The British Grand Prix may be over (sadly without a British winner) but the off-track jostling for position has only just begun. Formula 1 – or perhaps we should just say top-flight motorsport – is one of engineering’s global flagships, so its future has bigger implications than the world of sport. The big teams are planning a breakaway championship that would leave Formula 1 looking distinctly second best by comparison. By the end of this week we should have a better idea whether this is another example of brinkmanship that will end in compromise or the start of a new era in which the teams – and by extension their engineers – assume the decisive role in shaping the sport. What do you think will happen? Tell us via the Comment button.
The thorny issue of defence procurement is likely to rear its head tomorrow when the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee publishes its report on the Type 45 Destroyer. The warship is widely hailed as a technological marvel that will strike terror into the Royal Navy’s enemies for years to come. Unfortunately the project also became associated with cost overruns and delay (£1.5bn and two years, according to spending watchdog the National Audit Office) so expect some stern words from the MPs on the lessons to be learned.
Many attempts to turn a particular week into a national event are lame affairs driven by narrow self interest, but that’s not the case with National Design & Technology Week which begins today. Organised by the Design & Technology Association, the aim is to promote D&T to pupils and the wider community through a series of events. Given the current clamour to reinvigorate the
And finally, back to sport for an example of engineering in action. If the heavens open over
Andrew Lee, editor
Whilst I can understand the need to control costs within F1 to ensure the survival of the teams needed to fill the field, it’s a shame that developments like KERS will be the first casualty. From a sport that brought the likes of ABS and Stability Control to the masses, and which have managed to make our roads a great deal safer, the KERS system looked like it could have, if development had continued, provided our road vehicles with a useful ability to either aid in overtaking or save fuel when accelerating. BMW’s efficient dynamics is a good example of how engineering can have a positive impact on fuel use for very little by way of negative aspects. At the moment it seems aerodynamics are key to a team’s success but I won’t be expecting my car to have a “double deck diffuser” any time soon. Two different F1 style competitions will just stretch the limited sponsorship money that is currently available even further, which in turn will just hamper team development budgets even further. I suppose they could always ask their local MP to help with their expenses. As long as it’s “within the rules” of course!
With reference to the Type 45 Destroyer:
‘Expect some stern words from the MPs on the lessons to be learned.’
I seem to recall similar words after TSR2 and Nimrod. Nothing really learnt in over 40 years, could some other force be at work perhaps?
I think they should break away. In the last race there were zero overtaking manoeuvres among the point scorers (except for pit stops). Aerodynamically the cars look as they did in the 80’s with Senna and Prost. The engines are not allowed to improve. A motorsport that does not evolve becomes species to be extinct. The performance targets should also evolve and the championship points should be given according to: fuel consumption, reliability and endurance. The whole sport should evolve. The circuits and tracks as well should use geosynthetic materials.
I believe it is about time government took a closer look at motorsport in this country and gave more support to the industry. I believe without their help motorsport engineering could go the way of our other manufacturing industries, i.e. overseas! This would be disastrous. Yet more vital skills would be lost. I don’t think we can purely rely on the aerospace industry to sponsor, create, nurture and uphold talent in engineering and neither can Dyson alone (his Technology Centre plans have been shelved, which is such a shame). There is undoubtedly a posturing power struggle going on in F1, one can understand the position of the motor manufacturers and their desire to keep more of the commercial money F1 derives. After all, why should such a large proportion simply go to a ‘smart’ agent who saw an opportunity and brokered initial deals? Greed has to be managed, to a degree. Governance is a thorny legal issue, and it’s about the recognition of the established authority, however nobody is above examination, modification and evolution. Ownership of ‘branding’ could be an interesting legal argument to follow. Who owns which words and in what order they appear, and what do they actually mean? I would love to be a fly on the wall to some of those conversations! In my opinion here, for too long ‘branding’ has been a byword for ‘bulls**t’. However, I do believe that owners and makers (of manufactured goods) and brands have a legal right to assert their full ownership and intellectual property – at least for some period of time and within a legal framework for continuance – which is, I suppose, generally what exists in many fields. Motor racing will survive for the time being in the UK, but there is a danger that these issues, not managed carefully, could result in the UK motor racing industry becoming yet another museum and Heritage Park attraction. The demise of which would reflect on our education provision and economy being regarded as second division, and that can’t be very intelligent can it?
I think control by the teams rather than an official body would be much better, as long as all teams had equal power with regard to decisions. Often in the past the FIA has made bad decisions. Teams having more control would help to prevent this. Decisions would be made from a bigger knowledge-base from within the sport
It seems to me that the FIA want to run sport as a dictatorship. My impression is that the teams have had as much of this dictatorship as they can stomach. The arbitrary changing of the rules has had its day. Let the sport have free reign to go in other directions.
I tuned into yesterday’s coverage and (before nodding off…) noticed a view of a bank of monitors watched by six or seven technicians. I presume they were monitoring the condition of the car? This must cost a fortune and is symptomatic of the sport’s excess. F1 will always be one of the most boring sports as long as the technology is more important than the driver. For the sake of the spectacle, the teams need to think differently. For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone could regard the current show as entertaining.
It is not correct to expect a team like Ferrari to be to be limited to the spending power of a lesser team. If you cannot compete in the market then either compete at your level or keep out.
FIA – FOTA split would be disastrous for the sport and UK industry, as influence in FOTA is outside the UK and the control would swing to Italy; Germany or even Japan eroding UK FI motor sport and industry base.
FOTA has a strong point that 50% of F1 revenues go outside of the sport; a compromise between the parties MUST happen, and soon!
Recent ‘New Tracks’ may be magnificent structures but commercial White Elephants that are devoid of spectators. You only have to visit Turkey and Silverstone to see the opposites.
I’ve been actively following the sport for 58 years through its triumphs and tribulations, but the clash now of power / politics / money must be resolved in favour of the sport.
With regard to the F1 debate, I don’t think that whatever happens will make much difference to top-flight motor sport in the UK. Most of the teams and engineers are based here in the UK and that position is unlikely to change irrespective of how the championship might look in the future. You say that we didn’t have a British winner last weekend. Not true; Red Bull are based only a few miles away in Milton Keynes and regard Silverstone as their home circuit.