By Carlo Platella
When the FIA and Formula 1 presented the ground effect regulations for 2022, they did so with the promise that the new rules they would have benefited the show on trackto. The new aerodynamics, less turbulent than the previous one, would once again have made it possible to chase at close range. Furthermore, the particularly prescriptive forms, regulated for the first time with a control volume system, should have led to a convergence in performance.
If we look at 2023, the promises appear to be half fulfilled, with gaps reduced compared to the past. However, so far the balance appears to have been achieved from second position downwards, while victory has almost always been the prerogative of Max Verstappen and Red Bull. Declaring the failure of the ground effect would be ungenerous, but after two years the conviction slowly matures that, to work on the show, the technical regulation alone is not sufficient.
The importance of the track
Another tool introduced recently to iron out differences is the budget cap, which did not prevent Red Bull from winning 38 races out of 44 from 2022 to today. Part of the explanation for Milton Keynes' dominance lies in the difficulties faced by the competition in understanding the aerodynamic physics of the new regulations, facing several issues. A number of questions emerged that could not all be answered at the factory. “This season we saw that without testing it is difficult to recoverwhen the correlation between simulation, wind tunnel and track is not perfect in some areas”Frederic Vasseur's commentary on the last Christmas lunch.
However useful, the wind tunnel neglects some aerodynamic phenomena, also introducing new ones, which generate discrepancies with the track results. It is not the car that moves in the tunnel environment, but the opposite, with a moving carpet under a stationary single-seater. Inevitably then, aerodynamic interactions are observed between the model and the tunnel walls, influencing the measurements. The most important aspect, however, is the rigidity of the model, without suspensions and furthermore immobile in heights and inclinations with respect to the ground, not being subjected to any acceleration.
The movement on the suspensions can be analyzed on the dynamic benches, which however are placed outside the wind tunnel. Another variable to master is the behavior of the tires. Pirelli has sophisticated machinery to analyze their behavior, but it is made available to the teams for just 8 hours a year. Aerodynamics, suspension and tires are affected by their interaction with each other, but at the factory the different areas are analyzed individually. Even today therefore the real world remains irreplaceable for the work of the teams, an awareness that should push the sporting regulations to enhance the time spent on the track.
The utopia of private tests
The technical regulation alone is not enough to revive, requiring a sporting counterpart that favors the balance and recovery of those who chase. The whole it does not necessarily presuppose a Balance of Performance, but rather a regulation that facilitates everyone's work equally, from first to last. The more collective technical development is accelerated, the sooner the group approaches the maximum potential of the regulations, reaching the desired balance.
The time allowed on the track should be the priority to facilitate the work of the teams. However, despite the spending cap imposed by the Budget Cap, reporting private tests still appears to be a pipe dream. “With the Cost Cap it is impossible to reintroduce private tests”, Vasseur's thought. The reason lies in the high costs that the tests would have, unsustainable with the current budget cap. Simply put, a single day of testing accumulates the mileage of a race weekend, which is why 20 days would be equivalent to doubling the components produced in a season.
Another observation comes from Nikolas Tombazis, head of the FIA single-seater division: “We believe that it is important to have financial regulations, but that technical and sporting regulations must also go in the same direction. We could give teams absolute freedom on how to spend their 150 million, from testing on the track to producing gold components. At that point though we would create hyper-pressure on the cost cap mechanism”. If the teams enjoyed absolute freedom on the technical side, the differences in structure between the teams would take on greater weight, increasing the imbalances. The limitation of costs also passes through the technical and sporting regulations, not just the financial one.
The alternative
Faced with the need to encourage work on the track and the impossibility of reintroducing private tests, the alternative is the valorization of free practice. The tests on Friday proved useful for the recovery of some teams in 2023. Aston Martin successfully conducted several experiments in the second half of the season, like Ferrari, as Vasseur explains: “This year we sacrificed free practice in Zandvoort to carry out tests. It was probably one of the reasons why we managed to recover a bit: we understood the car more and from the following week the performance improved.”
Yet, from the declarations of the Formula 1 leaders emerges the intention to reduce as much as possible the free practices, which are not considered a source of entertainment. The belief is questionable, because if it is true that Friday's tests do not offer overtaking or pit stops, contribute to the show indirectly, enabling teams to work and accelerating performance convergence. All this introduces a problem of compromise, between the immediate spectacle of the Sprint races and what a greater balance would guarantee in the long term. A dynamic that is not negligible for an organization that has entertainment as one of its priorities.
#entertainment #track #regulation
