2022 Regulations, Did it deliver on its promise?

[Zico]

Formula one is a highly technical sport where differences of milliseconds translate to millions of dollars for drivers and teams. Hence all aspects of it are observed from a purely scientific perspective. Hence, when there is an objective-inspired change in regulation, we should take a scientific view to access its effectiveness and measure its success in achieving its objective.

There has been open debate about this topic. For many, the racing is familiar because it is similar to what we are used to in the past; tough duelling in the midfield and one team beating the rest of the grid by 30 seconds or more and waltzing off to win the championship with ease. This 2023 season has started off with all the hallmarks of just that scenario. What can be perceived from the immediate outlook is that the 2022 regulation and its variant in 2023 is clearly highly effective in the midfield where the racing is more intense than at any time in F1 history; but, no discernable effect can be seen at the sharp end of the grid. The status quo remains, meaning a dominant team can still emerge to win titles with zero competition from the nearest rivals. The net result is the F1 competition is for all other positions bar the championship-winning positions.

While l am mindful that l am commenting too early in the season, the season opener always gives a good indication of how the season would turn out. It tells us who is dominant and the extent of the dominance and how close the nearest rival is to the dominant team. This gives us an indicative measure of the level of competition for the titles we should expect this season.

By jove, Redbull has turned up with a car that is even more dominant than the 2022 car. Verstappen finished the race 38.637 seconds ahead of Alonso in the Aston Martin and he wasn't even pushing to the limit. That car probably has a full minute gap of race pace to the Aston if pushed to the limit.

The question is, what are the criteria for stating that the 2022 regulation is effective in the sharp end of the grid?

I think the following should manifest:

1. All cars racing at the sharp end of the grid should be within 5 seconds from the leading car at all times during the race.
2. The race should finish with the top two or three cars within two seconds of each other. Think of Jedda 2022, Verstapenn versus Leclerc. Now that is racing.

Of course, this scenario may not manifest itself at all races due to many factors that may produce a maintainable gap for the leading car. But in the above scenario, these factors should not produce a regular occurrence that manifests a clear untouchable dominance of racing.

To be fair, this last point is what should be proven by the next four races at least to put this criticism at bay. We could say therefore that we should revisit this discussion in four race time, l think. Though, l am not holding my breath, l expect Redbull to be miles ahead in four races time.

The criteria is that the teams are closer together than before.. which they generally are.
Yes Red Bull are perhaps the exception to the above trend, IMO they just got it right last year, successfully evolved the car for this year and have probably just been far more efficient and successful in making the correct upgrade choices going forwards.
That said, I still feel that the fact that all the midfield teams are generally much closer together proves that the new regs are achieving what they set out to achieve.

Red Bull will be affected more than the others with reduced CFD/wind tunnel time later on in the season, yes it will probably be far too late to affect the championship outcome but unless they start putting literal success ballast on the cars on a race by race basis, (which I wouldn't feel comfortable with and also find very contrived) This is about as fair as it can be.

Red Bull will probably go on to dominate this season but by 2024 they are going to start being affected by their budget and CFD reduction success ballast. It will just take a bit of time to show that it works, I very much doubt Red Bull will continue to dominate for the next 5 years to the same degree that Merc previously did.

If you think the new regs are not working fast enough, what new rules would you suggest that is going to guarantee your (unrealistic IMO) results criteria on a regular basis?

Would you still be as concerned that no one was challenging Merc if THEY were still dominating?

I think the only way you could get your desired deltas on a regular basis would be if F1 became a single chassis/engine series to put everyone on the exact same performance baseline..

[Bagwan]

So , Red Bull has already won it all ?

I guess I don't need to watch then .

[Nitrodaze]

The criteria is that the teams are closer together than before.. which they generally are.
Yes Red Bull are perhaps the exception to the above trend, IMO they just got it right last year, successfully evolved the car for this year and have probably just been far more efficient and successful in making the correct upgrade choices going forwards.
That said, I still feel that the fact that all the midfield teams are generally much closer together proves that the new regs are achieving what they set out to achieve.

Red Bull will be affected more than the others with reduced CFD/wind tunnel time later on in the season, yes it will probably be far too late to affect the championship outcome but unless they start putting literal success ballast on the cars on a race by race basis, (which I wouldn't feel comfortable with and also find very contrived) This is about as fair as it can be.

Red Bull will probably go on to dominate this season but by 2024 they are going to start being affected by their budget and CFD reduction success ballast. It will just take a bit of time to show that it works, I very much doubt Red Bull will continue to dominate for the next 5 years to the same degree that Merc previously did.

If you think the new regs are not working fast enough, what new rules would you suggest that is going to guarantee your (unrealistic IMO) results criteria on a regular basis?

Would you still be as concerned that no one was challenging Merc if THEY were still dominating?

I think the only way you could get your desired deltas on a regular basis would be if F1 became a single chassis/engine series to put everyone on the exact same performance baseline..

If you read my post carefully, you would notice that we are talking here about the objective of the 2022 regulation as openly proclaimed by the F1M. The expectations stated were merely in line with the closer racing criteria presented when the new chassis architecture was introduced to the F1 world in 2021.. The midfield was already very close before the 2022 regulations and did not require any changes. Hence using the midfield to defend the regulation is accepting that the regulation is not working as stipulated. The real ethos for the 2022 regulation was to prevent teams like Mercedes, Redbull and Ferrari from dominating the racing in such a way that there is no real competition for the championship at the front of the grid.

The current racing is familiar to you such that anything else is unusual and unreasonable. But, something else is just what the 2022 regulation promised and is failing to deliver. My post is simply pointing that out, it is not for me to dictate what the regulation should be. But as a fan of F1, l am entitled to review and comment on the regulation where it appears to be falling short of its promise. But you are also entitled to accept the outcome that produces racing that is similar to the pre-2022 regulations. Samemo samemo, who would notice eh?

[Zico]

If you read my post carefully, you would notice that we are talking here about the objective of the 2022 regulation as openly proclaimed by the F1M. The expectations stated were merely in line with the closer racing criteria presented when the new chassis architecture was introduced to the F1 world in 2021.. The midfield was already very close before the 2022 regulations and did not require any changes. Hence using the midfield to defend the regulation is accepting that the regulation is not working as stipulated. The real ethos for the 2022 regulation was to prevent teams like Mercedes, Redbull and Ferrari from dominating the racing in such a way that there is no real competition for the championship at the front of the grid.

The current racing is familiar to you such that anything else is unusual and unreasonable. But, something else is just what the 2022 regulation promised and is failing to deliver. My post is simply pointing that out, it is not for me to dictate what the regulation should be. But as a fan of F1, l am entitled to review and comment on the regulation where it appears to be falling short of its promise. But you are also entitled to accept the outcome that produces racing that is similar to the pre-2022 regulations. Samemo samemo, who would notice eh?

Due to the nature of the changes, it's just going to take time. Red Bull aren't going to ve affected until the end of this season and beginning of 24.

If they brought in success ballast on a race by race basis to achieve your desired time deltas between the teams it would probably take away and stunt development... ie what is the point of developing the fastest car if its just going to be immediately knobbled... and I think that would also take away a lot of appeal for the manufacturers. I think the element of doing a better job than the others and not getting immediately equalised has to remain.

If that is not what you are thinking... what else could be done that isn't so acutely contrived and wouldn't devalue the sport?

I'm fine with it as it is, maybe it helps that I'm not a fan of any particular team. We are only 1 race in, so I'm not yet fully convinced that Red Bull are as dominant as they first appear to be.

[Bagwan]

I've watched since around 1968 when the only race I could catch was Monaco , on Wide World of Sports , and , it seems to me there has pretty much always been a team that gets it right , and everybody else grumbles about it .

But , I'm enjoying the new formula , as it has tightened the mid-field by making the cars capable of following much more closely .

The first race showed us a lot , but it showed the teams the relative strengths they have against their rivals .
So , the next two races should give us a clearer picture of what the season has in store .

[Nitrodaze]

Due to the nature of the changes, it's just going to take time. Red Bull aren't going to ve affected until the end of this season and beginning of 24.

If they brought in success ballast on a race by race basis to achieve your desired time deltas between the teams it would probably take away and stunt development... ie what is the point of developing the fastest car if its just going to be immediately knobbled... and I think that would also take away a lot of appeal for the manufacturers. I think the element of doing a better job than the others and not getting immediately equalised has to remain.

If that is not what you are thinking... what else could be done that isn't so acutely contrived and wouldn't devalue the sport?

I'm fine with it as it is, maybe it helps that I'm not a fan of any particular team. We are only 1 race in, so I'm not yet fully convinced that Red Bull are as dominant as they first appear to be.

Applying ballast to the winning car has been tried before. I vaguely remember it was used in F2 not too long ago. I personally do not like the concept as it is artificial and punishes success rather than reward it. I thought the point of the new chassis and its control sections of it was to ensure that the performance of the competing cars was not too broad such as to produce vast gaps in performance at any part of the grid. It is fair to say that there would always be at least two tiers to the grid due to financial effect and inherent technical capabilities of the top teams. But the regulated chassis should ensure the performances in each tier are always very close. I think they could reign in more sections of the chassis to bring about closer racing. There is clear enough flexibility in the chassis to allow one team to dominate in such a way as to remove any real hard-fought competition for the title. But to be fair, l agree that we should see a few more races before any criticism is made.

I think the idea of the reverse grid from F2 may help mix things up a bit and give midfield teams a chance to win races. If the race was split into two, with the point-scoring positions reversed for the second race. Or something of that nature.

[airshifter]

I've never seen any promises from F1M about midfield teams on the podium on a regular basis, nor that the top teams would all change, nor that the margins would grow significantly smaller through the entire pack. Not even close. Maybe someone has some links showing otherwise?

What they did clearly state was major changes to car design to allow for closer racing for extended periods, reduction of "dirty air" to allow this, and hopes of more passing on track. The budget caps and aero limits allowed a means for lesser teams to develop more than the better teams and give them a chance to catch up vs the previous regs, which would tighten the field strength.


And in my opinion, the regs worked just fine. On track passing increased by about 30% through the year, and many of those passes involved multiple cars in close proximity for a number of laps. Cars on differing strategies could finally fight when they didn't have the pace advantage for a DRS fly by pass. Though the top teams remained the top teams, the order in WCC standings changed. The largest gap was 1-2, and the 2-3 fight was tight and fighting until the end. The rest of the field shuffled completely with only a single team (AM) finishing in the same position as the previous year. The bottom several teams also scored more points than the previous year, so the spread of points through the pack was not as great as with the old regs.

Now in only the second year, the lowest ranking teams will benefit even more, and the highest ranking teams will have stiffer penalties. I seriously doubt if that is going to allow things to get nearly as spread out as the previous regs, money is now in the picture along with the aero and CFD caps.

If the first race is any indication, the WCC deck will shuffle once again. We've already had a team ranked 7th last year on the podium, as well as a 10th ranked team score a point.



I'm not for gimmicks and restrictions in F1. They make a box and make the constructors stay within the box. The constructor that does it best wins, and their drivers benefit from better cars. If it reaches a point of reverse grids, ballast, and other such nonsense they may as well just make it a spec series. The spec series already exists in Indycar, and with budgets similar to F1 they would probably be almost as fast. But even with their current series which is essentially a spec car, the racing is only but so close, and a good part of that is due to strategy calls and luck of refueling windows vs track accidents and such. Certain teams still rise to the top even though in theory they should not.

Maybe they should ballast on each stop and then apply a formula to allow cars and drivers to be more equal. After all, they could just regulate it until everyone gets a trophy.

[Nitrodaze]

I've never seen any promises from F1M about midfield teams on the podium on a regular basis, nor that the top teams would all change, nor that the margins would grow significantly smaller through the entire pack. Not even close. Maybe someone has some links showing otherwise?

What they did clearly state was major changes to car design to allow for closer racing for extended periods, reduction of "dirty air" to allow this, and hopes of more passing on track. The budget caps and aero limits allowed a means for lesser teams to develop more than the better teams and give them a chance to catch up vs the previous regs, which would tighten the field strength.


And in my opinion, the regs worked just fine. On track passing increased by about 30% through the year, and many of those passes involved multiple cars in close proximity for a number of laps. Cars on differing strategies could finally fight when they didn't have the pace advantage for a DRS fly by pass. Though the top teams remained the top teams, the order in WCC standings changed. The largest gap was 1-2, and the 2-3 fight was tight and fighting until the end. The rest of the field shuffled completely with only a single team (AM) finishing in the same position as the previous year. The bottom several teams also scored more points than the previous year, so the spread of points through the pack was not as great as with the old regs.

Now in only the second year, the lowest ranking teams will benefit even more, and the highest ranking teams will have stiffer penalties. I seriously doubt if that is going to allow things to get nearly as spread out as the previous regs, money is now in the picture along with the aero and CFD caps.

If the first race is any indication, the WCC deck will shuffle once again. We've already had a team ranked 7th last year on the podium, as well as a 10th ranked team score a point.



I'm not for gimmicks and restrictions in F1. They make a box and make the constructors stay within the box. The constructor that does it best wins, and their drivers benefit from better cars. If it reaches a point of reverse grids, ballast, and other such nonsense they may as well just make it a spec series. The spec series already exists in Indycar, and with budgets similar to F1 they would probably be almost as fast. But even with their current series which is essentially a spec car, the racing is only but so close, and a good part of that is due to strategy calls and luck of refueling windows vs track accidents and such. Certain teams still rise to the top even though in theory they should not.

Maybe they should ballast on each stop and then apply a formula to allow cars and drivers to be more equal. After all, they could just regulate it until everyone gets a trophy.

Sorry mate, l don't buy that for a moment. Vettel won a race with a midfield car in 2007. So what we are seeing in the midfield is nothing unusual and not necessarily attributable to the new regulations. I would admit that the cars are racing closer than before with less debilitating effect of dirty wake from ther cars ahead.

NO, the F1M did not in clear terms state that "midfield teams shall be on the podium on a regular basis, nor that the top teams would all change, nor that the margins would grow significantly smaller through the entire pack". They did allude to closer racing for the championship not closer racing in the midfield where the racing is not for the championship.

Maybe we should take another view to this question. What was the point of the changes introduced by the 2022 regulation in the first place? If we go back to the 2019, 2020 and 2021 seasons, the racing was already very close and exciting. The battles in the midfield were particularly fierce and very interesting and not dissimilar to what we are seeing in the 2022 era. The net change is a swap at the top of the grid with gaps similar to racing prior to 2019.

The pattern is similar to the characteristics of the Ferrari and Mercedes era of dominance where they were untouchable for a period of time then towards the end other teams caught up and the racing got fiercer as a change at the top transpired. This does not properly translate to Mercedes's case as it seemed manufactured rather than organic.

The bottom line is, the general expectation from the 2022 regulation was for there to be a proper fight for the championship from a cluster of teams. The F1M did allude to gaming console F1 type racing where there is a clear level playing field for all cars. The reality is they are a million miles away from this picture painted by Ross Brawn. By the looks of the cars, they are unlikely to achieve that also. The net changes to the car has produced the same type of racing we have seen in the past. And I see your point that we should not set the bar higher than what is realistically achievable.

To be honest, l hoped for much more than what has transpired.

[Bagwan]

I was under the impression that the point of the new regs was to allow for closer racing .

As they were before , the regs had everyone complaining that they couldn't follow closely .
The ironic result of previous diffuser development had added the responsibility to make sure nobody could follow closely .

The working group came up with this formula to increase the air pressure directly behind the cars , and it seems to have been very effective .




I did hear of some fiddling they are considering , for some reason .
I read that they may have teams , in a sprint race trial this year , use only the hard tire in Q1 , medium tire in Q2 , and soft in Q3 .

I'm not sure what that gives us , other than some scrambling to figure out all the compounds in practices , but it seems like it might be a good step forward in environmental terms .

[Nitrodaze]

I was under the impression that the point of the new regs was to allow for closer racing .

As they were before , the regs had everyone complaining that they couldn't follow closely .
The ironic result of previous diffuser development had added the responsibility to make sure nobody could follow closely .

The working group came up with this formula to increase the air pressure directly behind the cars , and it seems to have been very effective .




I did hear of some fiddling they are considering , for some reason .
I read that they may have teams , in a sprint race trial this year , use only the hard tire in Q1 , medium tire in Q2 , and soft in Q3 .

I'm not sure what that gives us , other than some scrambling to figure out all the compounds in practices , but it seems like it might be a good step forward in environmental terms .

To be fair, they have achieved the target of closer racing. However, it has made the fight in the midfield closer and fiercer. The entertainment of F1 racing has been mostly in the midfield for many years now, and the entertainment they produce is not rewarded according to the level of entertainment they produce. Maybe the teams that produce the most entertaining racing of wheel-to-wheel duelling should be paid the most, regardless of where in the grid that racing is occurring. Not necessarily the team that won the race if they won it without engaging in any battle to win the race.