By Chloe Lee
The current state of Formula 1 reflects a landscape that is no longer suiting the drivers, constructors, or the viewers. Despite the idea that regulations set forward by the FiA, the governing board of F1, should be encouraging more exciting, innovative, and safer racing from year to year, many viewers and drivers feel the sport has become more unwatchable, harder to drive, and overall more unsafe. Cars are now too fast, wide, heavy, or long for proclaimed historic, iconic, or otherwise praised tracks, and many within the FiA refuse to change the schedules in the name of tradition or iconography, even as regulations shift towards innovation.
This leads to the following question: Are rules now making the F1 boring to watch?
Defined more thoroughly, how, if at all, have the developments in F1 car aerodynamics and overall make since 2006 contributed to a both functional and experiential disconnect between modern cars and historic circuits, and has this dynamic influenced both the disuse of certain track layouts or the decline of interest on others?
Upon approaching this question, and as a dedicated fan of the sport, it felt easy to answer immediately; yes, the sport is surely becoming more disconnected from what it used to be. Yet, after a thorough Causal-Comparative Analysis, working to evaluate track fit from both viewer and driver, the findings presented are anterior to this initial hypothesis.
By analyzing average overtakes per race, overtakes growth rate, race betting odds, viewership numbers, # of red and yellow flag per year, comparative qualifying times, and significant regulatory changes, including changes in aerodynamics (ground-effect and the Drag Reduction System (DRS)), car and engine make, the study assesses whether these regulations have positively influenced the sport through the lens of the selected F1 tracks. Tracks in which overall track scores improved over the course of 20 years, showing positive influence, are Hungaroring, Imola, Nurburgring, Monza, Silverstone, and China (see figure below). Tracks in which overall scores did not improve over the course of 20 years, showing negative influence, are Monaco and Spa.
The current state of Formula 1 reflects a landscape that is no longer suiting the drivers, constructors, or the viewers. Despite the idea that regulations set forward by the FiA, the governing board of F1, should be encouraging more exciting, innovative, and safer racing from year to year, many viewers and drivers feel the sport has become more unwatchable, harder to drive, and overall more unsafe. Cars are now too fast, wide, heavy, or long for proclaimed historic, iconic, or otherwise praised tracks, and many within the FiA refuse to change the schedules in the name of tradition or iconography, even as regulations shift towards innovation.
This leads to the following question: Are rules now making the F1 boring to watch?
Defined more thoroughly, how, if at all, have the developments in F1 car aerodynamics and overall make since 2006 contributed to a both functional and experiential disconnect between modern cars and historic circuits, and has this dynamic influenced both the disuse of certain track layouts or the decline of interest on others?
Upon approaching this question, and as a dedicated fan of the sport, it felt easy to answer immediately; yes, the sport is surely becoming more disconnected from what it used to be. Yet, after a thorough Causal-Comparative Analysis, working to evaluate track fit from both viewer and driver, the findings presented are anterior to this initial hypothesis.
By analyzing average overtakes per race, overtakes growth rate, race betting odds, viewership numbers, # of red and yellow flag per year, comparative qualifying times, and significant regulatory changes, including changes in aerodynamics (ground-effect and the Drag Reduction System (DRS)), car and engine make, the study assesses whether these regulations have positively influenced the sport through the lens of the selected F1 tracks. Tracks in which overall track scores improved over the course of 20 years, showing positive influence, are Hungaroring, Imola, Nurburgring, Monza, Silverstone, and China (see figure below). Tracks in which overall scores did not improve over the course of 20 years, showing negative influence, are Monaco and Spa.
Analyzing the findings in the context of that initial question, the developments in Formula 1 car aerodynamic and overall make since 2006 has generally not contributed to a function nor an experiential disconnect between modern cars and historic circuits, with moderate exceptions. This dynamic has influenced track calendars and track interest notably through the displayed moderate exceptions seen in Spa and Monaco.
In recent years, Spa is now an “alternating” track, where it alternates yearly with another circuit, showing the “disuse,” while Monaco is often dreaded due to low overtakes and slow lap-times. It can also be noted that, while not shown in the findings, track calendars and track interest have been influenced by tracks of the likes Nurburgring and Imola, as they have been removed from season calendars as a result of perceived danger or loss of spectacle, despite fan engagement at these track formats.
Chloe Lee is a a senior student in high school, Arizona, USA.
In recent years, Spa is now an “alternating” track, where it alternates yearly with another circuit, showing the “disuse,” while Monaco is often dreaded due to low overtakes and slow lap-times. It can also be noted that, while not shown in the findings, track calendars and track interest have been influenced by tracks of the likes Nurburgring and Imola, as they have been removed from season calendars as a result of perceived danger or loss of spectacle, despite fan engagement at these track formats.
Chloe Lee is a a senior student in high school, Arizona, USA.
RSS Feed
