The 2023 Formula 1 season reached a low point in terms of decision-making during the Qatar Grand Prix. Everything that could go wrong did. The imperfect weekend was evident from the sole practice session where sand made data collection almost futile.
Metaphorically, the sand had obscured more profound issues. After Friday’s qualifying, the problem of the pyramid-shaped curbs surfaced, necessitating a last-minute change in the layout of turns 12 and 13 to address the vibrations that posed a significant risk to Pirelli’s tires.
FIA: Late and One-Sided Intervention
This required a last-minute scramble, and the prescription arrived just five hours before the race, compelling teams and drivers to adhere to a strict three-stop strategy to limit tire life. This was further complicated by intricate calculations involving tire sets used.
As a result, fans were left acting as accountants, interpreting the race’s progression based on a countdown that hung like a sword of Damocles. The FIA justified its decision based on safety concerns.
While safety is a legitimate concern, it was a belated response. Certain issues should have been addressed beforehand, and it’s astonishing that the routine track inspections at the Qatari circuit did not raise any preemptive concerns, neither among FIA delegates nor Pirelli personnel, who don’t emerge from this incident in the best light.
“The FIA should inspect the track before sending us here because changing the circuit at the last minute is not the right way to go. Making last-minute rules isn’t fair,” commented Sergio Perez, echoing the sentiments of many of his colleagues.
The race direction attempted to patch a hole that felt like an abyss with no visible bottom. This decision came after analyzing data and consulting the tire manufacturer. A perfectly normal process, but it lacked input from those physically behind the wheel. Once again, the drivers were treated as non-central components in a mechanism where they should be the pivotal point.
F1: The GPDA’s Weakness
Why does this happen? In recent years, the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association (GPDA) doesn’t seem to have played a significant role in F1 decision-making. At times, it felt like the drivers, despite being the unequivocal stars of the show, had decisions imposed on them without being actively involved. And when they were involved, their role was seldom decisive.
This points to a recurring weakness in the GPDA. Their work is often inscrutable. The prevailing image is of a group that struggles to exert pressure, despite having tremendous potential influence. They tend to spring into action only after problems arise, rather than proactively addressing them. Drivers have the power to shape the outcome of races, but they’re increasingly hamstrung by contracts and sponsorships that demand action at any cost, limiting their ability to effect change.
In the case of a resurfaced and modified circuit, it might have been appropriate to send a GPDA representative, possibly their leader Alexander Wurz, to attend and raise initial concerns. Pirelli and the FIA could have worked in synergy with event organizers to address these concerns. However, this didn’t happen in Qatar, and this should be a codified practice. This approach allows decision-makers to forge ahead on their path, marginalizing the role of those who physically hold the steering wheel.
This episode, along with many others from the recent and not-so-recent past, should serve as a warning to the 20 protagonists and pave a solid path for the future: F1 cannot set certain parameters without the GPDA’s consent. Otherwise, the GPDA risks becoming a redundant, token entity.
The FIA cannot make crucial decisions unilaterally, and Liberty Media should not merely act as a spectator or a guarantor of respecting commercial contracts with TV and event organizers. The time for collaboration has come. We can’t wait any longer, nor can we allow drivers, as happened the other day, to cross the finish line exhausted and jeopardize their own safety.
Source: Diego Catalano for FUnoanalisitecnica
Leave a Reply