Under the Bonnet. Graham Mitchell's view on how technology should be used in F1

Has F1 now reached the crossroads or driven itself into a cul-de-sac? Citing lessons learned from 2009, self-proclaimed experts predicted 2010 would be the turning point when Grand Prix racing would change. A return to slicks was meant to have created overtaking opportunities but it didn’t. So then we were told by the FIA that banning refuelling, having smaller front tyres and further reducing aero down-force would. And that was after KERS, movable wings and heavily reworked aerodynamics had been sent to the ‘knackers-yard’. How convincing it sounded.

Let’s be honest, the FIA’s technical regulations are hastily re-written and reactionary at best. They are penned by technical working groups, overtaking groups, needless consultants and F1’s equivalent to a government quango. F1 needs variables and the element of surprise not a spec formula that’s proven not to work. It’s not hard to decide which is the best direction to go in. Over the years we have seen it all: V12s, V10s, V6s, V6 turbos, four cylinder turbos. Now, ask yourself which era produced spectacular racing because that’s the direction F1 should be going in.

F1 teams spend millions on aero development programs which produce nothing of any real commercial value or relevance to us, the aerospace or automotive industries. Airbus or Boeing don’t knock on McLaren’s door on Monday morning to be first get their hands on the latest aero tweak so what’s the point in the vast investment?

We mortals live in a world of diminishing resources where oil is going to run out quicker then we think. In the meantime, we’re being held to ransom every time we fill up at the pumps and F1 doesn’t seem to be doing much to stimulate the development of engines which run further on less fuel. Instead we watch on helplessly as the more interesting technology gets used for other things such as military jets, Unmanned Air Vehicles and missiles.

Our little island does ‘boffins in garden sheds’ really well, yet somehow we never seem to reap the benefits of it, I say we should keep all the best stuff we develop and sell it to anyone who wants a fast-track for product developments.

Let’s look at it another way: if the FIA regulations stated that teams had to use new technology which was applicable and easily transferable to everyday transport needs, I believe the manufacturers would have something worthwhile. F1 is a fast-track route to developing technology, materials and processes, and technology drives the world.

A few years ago, the FIA’s then technical consultant Tony Purnell was quoted as saying “I see Formula One steering towards much more restrictive rules, so that the areas of technical development are more isolated but, by the same token, somewhat relevant to society. And where it has become, dare I say it, just a job-creation exercise, that should be stamped out. But it's a fine balance.”

What exactly was he saying here? That we should stifle creativity, that we don’t need new jobs and that we don’t need to sell our technology to countries who don’t have the wherewithal to do it themselves? Search me. It seems to me that statements like this do an injustice to the industry and come across as sheer lunacy.

I have been directly involved in many T2 programmes and technology innovations in F1, besides working on some notable technology milestones of the past few decades such as Rolls-Royce’s Olympus 593 ‘Concorde’ engines and composite rotor blade systems way back in the 1960s. This is how technology, if used effectively, can drive the world forward, and how we mere mortals can ultimately benefit from it in the future. More anon.

Graham Mitchell is chief technology officer of HMR International Consultants.