Why is motorsport so riddled with complex regulations, and with endless changes and debates? Puzzled Onlooker
Every sport must have rules to define what the game is, and to govern how it is played. Things that “must” be done, and things that must “not” be done.
These must take into account everything from technology (which is always evolving), to economics, spectator appeal, competitor preferences, safety, the practicalities of organisation, equipment, venues, timetables, sponsors, television schedules, general legalities, social trends, lobby groups, what you wear...and hundreds of other case-by-case factors. None of these is stand-alone; they each and all affect each other.
So, all must be considered individually but decided collectively - within an overall policy/strategy. The so-called “policy pie" of all this is incredibly complicated – parts of which we realise, others we don’t, and some of which we probably never will.
A topical example is a proposed change in engine rules for Formula One cars. Soon. The past tells us that the racing sound spectators (and many competitors) loved most was the era of the 3.0 litre V10. It was loud enough to vibrate your ribcage and could both roar and shriek at an ear bursting volume. The fuel it burned, and how, had a distinctive smell that fans liked – at the track and in their dreams.
After subsequent changes, for a dozen different reasons, today’s F1 cars all have 1.6 litre V6 turbo/ hybrid engines.
Manufacturers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing them; they’ll have to spend again to change them.
The technology is compatible with other cars they make, the weight-saving has allowed greater safety and strength in other parts, they tick the political box of progressively reduced fuel consumption and emissions...(I say “political” because the F1 cars themselves are “nothing” in this regard, compared with the support armies and equipment they ship around the world and the millions of spectators who attend grand prix).
All the stakeholders in F1 have a different opinion of what might replace the current configuration, for various different reasons, with all the factors listed in the second paragraph of this article in play, plus, no doubt, many “etc” factors we (and even those who will make the decision) are unaware of.
The levels of surreptitious “information” gathering and concealment in this must be mind-blowing.
What the organisers of F1, and all other sports, have to find is a recipe whose appeal will ensure popularity among spectators and participants, and generate income and growth and exciting delight through whichever pipeline each stakeholder feeds from.
And, oh yes, which makes the sport “fair”. That’s the short word, but it is not the right one. They have to “equalise” the chances of a wide enough constituency that their event draws in the wallets and keeps the watchers on the edge of their seats.
Apparently fair rules will not always achieve that. Equality must be strategically manufactured. Because if you lose the “doubt” of who is going to be best the event will be a demonstration, not a competition. And (preferably nail-biting) competition is the overarching and under-pinning ingredient of any sport.
For example, if one team has designed a 1.6 litre V6 turbo engine that will be 10 percent faster than all the others, engine rules would have to be changed, or the 2026 Grand Prix season would be a farce. That's one possible reason for the current debate. There could be several others.
