This week's confirmation that Formula 1 will introduce aerodynamic modifications to improve overtaking in 2019 has been well received by fans worldwide who want to see more action on track. It's also one of the first clear signs that F1's owner Liberty Media and the FIA are working well together to improve the show, with 2021 targeted for the definitive package of changes.
The way the proposals were approved reflects how complex the road ahead will be over the next two or three years, as they were rushed through at the very last minute, and against the wishes of several teams. It was touch and go whether there would be an agreement, but in the end, there was - to the surprise of the teams who expected the plans to be blocked.
The speed with which this saga unfolded is impressive. Consider that it kicked off when FIA president Jean Todt reacted to what many people viewed as a boring Australian Grand Prix by getting together with F1 boss Chase Carey and discussing what could be done. Just five weeks later some significant technical changes have been proposed, debated, researched, voted on and finally agreed on the very last day that the 2019 regs could be modified.
F1 may be associated with pace, but usually off the track things like this move slowly, with the inevitable vested interests derailing them. For Todt, Carey and sporting chief Ross Brawn this has to be seen a major victory, and a template for future developments.
The process demonstrated that by getting just some of the teams onside the FIA and Liberty can do some pretty dramatic things, and do them quickly, even if it leaves the others with their noses out of joint. Many of the teams tried to block the changes, but for once, they were overruled.
It's worth noting that had those teams succeeded, Todt and Carey could both rightly tell fans, "We tried to solve the problem for you, but the teams wouldn't co-operate." In other words, they'd done their bit.
So how did this fascinating story develop? Overtaking has been a subject of debate for many years, and especially the difficulty for drivers to follow the car ahead. A decade ago the FIA formed an Overtaking Working Group to study the problem. That led directly to the movable front wing flap of 2009, which proved to be a bit of a damp squib, and subsequently the DRS in 2011.
"This is the time that F1 should act and act decisively for the good for the show"Paddy Lowe
Momentum for further change was then lost, and indeed when the 2017 high downforce package was being put together the focus was on lap times and cornering speeds. Overtaking was not part of the remit - despite everyone involved being fully aware that higher downforce levels would mean that it could only be harder to stay close to the car ahead. And sure enough when the new cars appeared last year, following became a big issue.
It took this year's processional Melbourne race to trigger a proper reaction. After Todt and Carey touched base the Frenchman called on Nikolas Tombazis, the former Ferrari man who had recently been installed as the FIA's top single-seater technical expert.
Prior to joining the FIA Tombazis had done some consulting for FOM, so he was up to speed with the research for the 2021 package that was being conducted by the group of in-house engineers led by F1's chief technical officer and former OWG man Pat Symonds. Although the FOM team would prefer to focus on the bigger picture of 2021 and the challenge of honing a complete package, Tombazis believed it would be possible to cherry pick a key finding from that work, and apply it in 2019.
The research suggested that one of the issues for following was "outwashing" front wing endplate elements, designed to control the airflow over the front wheels and hence the rest of the car. It's the wake generated by these parts that makes life particularly hard for the driver behind. The theory is that removing these elements and simplifying front brake ducts - while also creating a stronger DRS effect with a bigger rear wing flap - will make following and passing a lot easier.
Outwashing endplates first appeared after the OWG had finished its job last time around, so they had not previously been studied in connection with overtaking.
Team technical bosses discussed the evidence in Bahrain, and not surprisingly there was some scepticism about the validity of the findings, and the timescale. With the April 30 deadline for the 2019 regs looming a compromise was agreed and the teams were invited to conduct their own CFD research, and between Bahrain and Azerbaijan eight of them did some homework. Everything was collated in an FIA report that was presented to the teams last Friday in Baku.
According to former OWG member Paddy Lowe, the staunchest supporter of the changes, the teams' research fully backed up the FIA/FOM findings.
"It's the FIA and FOM working together, and they wanted to gain more confidence in their proposal by involving the teams," Lowe said in Baku. "And I believe that's been achieved. I don't believe there were any teams' results which contradicted the analysis.
"This is the time that F1 should act and act decisively for the good for the show.
"There has been some criticism that this has all been done in a rush, it's poorly researched etc. And yes, more time could have been spent. But I believe that although it has been done in a short period of time, there has been far more research on this altogether, and it is done with far more knowledge, than any other rule changes.
"It would even rival the OWG project, which had longer time spent on it, but with less resource and less sophisticated resource, as CFD back then wasn't as good as it is today. We've had eight teams working with the most advanced CFD supporting the project, and what it will deliver.
"The 2017 rules were not researched at all with regard to overtaking, and people were quite happy to adopt them, and we've seen now the result. Any talk of risk, poor research etc, is really misplaced."
Lowe's enthusiasm was not shared elsewhere, and a straw poll of team bosses in Baku quickly revealed some scepticism.
"I'm not sure it's mature enough," said McLaren racing director Eric Boullier. "It's only been discussed for a couple of weeks. We know we have a big change coming in 2021. Do we start now, or do we wait? I don't know, I'm 50-50 on this one."
"I would be surprised if it's agreed," said Red Bull team principal Christian Horner at the weekend. "They're a snapshot of 2021, but taken in isolation. There are consequences that are detrimental, so better to leave things alone as they are for now, and then do a complete package for 2021 that encompasses everything."
This was a common view among the big teams - don't make a small change for 2019; wait for 2021 and do the whole thing on one hit. Renault F1 boss Cyril Abiteboul was another who didn't want the distraction of a big aero changes next season.
"We see it from a strategic perspective," said the Frenchman. "There is a very big exercise being done in partnership with F1, the FIA and the teams for 2021. We are trying, under the leadership of F1, to do something that has never been done in F1 history, which is a rethinking of F1, technical regs, sporting regs, commercial agreement, engine, chassis, governance structure.
"F1 has always been built by layers. And for me that's an exercise that is complex enough and challenging enough for us not to dilute management resources, financial resources, technical resources, but also messaging, with some interim measures.
"In my opinion F1 is good enough for the next two years. Perhaps it can be slightly improved with twists to the sporting regulations, and we will make proposals on ways to make the show better, but we should not distract ourselves from the main objective, which is 2021 overall.
"Just as you don't want a knee-jerk reaction to Melbourne, you shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to the last three races which have all been good" Bob Fernley
"Let's do something proper, which is the whole car, the whole set-up of F1, budget cap, and so forth in 2021. For the time being we have a good product, and I think we should change the perception of the product, and doing some things like increasing fuel capacity, so that there is not the perception that we have to manage fuel saving as much as now."
If the big teams didn't want the headache of a lot of investing time and money in fresh aero R&D what about the small ones? Force India was one team that had doubts.
"It's a big change again," said COO Otmar Szafnauer. "There are credibility issues with it, it's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. We just had a huge change and that's not working, so we're going to do it again?
"And if that doesn't work another big change in 2021? From our selfish and personal perspective, all those changes cost a lot of money, and we're not in a position to spend that kind of money."
And yet Force India could also see a big picture, with the views of Szafnauer's colleague, deputy team principal Bob Fernley indicating just what a quandary teams found themselves in. He made the valid point that it was a good idea to introduce some of the 2021 package now, as it would help to hone the definitive version.
"I have mixed feelings," said Fernley. "The package they want to bring in is a step towards where they want to go, and I feel that might not be a bad step. It could go wrong, but if we don't make any attempt at it, it could also be a hugely embarrassing thing in 2021. I'm not against it particularly.
"Just as you don't want a knee-jerk reaction to Melbourne, you shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to the last three races which have all been good, because there were all sorts of safety cars and mixes involved in that."
Collating those views over the Baku weekend it seemed highly unlikely that the proposals would go through. The way the F1 Commission works is that 18 out of 26 votes are needed to get agreement. It was obvious the FIA and FOM votes would be backed up by those of the promoters and sponsors, and that it would all be down to how many teams backed the plan - and it's believed that as few as four were required. And yet apart from Williams, nobody declared their full support in public.
On Sunday morning Carey almost seemed resigned to the fact that the proposals would not be passed. He understood the objections of the teams, said that he wouldn't "tear his hair out" if the changes were blocked, but that it was worth a try.
And yet when the vote took place on Monday, there were enough team votes to get it through - leaving those who were opposed somewhat shell-shocked.
One view is that those teams who voted for change saw the bigger picture of putting the show first, respecting the fans and supporting the first step towards the new world of 2021, while those who opposed were protecting their own interests in time-honoured fashion because they have a stable aero package they don't want to compromise.
An alternative take is that those who voted yes had their own reasons for wanting to mix things up with aero changes for 2019, and that the 'No' supporters were protecting the integrity of the sport by not going with something that wasn't fully proven and would create unnecessary expense. Take your pick...
One thing is clear - this was just one of the opening moves in what promises to be an intriguing political chess game as we head towards 2021. There are plenty more to come.
This week's confirmation that Formula 1 will introduce aerodynamic modifications to improve overtaking in 2019 has been well received by fans worldwide who want to see more action on track. It's also one of the first clear signs that F1's owner Liberty Media and the FIA are working well together to improve the show, with 2021 targeted for the definitive package of changes.
The way the proposals were approved reflects how complex the road ahead will be over the next two or three years, as they were rushed through at the very last minute, and against the wishes of several teams. It was touch and go whether there would be an agreement, but in the end, there was - to the surprise of the teams who expected the plans to be blocked.
The speed with which this saga unfolded is impressive. Consider that it kicked off when FIA president Jean Todt reacted to what many people viewed as a boring Australian Grand Prix by getting together with F1 boss Chase Carey and discussing what could be done. Just five weeks later some significant technical changes have been proposed, debated, researched, voted on and finally agreed on the very last day that the 2019 regs could be modified.
F1 may be associated with pace, but usually off the track things like this move slowly, with the inevitable vested interests derailing them. For Todt, Carey and sporting chief Ross Brawn this has to be seen a major victory, and a template for future developments.
The process demonstrated that by getting just some of the teams onside the FIA and Liberty can do some pretty dramatic things, and do them quickly, even if it leaves the others with their noses out of joint. Many of the teams tried to block the changes, but for once, they were overruled.
It's worth noting that had those teams succeeded, Todt and Carey could both rightly tell fans, "We tried to solve the problem for you, but the teams wouldn't co-operate." In other words, they'd done their bit.
So how did this fascinating story develop? Overtaking has been a subject of debate for many years, and especially the difficulty for drivers to follow the car ahead. A decade ago the FIA formed an Overtaking Working Group to study the problem. That led directly to the movable front wing flap of 2009, which proved to be a bit of a damp squib, and subsequently the DRS in 2011.
"This is the time that F1 should act and act decisively for the good for the show"Paddy Lowe
Momentum for further change was then lost, and indeed when the 2017 high downforce package was being put together the focus was on lap times and cornering speeds. Overtaking was not part of the remit - despite everyone involved being fully aware that higher downforce levels would mean that it could only be harder to stay close to the car ahead. And sure enough when the new cars appeared last year, following became a big issue.
It took this year's processional Melbourne race to trigger a proper reaction. After Todt and Carey touched base the Frenchman called on Nikolas Tombazis, the former Ferrari man who had recently been installed as the FIA's top single-seater technical expert.
Prior to joining the FIA Tombazis had done some consulting for FOM, so he was up to speed with the research for the 2021 package that was being conducted by the group of in-house engineers led by F1's chief technical officer and former OWG man Pat Symonds. Although the FOM team would prefer to focus on the bigger picture of 2021 and the challenge of honing a complete package, Tombazis believed it would be possible to cherry pick a key finding from that work, and apply it in 2019.
The research suggested that one of the issues for following was "outwashing" front wing endplate elements, designed to control the airflow over the front wheels and hence the rest of the car. It's the wake generated by these parts that makes life particularly hard for the driver behind. The theory is that removing these elements and simplifying front brake ducts - while also creating a stronger DRS effect with a bigger rear wing flap - will make following and passing a lot easier.
Outwashing endplates first appeared after the OWG had finished its job last time around, so they had not previously been studied in connection with overtaking.
Team technical bosses discussed the evidence in Bahrain, and not surprisingly there was some scepticism about the validity of the findings, and the timescale. With the April 30 deadline for the 2019 regs looming a compromise was agreed and the teams were invited to conduct their own CFD research, and between Bahrain and Azerbaijan eight of them did some homework. Everything was collated in an FIA report that was presented to the teams last Friday in Baku.
According to former OWG member Paddy Lowe, the staunchest supporter of the changes, the teams' research fully backed up the FIA/FOM findings.
"It's the FIA and FOM working together, and they wanted to gain more confidence in their proposal by involving the teams," Lowe said in Baku. "And I believe that's been achieved. I don't believe there were any teams' results which contradicted the analysis.
"This is the time that F1 should act and act decisively for the good for the show.
"There has been some criticism that this has all been done in a rush, it's poorly researched etc. And yes, more time could have been spent. But I believe that although it has been done in a short period of time, there has been far more research on this altogether, and it is done with far more knowledge, than any other rule changes.
"It would even rival the OWG project, which had longer time spent on it, but with less resource and less sophisticated resource, as CFD back then wasn't as good as it is today. We've had eight teams working with the most advanced CFD supporting the project, and what it will deliver.
"The 2017 rules were not researched at all with regard to overtaking, and people were quite happy to adopt them, and we've seen now the result. Any talk of risk, poor research etc, is really misplaced."
Lowe's enthusiasm was not shared elsewhere, and a straw poll of team bosses in Baku quickly revealed some scepticism.
"I'm not sure it's mature enough," said McLaren racing director Eric Boullier. "It's only been discussed for a couple of weeks. We know we have a big change coming in 2021. Do we start now, or do we wait? I don't know, I'm 50-50 on this one."
"I would be surprised if it's agreed," said Red Bull team principal Christian Horner at the weekend. "They're a snapshot of 2021, but taken in isolation. There are consequences that are detrimental, so better to leave things alone as they are for now, and then do a complete package for 2021 that encompasses everything."
This was a common view among the big teams - don't make a small change for 2019; wait for 2021 and do the whole thing on one hit. Renault F1 boss Cyril Abiteboul was another who didn't want the distraction of a big aero changes next season.
"We see it from a strategic perspective," said the Frenchman. "There is a very big exercise being done in partnership with F1, the FIA and the teams for 2021. We are trying, under the leadership of F1, to do something that has never been done in F1 history, which is a rethinking of F1, technical regs, sporting regs, commercial agreement, engine, chassis, governance structure.
"F1 has always been built by layers. And for me that's an exercise that is complex enough and challenging enough for us not to dilute management resources, financial resources, technical resources, but also messaging, with some interim measures.
"In my opinion F1 is good enough for the next two years. Perhaps it can be slightly improved with twists to the sporting regulations, and we will make proposals on ways to make the show better, but we should not distract ourselves from the main objective, which is 2021 overall.
"Just as you don't want a knee-jerk reaction to Melbourne, you shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to the last three races which have all been good" Bob Fernley
"Let's do something proper, which is the whole car, the whole set-up of F1, budget cap, and so forth in 2021. For the time being we have a good product, and I think we should change the perception of the product, and doing some things like increasing fuel capacity, so that there is not the perception that we have to manage fuel saving as much as now."
If the big teams didn't want the headache of a lot of investing time and money in fresh aero R&D what about the small ones? Force India was one team that had doubts.
"It's a big change again," said COO Otmar Szafnauer. "There are credibility issues with it, it's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. We just had a huge change and that's not working, so we're going to do it again?
"And if that doesn't work another big change in 2021? From our selfish and personal perspective, all those changes cost a lot of money, and we're not in a position to spend that kind of money."
And yet Force India could also see a big picture, with the views of Szafnauer's colleague, deputy team principal Bob Fernley indicating just what a quandary teams found themselves in. He made the valid point that it was a good idea to introduce some of the 2021 package now, as it would help to hone the definitive version.
"I have mixed feelings," said Fernley. "The package they want to bring in is a step towards where they want to go, and I feel that might not be a bad step. It could go wrong, but if we don't make any attempt at it, it could also be a hugely embarrassing thing in 2021. I'm not against it particularly.
"Just as you don't want a knee-jerk reaction to Melbourne, you shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to the last three races which have all been good, because there were all sorts of safety cars and mixes involved in that."
Collating those views over the Baku weekend it seemed highly unlikely that the proposals would go through. The way the F1 Commission works is that 18 out of 26 votes are needed to get agreement. It was obvious the FIA and FOM votes would be backed up by those of the promoters and sponsors, and that it would all be down to how many teams backed the plan - and it's believed that as few as four were required. And yet apart from Williams, nobody declared their full support in public.
On Sunday morning Carey almost seemed resigned to the fact that the proposals would not be passed. He understood the objections of the teams, said that he wouldn't "tear his hair out" if the changes were blocked, but that it was worth a try.
And yet when the vote took place on Monday, there were enough team votes to get it through - leaving those who were opposed somewhat shell-shocked.
One view is that those teams who voted for change saw the bigger picture of putting the show first, respecting the fans and supporting the first step towards the new world of 2021, while those who opposed were protecting their own interests in time-honoured fashion because they have a stable aero package they don't want to compromise.
An alternative take is that those who voted yes had their own reasons for wanting to mix things up with aero changes for 2019, and that the 'No' supporters were protecting the integrity of the sport by not going with something that wasn't fully proven and would create unnecessary expense. Take your pick...
One thing is clear - this was just one of the opening moves in what promises to be an intriguing political chess game as we head towards 2021. There are plenty more to come.