By Tim Gardner
The FIA has recently announced the introduction of a budget cap for 2010. The cap will be voluntary, but with the promise of much greater technical freedom for teams that submit to the cost restrictions. If this comes into effect in its present form F1 will effectively be running to two different sets of regulations - one for the cost capped teams, a more restrictive set for those who opt to remain big spenders. Many commentators have said that F1 will become a two tier championship.
The "two tier" term is being thrown around a lot at the moment, but I think there's a more accurate term for - an equivalency formula. To me, a two tier championship is a single grid of cars, racing together but with each "tier" competing for their own class wins and championship points. Whereas an equivalency formula is where the performance of two different types of car is equalised to allow everyone to compete on a relatively level playing field. An equivalency formula has been used in F1 before and it's worth looking back at what happened.
The turbo era ran from 1977 to 1988 but its roots actually went all the way back to 1966, when the maximum engine capacity was doubled to 3 litres. Concerned that there wouldn't be enough of the larger engines to go round, the governing body included what was intended to be an interim measure in the new regulations. This allowed teams to supercharge 1.5 litre engines on the assumption (which waslittle more than guesswork) that this would provide roughly the same amount of power as a 3 litre unit. In the end, there were plenty of larger engines to go round and the supercharging clause was never used.
That was until Renault, fresh from glory at Le Mans, decided to have a crack at F1 with a full blown works effort. Approaching the regulations with more time to prepare and a fresh pair of eyes, Renault became the first team to realise the potential of the supercharging clause. On its debut the car (fuzzily pictured above at the 2004 Goodwood Festival) was a total laughing stock - the engine was unreliable and even when it held together it had terrible throttle lag. But it was extremely powerful - the turbo genie was out of the bottle.
By the early 1980s F1 teams were mostly in one of two camps. Most of the teams with turbo engines were the so-called "grandees" - Ferrari, Renault and Alfa Romeo. The likes of Williams, Lotus and McLaren, disparagingly referred to as "garagistes" by Enzo Ferrari, largely relied on normally aspirated engines but had a much better grasp of ground effect aerodynamics. And that wasn't the only dividing line between the two groups. The garagistes were united behind the Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley-run Formula One Constructers' Association (FOCA), which was pressing for more influence and a bigger share of the profits, whereas the grandees were aligned behind the governing body. It was an explosive mix.
Did the engine equivalency formula work? To a point. The turbo cars would usually qualify well but were usually installed in less advanced chassis, so would mostly destroy their tyres or break down. The slower and steadier non-turbos would usually be further down the grid but make up places in the race. So things equalled out, more or less.
But the pace of development meant that the turbos gained in power, throttle response and reliability. Ferrari and Renault also started to get more of a handle on chassis technology. The non-turbo teams had mastered ground effect but the governing body was threatening to take it away. Some FOCA teams resorted to using the grey areas in the rules to stay in contention but it was becoming very clear that turbo engines were the only game in town. In 1983, Nelson Piquet was the first turbo world champion in a Brabham-BMW. From then until turbos were banned at the end of 1988, all championship were fought out by turbocharged cars.
At its peak, BMW's turbo engine was thought to be developing 1,500 horsepower - not even BMW knew for sure because their engine dyno didn't go that high. The massive power output of turbo engines was becoming a safety issue. The governing body took steps to reign in turbo power - by restricting boost and fuel loads - but the turbo teams still dominated. For 1988, the turbos would be so restricted that some commentators suggested that the normally aspirated teams would have the upper hand - but that proved too optimistic. The only race not won by the Honda turbo-engined McLaren was won by a turbo powered Ferrari.
F1 has changed a great deal since the turbo-dominated 1980s, but a return to an equivalency formula risks a repeat of some of the controversies of the turbo-era. Some of the parallels are striking. The turbo equivalence formula made assumptions about the potential power outputs of turbo engines that proved to be a massive underestimate - always a risk with an equivalence formula. The budget cap assumes that the greater technical freedoms will allow cost restricted teams to compete with the big spenders for a fraction of that cost - but what if that assumption also proves to be wrong?
If cost restricted teams can't unlock the greater potential of their regulations those with better access to funding might be forced to opt out of the budget cap to get back to the front. Or it could work the other way and leave some of the manufacturer teams spending more to achieve less, an untenable position which may well be Max Mosley's intention. During the early 1980s, the governing body generally favoured one group of teams (the grandees/manufacturers) over another (the FOCA teams) and it lead to civil war. In 2009, the prospect of a budget cap and an equivalence formula is stetching FOTA unity to breaking point - will it break?
In 2009, Mosley's preference for a solid grid of independents is being pushed to the detriment of today's grandees - Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and Toyota, the last of whom is now threatening to pull out. Is the FIA really willing to see an F1 without Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW or Toyota? If not, their price for staying will surely be (at least) equivalence with the cost restricted teams. If the FIA has to maintain that sort of balancing act how can it do that without micromanaging the performance of F1 cars, as it does in the World Touring Car Championship?
And what about safety? The prospect of turbo cars developing 1,500bhp sharing the track with Cosworth cars with less than half the power is unlikely to be repeated. But could any of the new technical freedoms, for example four wheel drive, see cornering speeds to dangerous levels?
Only one thing is certain - the budget cap is set to take F1 into uncharted, albeit not unprecedented, waters. It could be make or break. Either way, it's unlikely to be dull.
Click
No comments:
Post a Comment