Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

         

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

johansson-eyes-helmet-cockpit-sign.jpg

#SJblog (source page)

Filtering by Tag: Mexico

First Impressions of 2018 Season

Stefan Johansson

#SJblog 93

JT – Off-season news surrounding Formula 1 often borders on the ridiculous. Liberty Media’s recent announcement that F1 will no longer feature grid girls is a good example. Apart from what seems to be a move aimed at bowing to political correctness, one has to wonder why Liberty made it a point to announce the shift? With all of the challenges currently facing F1, shouldn’t their priorities be focused elsewhere?

Photo by GPMX

Photo by GPMX

SJ – I don’t know if their intent was to really make it the news item that it became where everyone seems to want to chime in and offer their opinion. I guess it’s just another inevitable step in the world of political correctness that we now live in? What I would have loved to hear instead is that in “2020, we’re going to have cars with 60% less downforce, 1,300 horsepower, top speeds around 400kph and 200 kilograms lighter with big fat grippy tires.”

Photo by the talented Rainer W Schlegelmilch

Photo by the talented Rainer W Schlegelmilch

That would be something worth talking about. As it is, that will never happen so here we are talking about grid girls. I feel sorry for the girls, as I think virtually every one of them thought it was an exciting job that got them to travel to places and maybe meet people they would never normally meet in their normal daily routine and I don’t think anyone of them felt anything but happy and positive about doing it. But as always in these matters, it’s the small minority that makes the most noise that seems to be heard the most and as such no one wants to offend them, and here we are. Frankly I don’t think the large majority of race fans around the world, including myself, could care less either way. This is the equivalent to a restaurant making an announcement they’re changing the color on their menu, but the food will still be the same, hardly newsworthy.

JT – McLaren boss Zak Brown recently said that he’d like to F1 to resolve matters around its rules for 2021 by the middle of this season to avoid the series being damaged. He added that the longer negotiations about the rules and a likely $150 million cost cap go on, the more “turbulent” and more “disruptive” they could be.

Brown also said teams would need to know what 2021 rules would look soon to allow them time to prepare or the date for implementation could slip a year or more. In the short to mid-term it looks like F1 is stuck with its current unpopular formula with Mercedes retaining a long standing advantage. What are your thoughts on this?

Photo via Zak Brown's Instagram (@zbrownceo)

Photo via Zak Brown's Instagram (@zbrownceo)

SJ – Historically, the longer the same formula stays in place – as I’ve been saying for years – the grids will tighten up and the costs will eventually go down. The tradeoff between throwing money at R&D and the gain you get is getting smaller and smaller by each year. That typically allows the smaller, less funded teams to catch up a bit. The big teams will always find ways to spend money of course but at least their gains in performance will be diminished some with every year that goes by. Rule stability is always the best way to keep the costs down and the grids close,  once they find the right formula, which is the hard part.

The racing is not going to get any better with the current cars. We know that. People will get closer to Mercedes for sure, we already saw that last year, but that doesn’t mean that the racing will be any better. It’s just the nature of the high downforce cars we have now. The level of sophistication that many race cars have - not just in F1, in the WEC and other formulas too - the level of simulation, preparation and information the engineers have at their disposal, you lose almost every element of unpredictability. And that’s typically what makes the racing interesting and exciting most of the time.

I keep coming back to IndyCar, I think they have the competition formula about as good as you can make it. On the day, someone who gets the critical things right and plays the strategy game well can still win. That’s impossible for anyone outside the top tier in F1 unless there’s a sudden rain shower, a big accident at the first corner or something really unusual happens. There’s very little possibility that you’re going to get a surprising result. You almost know what the result will be before the start of a race or after the first corner.

JT – Interesting things are happening in IndyCar, including pre-season testing at Phoenix where Scott Dixon ran the series’ version of cockpit protection – the aeroscreen. Apparently Scott thinks it has potential.

SJ –Yes, it seems promising although it still may require some more work before they are comfortable to race it. It certainly looks like a much more visually appealing solution than the Halo. But as with all of these things and whatever option will be chosen, two races in we’re going to get used to whatever they choose and then that will be the norm going forward.

All the drivers moaned when the Hans Device came out, including me. It was uncomfortable and restricted your movement but after a race or two you got used to it and didn’t really think about it anymore. The fact that these are cockpit protection devices for the sake of safety, and may save someone’s life– there is no turning back, so we might as well get used to the new look of the cars, although it really does ruin the esthetics of the cars.

Photo via IndyCar.com

Photo via IndyCar.com

JT – There has been a lot of talk about the universal aerokit that IndyCars will run this year. Interestingly, the comments haven’t been uniform with some drivers saying the new lower downforce body makes the cars more much difficult to drive over a stint. Others have said there isn’t too much change from the previous cars, at least on road courses. It will be interesting to see the comparative level of comfort different drivers and teams have with the new cars.

SJ – I think it’s going to be a good thing overall. It’s a good step in the right direction both for the racing and other considerations. The cars look great too, like proper open wheel race cars instead of the previous cars that looked like a barn door coming down the road. I think it will separate the field more than before and all indications are that it requires a lot more from the drivers than the previous high down force cars did.

Photo via IndyCar.com

Photo via IndyCar.com

JT – Looking around the racing world as the off-season begins to wrap up, it still looks – with few exceptions – as if it’s not easy to find money to race. We see struggles throughout professional racing. As you’ve pointed out repeatedly, sponsorship in Formula One is a shadow of what it used to be. Racing has always relied on various forms of patronage but it seems as if that’s more the case today than ever. Do you agree?

SJ – Racing has never really existed without patronage, it has always been the same. The biggest difference today is the sheer cost of competing at almost every level. It’s so much higher mostly due to the technology being used on the cars and how much it costs to run them, and because of the advanced electronics and all the data required the number of people you need to run them competitively has increased dramatically. Even at the most basic level you still require 2-3 times the amount of people you used to. Payroll is always the biggest line item in the budget and if you want to win you have to hire the best people you can get, and they are not cheap.

malboro-mclaren.png

Sponsorship is probably at the same level it’s been for a while except in F1 where teams seems to depend more and more on the money they receive from FOM, but the cost of running the cars is much higher, which means there is nothing left over to hire the best drivers you can get, except for the factory teams. This is a big part of why more and more teams have to rely on drivers bringing a budget of some kind to the teams and a lot of really good professional drivers are unemployed. Sportscar racing today is probably worse dollar for dollar than it was in the 80’s even. Apart from the really top guys in factory teams the driver salaries are lower than I can ever remember.

In Formula 1 especially, it’s purely a matter of cubic dollars, the more you spend the faster you will go. You could argue today, that unless a team is in a position to win races or the world championship, like Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull they might actually be better off hiring a paying driver that brings a substantial budget as they will most likely get more overall performance from that than a slightly faster driver they have to pay to drive. This is the reality today.

JT – We’ve spoken about it a bit before but do you see a cost spiral problem for Formula E?

SJ – It’s a bit different there I think. My guess is they’ll be able to keep a fairly good handle on costs because there’s so little you can do to the cars in Formula E. One of the few things you can touch on the chassi is the damping. The aerodynamics are frozen, the batteries are frozen, the brakes are frozen. You can work on the gearbox and the drivetrain. That’s where money will be spent.

But in comparative terms, what can you do with an electric motor? Not an awful lot to gain performance, most of it comes from the battery. You can work on software and weight. Formula E should be able to control the costs if they’re strong from the start and every indication so far is that they’re actually doing a really good job in that area. They’ve been quite tough on some of the big teams also, so I think everybody already know there’s a big risk in trying to bend the rules and running the risk of getting thrown out if the car does not comply with the rules. We’ve already seen it happen. This has always been one of the problem with Formula 1. Because the formula is comparatively open in as much as that the teams are not restricted to a frozen package on all the key components, the rules are always open to interpretation. The teams spend massive time and energy reading the rules over and over to find a loophole that’s open for interpretation. There then do not seem to be the strength to keep a handle on the rules until it’s generally too late. So whenever someone comes up with something that’s marginal as far as the rules go, they let them get away with it instead of shutting it down right away, and then everyone eventually has to follow as and when they figure out what’s been done. At a huge cost to each team most of the time.

How many times has F1 reset aerodynamic rules? Remember when the cars had aerodynamic devices everywhere? That wasn’t too long ago. Then they banned all of that. Now they’re almost back to where they were. How did that happen? They basically found ways around the rules and no one stopped them.

NASCAR seems really good in that regard because if someone steps out of line they just say “no, not allowed, end of story.” They ban whatever the thing is before everyone gets too carried away.

JT – You were on hand for the Formula E race in Santiago, Chile. The Teecheetahs of Jean-Eric Vergne and Andre’ Lotterer battled hard for the lead with Vergne winning. Felix Rosenqvist came into the weekend leading the championship after two wins from the first four races of the 2017/18 season but lost the lead to Jean-Eric Vergne. He seems to be enjoying FE.

SJ – Felix is loving it, definitely. The race format has become very interesting. It’s not an easy category and it’s a very intense day of racing. The races are short and you’ve got to literally get everything right in one day, from qualifying to racing. So if you’re off the pace at all it’s tough. It’s become very competitive with great drivers and engineers in every team.

Photo via Feli'x Instagram ( @frosenqvist )

Photo via Feli'x Instagram (@frosenqvist)

Felix did a great job in the race to recover to 4th from 14th on the grid, and the team did a blistering fast driver change which gained him some positions also.

JT – How was the racing received in Santiago?

SJ – It was positive and negative because apparently the track was laid out over three different municipalities in the city. Two of them were very happy to have the race there and one was very negative. So there was some vocal criticism but I think the promoters did a good job overall. The track was bumpy but it was a nice layout and the race was good. Overall, it was good and there’s no doubt that FE has some very good momentum at the moment.

JT – Prior to Santiago, you were down in Daytona for the Rolex 24. The race was a star-studded affair this year and the crowd was reportedly very good. There was some hard racing and some attrition but surprisingly few caution periods. The Cadillac DPis of Action Express were the class of the prototype field while the Ganassi Ford GTs dominated GTLM. Scott Dixon came home with another Rolex 24 win. What did you think of Daytona this year?

Photo via Scott's Insagram ( @  scottdixon9 )

Photo via Scott's Insagram (@scottdixon9)

SJ – Daytona was good, no doubt. The formula that IMSA has come up with for DPi/P2 is working well. The Dpi’s seemed to have an edge but the racing was good. Overall, it was a big grid and there was definitely a lot of interest. Alonso being there didn’t hurt. There was a good feeling from the whole thing.

Scott and his co drivers did a phenomenal job all race, although they had to use some clever strategy towards the end in order to get in front of their sister car and win their class. Both the team and all six drivers did a superb job and no one put a foot wrong for the entire race.

There were the usual complaints about BoP and how you control it but you’re always going to have the same problems with it. There’s only ever one team that’s happy, whomever is on top of the podium, the rest always think they’ve been screwed.  I keep coming back to my argument that the GTLM cars are so good today that if you unrestricted them, it would be enough. You wouldn’t need the prototypes anymore.

If you took the restrictors off all of the GTs and had every manufacturer build a proper car instead of relying on BoP to make them competitive, they could be going at least 10 seconds per lap quicker. Just unleash the GTs and they’d be flying.

JT – You’re in the process of writing another treatise on the state of racing currently and what you think could be done to restore it to better health for the future. Last year, you did that in column form for Racer Magazine and it was very well received. In a nutshell, what will you be adding this year?

SJ – It’s really a philosophical way of looking at the cars and the future of racing based on my thoughts and conversations I’ve had recently with several designers/engineers and drivers. There are five tenets basically.

First, you minimize downforce so that the cars are drive-able, but no more than that. I’m guessing 60 to 70 percent less downforce than we see on a F1 car today.

Second, increase power by 200 to 300 horsepower.

Third, weight. That’s the biggest issue for me and why there’s no focus on weight I can’t understand – on track or on the road - in terms of energy usage. Weight should be the prime target for efficiency, not batteries or most of the other things being pushed now. We keep adding weight to vehicles, and how does that affect efficiency? We all know that’s a problem – both with race cars and street cars. Hypothetically, if you could cut the weight of every car on the road or track in half, can you imagine how much that would increase efficiency and reduce environmental impact?

Four, you define an energy allocation allowed for any race car. A car is allowed ‘X’ amount of energy consumption whether it’s powered by gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, electric power - whatever it is – for the duration of a race distance.  There must be a formula that can be worked out combining energy consumption and thermal efficiency. Then you can quickly determine which combination works best.

Five, free up tire technology. You could immediately gain as much as 5 seconds per lap if the tire companies were allowed to build the best tire they can. I can see at least four tire companies that would be interested right away if the rules were open for anyone to compete and use whatever size tire they prefer. That would mean we would never see these silly looking balloon tires again, that were last seen even on a roadcar sometime in the 70’s!

Photo by Pirelli

Photo by Pirelli

Put all of this together and the lap times cars run would run would very soon be quicker than they are now, it’ll just be achieved in a different way, and they’ll be spectacular to watch. They’d be faster on the straights with acceleration that would be mind-boggling. Braking distances would probably be 100 yards longer than they are now with the lower downforce. Cornering speeds lost by the lack of downforce would be partially returned by the added tire grip and less weight. That would promote overtaking and the drivers would have to work very hard to make the cars go fast.

Ideally, there should be four areas of almost equal importance to the overall performance of the car, Chassi (including Aero), Engine, Tires and Driver. As it is today, Aero have by far too much importance, followed by the engine, then the tires and finally the driver.

And of course, the other point behind this is to save money and cut the cost of racing, by restricting areas of development where damaging amounts of money are being spent now for no reason, and emphasize other areas – like tire grip. There’s a huge amount of time and efficiency to be gained there and a tremendous amount of money to be saved for the teams.

There’s more to all of this, including my thoughts on race tracks, and I will elaborate a lot more on each topic.

The Controversial Mexican Grand Prix

Stefan Johansson

- #SJblog 79 -

JT – Last weekend’s Mexican Grand Prix was an unqualified success in terms of the enthusiasm and large turnout of Mexican fans. But the race itself was a mess. The officiating of the grand prix proved to be confusing for both fans and drivers.

Lewis Hamilton won from the pole despite out-braking himself at Turn 1 and reentering the track at full speed in Turn 3. No penalty was assessed though Hamilton clearly gained advantage. Nico Rosberg finished a somewhat distant second after surviving a hit from Max Verstappen at Turn 2 which forced him off track.

The third spot on the podium wasn’t decided until hours after the podium celebrations. Daniel Ricciardo was awarded third place due to penalties handed out to his Red Bull Racing teammate and Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel.

Battling for third with Vettel just behind in the last laps of the race, Max Verstappen blew Turn 1 in similar fashion to Hamilton, leaving the track and reentering at Turn 3. No penalty was issued as the laps wound down and Verstappen refused to cede the position to Vettel. This allowed Ricciardo to quickly catch Vettel and attempt to pass him for fourth position. Ricciardo saw an opening at Turn 4 and dived to the inside. Vettel squeezed him to the left under braking, making light contact with Ricciardo and held his position.

Post-race, the stewards handed Verstappen a five second penalty for blowing Turn 1 and pulled him from the podium, elevating Vettel to third place initially. But hours later Vettel was also penalized by the stewards, forfeiting 10-seconds “for driving in a potentially dangerous manner, making an abnormal change of direction, and causing another driver to take evasive action.”
Hence, Verstappen finished 4th while Vettel ended up 5th.

The lack of prompt action by the stewards for each infraction should be an embarrassment for Formula One principals. They failed to act when Hamilton made a mistake then waited to assess penalties on Verstappen and Vettel until after the race. There’s much to be said about the race and the inconsistent/un-timely rulings but I believe your thoughts begin with the track - Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez – itself.

SJ – You are correct. I’ve been trying to arrive at an answer as to why the officiating of F1 has become such a mess all of a sudden. It’s certainly not the first time we’ve seen drivers duke it out with three or four laps to go. That’s the kind of close competition people want to see but this was compromised.

The new track designs with massive asphalt run off areas have slowly and systematically been introduced to every new track and modified on most of the old and existing tracks, mostly for safety reasons. Since this started to happen there has been no clearly defined rule about exceeding track limits or taking advantage of the runoff areas. Because of this the drivers have been able to do pretty much whatever they have wanted without being immediately punished for their mistakes or abuse of the track limits, by simply continuing to race even though they’ve gone off-track.

In other words, the only punishment you can get now is what comes from the control tower rather than an immediate consequence for running off-track. Formula One needs to figure out how to reintroduce an immediate and natural punishment for going off-track.

Take, for instance, Lewis’ mistake at the start of the race. He braked too late, locked up, missed the corner and carried on without even losing a position. At a few other tracks if he’d done the same thing, missing the corner entry by breaking to late and then leaving the track, the best case scenario would be that he knocked off a front-wing endplate or something and would have to pit. Or he might have gotten stuck in a gravel trap. Maybe he gets towed out of it but loses lots of positions or even a lap.

In the past, even when you had an area where there was a clear runoff or an “escape road” as it used to be called, the rule was always that you had to wait to rejoin the track until the marshals waved you on – in other words, when the track was clear. I can’t actually remember why and when that rule changed or was no longer enforced but it used to always be the rule. Knowing this, you had no choice but to be a lot more cautious of missing the entry to the corner as it effectively would ruin your race in many cases. What used to be the escape road is now effectively the entire area past the track limit as there is no longer any definition beyond that point but instead just one huge patch of asphalt in most cases, which of course make the re-entry to the track much more difficult to control. Now drivers just keep their boot in it and keep going, entering the track wherever it suits them.

Stefan Johansson - McLaren F1 - MonacoGP - 1987

Stefan Johansson - McLaren F1 - MonacoGP - 1987

And really, so would I. Because if you can get away with that, that’s what you do. Anyone with even an inkling of competitive spirit would do the same thing. Without clearly defined rules as to what you can and can’t do, this is what happens.

Lewis did exactly the same thing as Verstappen. Both of them blew Turn 1 but Verstappen was penalized and Lewis wasn’t. The rulings are completely random, all over the map.

What I’m getting at is that the fact that these situations now have to be controlled and decided by a human being is wrong. There should be an immediate, natural consequence for screwing up. They need to figure out a way to redesign these modern race tracks to bring that about. The way things are now makes it a complete mockery of the sport. The drivers don’t know if they’re coming or going.

At the end of this race time penalties were handed out. Whether what Verstappen did was right or wrong – personally, I think it was wrong but it’s not for me to decide – he should have been told to immediately give up his position to Vettel if he was judged to be wrong. In the end, instead he lost two places. He gave up a position to Vettel and then lost one to Ricciardo. This is not fair on Verstappen’s part as he lost one position more than he should have and gave an unfair benefit to Ricciardo who had nothing to do with the battle between Vettel and Verstappen but gained one position more than he should have thanks to the time penalty. There is no science behind these time penalties but just a random number picked out of the blue. Who says 5 seconds is the correct penalty, why not instead 10 seconds, or 3, they’re all completely random numbers and does not relate to the “crime” in any way.

By being wishy-washy and not having consistency in the officiating, F1 has allowed the situation to get out of control. We need to find a way to go back to basics and try to avoid having to make calls from the control tower when they should be decided on or by the race track itself.

We have street circuits on the F1 calendar. They don’t have runoff areas and at each one you avoid these situations because there’s nowhere to go beyond the track limits, if you do you hit a wall. Look at old pictures of circuits where the curbs are a foot high at a 45-degree angle. You sure as hell weren’t going to run over those curbs. You had to adapt and drive accordingly. Interestingly, if you look back and do the statistics, I don’t think there were any more incidents or serious accident because of these kerbs, because people simply had to drive with this in mind, which again sorted the good ones from the average in a much better way.

JT – There are multiple specific examples of F1’s inconsistency in officiating that stem from rulings/non-rulings in Mexico. Another you mention is their ruling on Vettel’s battle with Ricciardo.

SJ – With two laps to go, Vettel basically did what Verstappen has done in most races this year and he gets penalized. Verstappen is yet to receive a penalty for the same actions.

Yes, they changed the rule about moving in a braking zone, or said they would enforce it harder from Texas onwards but all they’re doing is just adding another element of confusion. There are so many ways to interpret this same issue that it’s become an almost impossible task to hand out a fair penalty. At some point they just need to let the drivers get on with it.

Assume for a moment that Verstappen was racing in NASCAR. He wouldn’t have finished one race this season. He would have been in the wall every single race if he had applied the same attitude he’s shown in F1 so far. The other drivers would have sorted him out in no time until he would have shown a mutual level of respect that the other competitors showed to him. Of course, you can’t do that in open wheel cars but I remember numerous times when there were a very frank conversation at the back of a truck (hauler) somewhere. That’s how it used to get sorted out if someone stepped out of line. And before you knew it everyone was falling into line. Look at the guys who’ve gone into NASCAR from other series – Montoya, Tony Stewart, all of these great drivers. They all had to pay their dues. Correct the problem with the tracks and let the drivers sort on-track behavior out among themselves. They’re supposed to be the best in the world and it wouldn’t take long for a pattern to form where everyone would be on the same page. There are always exceptions of course and every generation seems to have a resident idiot in the field, but generally speaking, they are rarely one of the top guys as they are clever enough to understand that those methods are not winning you races and championships in the long run.

JT – Do you think the varied challenge of IndyCar racing enhances race-craft? On ovals for example, you either learn to respect the track and the other drivers or you don’t last long.

SJ – Absolutely, no question about it. A large degree of this deficit of skill or race craft is once again partly due to the design of modern circuits, and the relatively equal character to every track they race on. Finding the limit on these tracks is too easy. That of course promotes more irresponsible behavior because the risk and often even penalties, are removed from the equation. Again, there is no punishment. There are a couple of the current F1 drivers, without mentioning any names, that are absolutely brilliant in the Simulator and also as test drivers, but as soon as they get into a position where they have to race someone hard or have a few cars around them everything just goes to pieces. I have had discussions with the team principals about this and they are completely baffled about their lack of basic race craft.

JT – Going back to the Mexican GP, one has to wonder why the FIA waited to issue penalties until after the race? Why couldn’t they have been issued immediately – particularly regarding Verstappen or Hamilton. Those were clear-cut infractions. And if a penalty had been issued in timely fashion, wouldn’t that have diffused the situation that arose between Vettel and Ricciardo?

SJ – Exactly, as I said before, the penalty should have been immediate. Within a lap they should have got on the radio and told Verstappen to let Vettel go by.

What choice did Vettel have? He gets backed up into Ricciardo and he’s all of a sudden looking at losing 4th place and being 5th when he should have been in 3rd place. Any driver would have had the same level of frustration, it goes without saying and that leads to my next point.

I don’t remember when this whole open-radio policy began where the public can hear conversations between the drivers and teams. I guess that’s part of the entertainment now but if you allow and promote that then you’re going to have to expect that drivers are going to show their frustration now and then. Why should that surprise anyone? At least you’re hearing a live, breathing human being showing real emotion instead of drivers thanking the team, sponsors, their parents, etc – all that stuff you normally hear on the slowing down lap has become almost meaningless.

What Vettel said shows what’s actually going on in the car and I can relate to it 100 percent. Normally when you get on the radio like that, you just want to blow off some steam. Yes of course, you have to try to control yourself but I’ve certainly been guilty of using far worse language than Vettel did.

Stefan Johansson - Ferrari - Italian GP - 1986

Stefan Johansson - Ferrari - Italian GP - 1986

JT – Some commentators are now publicly recognizing what you have been commenting on for months. The 2017 rules package for F1 which allows a significant increase in downforce levels will do little if anything to improve the racing. However, those inside F1 still don’t seem to see this, correct?

SJ – The general consensus seems to be that the cars will become more difficult to drive next year because of the added downforce, and the really brave and good one will stand out much more than they do now.

I disagree completely. Anyone can drive a high downforce car. There’s no bravery involved when the car’s completely stuck to the track. It will just make the racing even more like a video game. Bravery comes into it when you’re balancing a car right on the edge of adhesion going through a high speed corner on the very limit. Like Eau Rouge used to be. It’s already almost not a corner anymore, I can’t even think of what it will be like next year. All this will do is make the minimum speed mid corner in the slow stuff even more critical and there will be absolutely no way to make up any time in the high speed stuff as the car will be completely stuck. The cars will outgrow the tracks even more than what is currently the case.

Pedro Rodriguez - Ferrari - MexicanGP - 1965

Pedro Rodriguez - Ferrari - MexicanGP - 1965

The technical rules in Formula One have gotten so complicated that the only people who really understand them are the engineers. That’s why they are the main people involved in writing the technical rules. I guess in a way it’s job security for them. I keep repeating myself over and over, Aerodynamics and the endless search for more downforce will kill the sport if they don’t do something about it. It serves no purpose but to make a race car go faster, but at a cost that will make your eyes water. The top teams now employ something like 200 people in the Design and Engineering departments, of which half are aerodynamicists. And all they are allowed to do is fine tune and hone an aero package that is so strictly defined that I beg anyone to tell me which car is which if they painted them all white. There is no innovation anymore, just and endless tinkering to gain an extra half percent here and another quarter percent there.