Is this the formula for F1? Analysing Martin Brundle's 2017 wish-list

If you missed Martin's column in full, catch up here

Martin's first proposal: 'Increase downforce, lowering the car by reducing the step and plank underneath, and improving ground-effect especially with front-wing end fences. Make the front-wing much less complex and susceptible to turbulence while following another car, and therefore hugely cheaper too.

'Open up a few of the imaginary exclusion ‘boxes’ around the car to ensure ingenuity and evolution. Have a much cheaper and wider fixed specification two-piece rear-wing which creates drag and slipstream effect, thereby moderating absolute top speed to maintain circuits run offs, but also keeping sponsorship space. Get this right and then lose DRS.'

Feasible? It is, although the suspicion is that any savings from simpler and/or standard front- and rear-wings will simply be spent elsewhere e.g. by looking for performance gains in the exclusion ‘boxes’.

By the sounds of it, the increase in ground-effect would counter the loss of downforce produced by less complicated wings. However, increased overall downforce could prove controversial as it would likely trigger an increase in spending. Moreover, would the fans prefer to see less downforce in order to see the cars sliding around more and the drivers really earn their multi-million dollar salaries?

In theory, more ground-effect and a front wing less susceptible to turbulence would make it easier for one car to follow another more closely – the “pretty much impossible” situation Lewis Hamilton faced in his pursuit of Sebastian Vettel in Barcelona this weekend. The loss of DRS would be lamented by few, even though it was first introduced after fan research revealed a desire for more overtaking. Clearly, there’s ‘overtaking’ and there’s overtaking.

Martin's second proposal: 'Wider and 18” diameter wheels and tyres with much more grip and durability.'

Pirelli have already anticipated such a move by developing the 18-inch diameter tyres tested by Lotus at Silverstone last July. Wider tyres would provide more mechanical grip, but if downforce were to increase they’d make the cars even easier to drive. 

Martin's third proposal: 'Lose 50kg from the cars. They are currently 125kg overweight compared to days gone past. Difficult, but try to find a way.'

Given the ability of F1 engineers to find an ad-hoc solution, it sounds possible. But again it would probably cost money. The weight gain comes from the switch to hybrid technology and as things stand there are restrictions on the types of materials that can be used.

Trimming weight off a car here and there also has safety implications. And then there’s the issue of driver weight: the minimum for car and driver was increased only this season (to 701kg) to help taller, heavier drivers. Rather worryingly, Adrian Sutil said last year that he’d tried not eating for a couple of days. 

Martin's fourth proposal: 'Keep the same hybrid engines, they will migrate towards 1000bhp peak anyway, but work on improving the sound and also a much lower fixed-price for customer teams. A discount is massively cheaper for the manufacturers than a redesign. Commonality of parts will slash costs and equalise motors. This should have been done from the outset.'

Boosting fuel flow above 100kg/hour is easy enough and would increase both power and noise. Although it’s difficult to see how this tallies with the FIA’s assertion that F1 should be more ‘green’, the fact it has already switched to hybrid technology probably already conveys the right message sufficiently well.

Lowering engine costs for customer teams would certainly help those currently mired financially, and it might also help assuage the argument that the sport’s income isn’t distributed equitably. By providing cheaper engines to the likes of Lotus, Force India, Sauber and Marussia, Mercedes and Ferrari would, in effect, be redistributing their earnings. But would that not benefit fellow financial high-flyers Red Bull? They get free Renault engines via their partnership with Infiniti, although right now that hardly seems the deal it once was.

Martin's fifth proposal: 'Open up the rules on sharing components. It's crazy that everyone must create bespoke items to identical regulations. We can't see these parts so share them, slash costs, equalise the cars more, and knock the money off the grandstand prices. I'm talking about brakes, gearboxes, chassis for customer teams, and so on. We want to watch racing, we don’t have X-ray eyes to see under the bodywork or in the CAD and CFD computers.'

Standard parts makes sense in the context of cost-saving, as do customer cars, which were perfectly okay until the first Concorde Agreement was signed, money started flowing into F1 like never before and teams took on hundreds of employees in state-of-the-art factories. The likes of Williams would now never agree to another team coming in, buying a pair of Mercedes ‘off the peg’ and punting them down the order.

It might happen by stealth – the provision that certain teams provide third cars if the grid shrinks much further – but that would be a symptom of a sport in real crisis rather than a cure. There’s also the argument that both moves would further dilute the sport’s purity, and again there’s the niggling suspicion that even if standard parts were used, teams would simply splurge elsewhere instead.

MW