“Tell me what you want. Do you want me to pass, or do you want me to save fuel, like a duck?”
This was the question a frustrated Sebastian Vettel posed to his engineer, Guillaume “Rocky” Rocquelin, over team radio during the German Grand Prix
Lewis Hamilton, keen to make up speed at the Austrian Grand Prix, urged to his team over radio to “…give me some updates on where I can be quicker”.
Fuel saving properties of ducks aside, these are precisely the situations that governing body the FIA are looking to eliminate by taking a new hard-line approach to the enforcing Article 20.1 of the sporting regulations. The move is seen as a move to appease television pundits and audiences.
The principle of shifting racing decisions from the pit wall to the driver is welcome. F1 drivers are supposed to be the gladiators, the best of the best, the ‘Car Whisperers’ so in tune with the feedback from their car that they alone can push the vehicle to its limits, better than anyone else on earth. It’s a compelling image, and one that if maintained does wonders for the prestige of the sport.
The FIA’s new approach is designed to fend off the greatest threat to that image, the perception that drivers are just following orders in a life-size version of Scalextric played by engineers.
Based on a September 15 report on adamcooperf1.com, however, it seems that much like a self-conscious teen might lather on buckets of Brut 45 to impress a date, the FIA may have been a little over zealous the application of their team radio bans to protect the image of the sport.
The FIA have issued the new guidelines that will apply at anytime the car is out of the garage, including during free-practice and qualifying. This could wreak havoc with race starts, as the pre-race formation lap is a hectic time for drivers and engineers to sort out last minute issues, prepare the car and identify potential hazards before a race.
Instructions can always be heard on engine modes, bite points and burnouts required to ensure a safe, clean start. With this information expressly prohibited there is a risk race starts could become a dangerous and messy affair.
The timing of the new approach to enforcement also raises concerns, coming past the halfway point of a season that has seen the cars become more complex to manage than ever before.
The new guidelines – What’s Out?
The below is a look at some of the main changes. The full list of changes can be found at adamcooperf1.com.
The enforcement of the Article 20.1 does not mean total radio silence, rather it prohibits all communication from pit to car assisting driver performance. The rule is not new, but the dawning of the technical V6 Turbo era has exposed an over-reliance on team radio.
Information on fuel flow settings, Information on level of fuel saving needed.
In most Grands Prix, fuel saving advice dominates radio chatter. Drivers and teams are obviously keen to avoid the fate that befell Daniel Ricciardo when he was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix, so fuel consumption is monitored exceptionally closely.
It has also been a prickly issue for drivers. Being told to lift and coast when all you want to do is thrust and parry, to borrow the term, goes against a racer’s instincts to drive on the edge. It will be interesting to see what happens when responsibility for saving fuel is placed in the hands of the drivers and who is able to exercise restraint.
Gianpiero Lambiase’s insistent, school-teacher-like transmission to Sergio Perez in the German Grand Prix stands out as a great example of how the teams have needed a firm hand in their management:- “We cannot rely on the rain, so please lift-and-coast. That’s the last time I’m going to ask you, OK? I will not repeat it again.”
The drivers do have the information they need to manage fuel flow on their steering wheels, so it should be a manageable task. The naughty corner awaits those unable to exercise restraint.
Answering direct questions from a driver
It sounds more like a made-up rule from a drinking game, but teams will supposedly be prohibited from answering direct questions from drivers. It is unclear whether or not that includes a driver’s questions for information teams are allowed to pass on.
For example, teams have been advised they are allowed to use encouraging words to the effect of “push hard”. Suppose a driver asks the direct question “Can I push hard?” Is a team allowed to answer in that situation? And if not?
Imagine the following:-
Driver: “Can I push hard?”
Team: “Sorry mate, I’m not allowed to answer that. OK, push hard now.”
Most of the time it seems drivers prefer to issue orders rather than ask questions, anyway. Rather than asking, “can I push now?” a driver is more likely to say “tell me when I can push.” Interpreting rules is all about pushing the semantic envelope, so it will be interesting to see if there is anyone willing to test the boundaries of what constitutes a question.
Expressly allowing the teams to say ‘push hard’ raises its own problems. Of course a team won’t tell a driver to push hard if the fuel situation is dire. Could another team argue that pushes the limits of the ban on fuel information?
That’s not a coded message, that’s just common-sense. Speaking of coded messages…
Any message that appears to be coded.
This is going to be a tough one to enforce, “appears to be coded” leaves the door wide open for interpretation and appeal.
Deciding on whether or not a message is coded or not will require careful analysis from the FIA, and it is reasonable to expect the teams will be reviewing transcripts to see if they can spot an opponent trying to slip information to a driver in a coded message.
The FIA has already indicated penalties will be sporting rather than financial, so this gives teams a huge incentive to catch one another out flouting the rules.
Sahara Force India, for example, sit just one point behind McLaren in the Constructors’ Standings. If they were in a situation where they genuinely felt they had picked up on something the FIA had missed, they would surely feel they it would be irresponsible not to lodge an appeal.
Not to presume any of the teams would take the risk, but the level of allowed communications gives huge scope to slip in coded messages. Teams are allowed to acknowledge driver messages, so even using a “Copy that” instead of a “Roger that” could be used to convey meaning to great effect.
Adjustment of power unit settings.
This could have a huge impact, as we have seen plenty of occasions in which engineers advise drivers on setting selections, and drivers seeking advice on how to revive underperforming power units.
The steering wheel is an incredibly complex interface, as the below exchange between Jenson Button and engineer Dave Robson on lap 44 of the Chinese Grand Prix demonstrates.
DR: And Jenson, default X1C, please.
JB: You’ll have to explain to me how many pushes of each button.
DR: OK Jenson so one push on the left and thirteen on the right.
Wow. It sounds like a kid trying to enter a cheat code on a video game. Picture that while driving an F1 car. Yep, no worries mate, let me just count to 13 presses, wait, did I hit that properly on the ninth press, was that 13 or 14 presses….. what engine mode am I in now?
And that’s apparently just to get to a default setting.
This could see drivers not being able to find the maximum performance from their cars, and may lead to an increased number of DNFs. Information advising on how to balance the battery’s State of Charge (SOC) battery is also forbidden, and may also lead to cars lacking the power needed to remain competitive on the track.
If permitted, we could see a redesign of the steering wheel interface to make the quasi driver/engineer role more manageable.
Sector time detail of a competitor and where a competitor is faster or slower is out – Lap times as a whole are in.
With regard to the transmissions that make it to the television feed, this year we have mostly seen Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg interested in how each other are performing in different sectors.
The pair, and others, have been very interested in where they can extract extra time across the track, but this sort of precision information will now be removed.
Instead, drivers will be told whether they are faster or slower than their rival, and adjust their driving style where they feel they can find time.
Information on brake balance or Brake By Wire (BBW) settings, warning on brake wear or temperatures, brake balance settings, information on differential settings.
The faster an F1 car is driven the easier they can be to stop, as without heat generated under heavier braking the brakes will be too cold to do their job. Conversely, when they get too hot the brake pedals will become very long, and drivers may not have the control over braking distances they would like.
This rule becomes fully effective after the Singapore Grand Prix, but when it does drivers will be totally reliant on feedback from the brake pedal and the car’s behaviour to get a gauge on brake temperatures.
An instruction such as Hamilton’s “Let me know where I need to put my brake balance for temperature” under safety car conditions in Hungary, will go unfulfilled under the new enforcement regime.
Information on differential settings is another extremely common point of advice given that has been deemed illegal.
So what can they talk about?
Some communications not related to driver performance remain on the green list.
Teams can acknowledge that a driver message has been heard. Teams can provide lap or sector time detail, but only the lap time detail of a competitor.
Gaps to a competitor during a practice session or race are permitted, and the words “Push hard,” “push now,” “you will be racing driver X,” or similar are permitted. Exactly what defines similar is as yet unclear.
Safety warnings such as warning of traffic during a practice session or race, puncture warnings, potential problems with an opponent’s car, flags or debris on the track, remain on the permitted list.
Funnily enough, the former cardinal sin of radio comms, the infamous Team Order, remains on the approved list.
Pit stop information such as when to come in, front wing adjustments and tyre choices will not result in a penalty, and general intel on an opponent’s strategy also remain legal.
Moving forward
If the motivation of the changes was improving the image of the sport, it may have backfired in the short-term. Across message boards and Twitter, the general feeling is that introducing the changes at such a late stage in an open championship race is meddling to the extreme.
If we see points removed and results of races modified on appeal after the chequered flag, it won’t do anything to repair negative feelings that F1 is a beautiful sport bogged down by bureaucracy.
Feelings in the paddock are mixed, with Red Bull Team Principal Christian Horner has provided his in-principle support Mercedes boss Toto Wolff is anticipating trouble coming from the enforcement of the rules. The FiA have definitely created a whole stack of extra work for themselves.
Most people would agree with Red Bull Team Principal Christian Horner’s view that “It is time for the drivers to drive”, but the initial reaction is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
Whether there is any room to negotiate the scope of team radio bans during the normal Thursday managers’ meeting, particularly as it relates to race starts, remains to be seen.
Thank you for reading. Please take a moment to follow me on Twitter – @SimonODea. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter – @LastWordOnSport and @LWOSworld– and “liking” our Facebook page.
Interested in writing for LWOS? We are looking for enthusiastic, talented writers to join our Formula 1 writing team. Visit our “Write for Us” page for very easy details in how you can get started today!
For the latest sports injury news, check out our friends at sports injury alert.
Have you tuned into Last Word On Sports Radio? LWOS is pleased to bring you 24/7 sports radio to your PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone. What are you waiting for? GO!
Main image:
