore the winner of a race may not become clear until the final few laps, rather than whoever makes Turn 1 in the lead.

A mixed reception on social media.

However, has the outcome of this meeting been successful? Social media reaction has been mixed to say the least both because of what has been proposed and what has been excluded. Critics of the outcome argue that refuelling is not the way to improve the spectacle. Criticism has been aimed at the basis that the overtaking will take place in the pit lane as opposed to on track action. Furthermore, F1 Fanatic ran a quick Twitter poll in which only 3 races were singled out as having been influenced by the use of refuelling from 1994 to 2009. So will the return even provide the added drama desired?

The reintroduction of refuelling also seems at odds with the direction that FIA President Jean Todt has taken with the sport. The redesigning of the noses to the car and the filtration of safety down to road cars has been a strong outcome of his presidency. So to reintroduce refuelling and the added risk that brings seems like a surprise plot twist.

Adding danger to the sport? Jos Verstappen's dramatic pit stop fire. 

But perhaps the most notable outcome of the Strategy Group’s meeting is the absence of cost-cutting measures to the sport. Whilst the drivers and fans may be happy with the planned regulation changes, the financially constricted smaller teams will be far from it. Only the top 6 constructors have a place on the panel. So for the likes of Sauber, Lotus and Manor F1 the lack of discussion, let alone action with regard to limiting spending, combined with the rule changes must be unsettling. But beyond this, the reintroduction of refuelling will further increase the cost of participating in the sport. It does not take any statistical evidence to propose that the cost of buying and transporting a refuelling rig for the season as well as hiring more mechanics will place an added and unwanted cost to the smaller teams. This places further doubt as to whether or not the outcome of the meeting has been met with an overall positive reaction.

All of this raises the question of what the most pressing threat to the immediate future of Formula 1 is. Is it the decline in audience figures or the unsustainable levels of spending within the sport? The #SAVINGF1 website, with 1,700 signatures, has centred its campaign over the need to address the finances. But the Strategy Group appear to have placed the priority in increasing the appeal of F1 for the viewer.  It is an interesting outcome, and although the new regulations may not be the solution needed, luckily the sport is not quite at the crux of deciding how to survive. We await to see the outcome of these new changes over the coming seasons and whether they will be seen as a success.