THE PARC FERMÉ RULE … CLOSES THE DOOR TO VICTORY FOR CHARLES LECLERC ON THE STREETS OF HIS HOME
Obviously we were all left feeling bad, very bad. Because after years of suffering there was finally a Ferrari in pole position, in Monaco, where the first position on the grid is worth half of victory. And turning on the TV to see Charles with his head down on a guard rail was a shock. Actually it would have been even if this sad fate had happened to someone else. Formula 1 desperately needs unpredictability, and anyone who could broaden the field of contenders for victory would be welcome.
Instead, hope was broken against the strict rules of the Parc Fermé , which authorize minimal interventions on the cars after the tests, even in the event of an accident. We can argue endlessly about Ferrari’s choice to start with the same rear end as in practice, so as not to incur a penalty of five positions on the grid. Incidentally, I believe they were right to take the risk. The fact remains that, by virtue of a regulation created with certain purposes, the race lost its most awaited protagonist even before the start.
THE SPIRIT OF THE CLOSED PARK RULES AND THE CONSEQUENCES
This very bad regulation is not born out of pure sadism, mind you. Instead, it falls within the dominant logic of cost reduction, and when it was created it wasn’t even so far-fetched. Suffice to say that thirty years ago teams were authorized to bring an almost infinite quantity of mechanical parts and components to the pits, and could replace them in complete freedom. There was a spare car, in some cases even two, so both drivers had a car ready to suit their tastes. There were qualifying engines that lasted fifteen kilometers and then were replaced by the fresh one for the race. There were ten chassisa year, replaced with minimal damage.
Easy to understand how much this cost. And what furrows of competitiveness could be created between those who could can afford such resources and those who instead arrived at the racetrack with two cars reduced to the bone, begging the drivers to keep the car on the track, repairing in an artisanal way what unfortunately broke.
THE SUSPICION THAT “THE PATCH IS WORSE THAN THE HOLE”
So a stricter regulation on parc fermé is welcome. It took a little bit of limiting the waste of money on parts that break after two laps, in spite of every basic principle of mechanical design and also the repercussions on mass production. Except that the limitation is liked so much that now it is suspected that a certain limit has been exceeded.
A season of more than twenty grands prix with so few gearboxes and engines nobody can handle. So much so that the teams are already planning the substitution, and the consequent penalty on the grid, on tracks where they know will “hurt them less”. And it’s not that good to look at.
In addition, last Sunday there was the real case that “turns the table”. The situation of a driver who gets a historic pole, a result that can transform a boring race into an event full of ideas and that doesn’t even manage to take off. All after several hours of his mechanics looking at the gearbox from above and below, from right and left with every possible diagnostic tool, without being able to open it!
SOME TIPS FOR THIS CLOSED PARK, PLEASE!
And then perhaps some regulatory changes to the parc fermé regime are needed. Not an upheaval, but an adjustment yes. Maybe that after an accident we can also intervene on the internal parts. At least being able to do it a certain number of times during the season.
In short, that allows those who had a great results in qualifying to be able to use the benefits of their talent in the race. Because a driver who gets pole and can’t even start due to the team not being able to fix his car suffers an injustice. And it is a case in point that does not even go in the direction of the show on the track that rightly worries fans and managers of motorsport so much. Or not?
Leave a Reply