An unfortunate result of the general perception that there is not enough overtaking in F1 is that the FIA has become involved. For more than twenty years they have been creating rules with the alleged intent of making more passing opportunities. Unsurprisingly, nothing has worked and the amount of overtaking remains about the same. The really silly thing is that everyone knows exactly what is needed – a long straight with a slow corner at the end.

The easiest way to pass in motor racing is to slipstream or draught the car in front down a fast straight and then use the extra speed to come alongside and attempt to outbrake the other car at the corner. Without a long straight, overtaking becomes nearly impossible (but not quite – as already demonstrated in previous posts).

The light does appear to have dawned and the latest circuits, such as Turkey and China, have been designed with such straights and corners. As a result, they have become immediate favorites. But the damage done in previous attempts to increase overtaking remains and further changes are planned. The FIA’s CDG wing is an example.

It is my contention that the amount of overtaking should not be the concern of the FIA in the first place. Their job is to create a workable formula for F1 and then allow the designers to create the best cars they can within the stated limits. When the governing body becomes involved to the extent of dictating the design of wings, something is very wrong.

I have already written about this in my post, The FIA and the Aero Boys, and I do not want to repeat myself in this article. Suffice to say that you cannot legislate for overtaking and the FIA should stop trying. Now that circuits are being designed to the necessary configuration, the need to meddle with the cars in the quest for overtaking falls away in any case.

It is our own fault that things have come to such a ridiculous pass. By accepting the myth of “no overtaking in F1″ and then complaining about it, we gave the FIA the green light to extend their powers into this area. The only excuse we have is that the myth originated with the drivers themselves. Repeatedly they have said that the aerodynamics of modern cars are interfered with when following other cars closely – and this is true. But to say that this makes passing impossible is not only obviously untrue (since we see cars being passed in every race), it is also missing the point.

F1 aerodynamics have made it more difficult to pass but not impossible. And the difficulty level is what sorts the men from the boys. This is what it’s all about, after all – the sport is supposed to be for only the gifted few, those drivers who can recognize difficulty but overcome it. Out there on the tracks we see great drivers passing each other in spite of the difficulties involved. If we were to make it easy to pass, where is the glory in being able to do so? Do we want F1 to be like NASCAR, with constant meaningless lead changes? I sincerely hope not.

Formula One fans are the most informed in the world. To understand and become passionate about the sport, they have to develop a knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics, politics, drivers, circuits, teams, tires, weather, driving techniques, race strategies and a hoste of fine details. I am constantly amazed by the extent of knowledge and understanding amongst the fans – to be able to give such informed and sensible opinions as they do on every aspect of F1, they must all have done their homework. Surely it is time that they recognized this whole overtaking thing as a myth. We don’t need more legislation, we need less.

I was not going to deal specifically with each launch of the new F1 cars since the press are covering them quite adequately, but I find that I have been won over by the BMW Sauber site. Their car is just so pretty!

The new Ferrari is being talked about incessantly, the McLaren is parading around to much admiration (sorry, Ron, I disagree with your drivers – that color scheme is just plain ugly), even the Renault is pushing its way into the news (and it will take a while to get used to that dark blue). But no-one is taking much notice of the BMW so it seems allowable that I devote a post to my new enthusiasm. Take a look at this photo of the F1.07 in action and tell me it doesn’t look great – the white allows us to see the true shape of the car and the blue trim has been tastefully blended into the whole design.

The finish on the car is excellent as well – easily up to Ferrari standards. But the real reason for this post is to parade the fact that I have now done my homework and know all about zero keels, single keels, V keels etc. Craig Scarborough has written a very good article that explains everything but, in a nutshell, the whole business of keels is caused by the necessity of raising the nose to get improved aerodynamics.

Raise the nose and you find difficulties in attaching the lower wishbones of the front suspension – suddenly there is empty space where there used to be chassis. Various solutions have been tried, most involving building extensions (known misleadingly as keels) downwards to allow attachment of the suspension. The single keel is a triangular section extending down from the chassis whereas Renault knocked a hole in the triangle to allow more airflow, thereby inventing the V keel. But the zero keel, apparently first used on the Spyker cars, gets rid of the keel altogether by angling the suspension upwards to attach to the chassis at an angle. This can be seen quite clearly on the F1.07 – note how the front suspension arms droop downwards from the body to the wheels.

The benefits of the zero keel are purely aerodynamic in that the airflow is not interrupted by any extension to the chassis. There are disadvantages – the angled suspension allows for less adjustment to suit different conditions – but these are compensated for by the improved aerodynamics. At least, almost all the teams seem to think so, only Renault sticking with their V keel.

BMW Sauber have had their zero keel for a while now so they should know all about it. The changes they have made are mainly in the design of the front and rear wings, lower and more carefully shaped rear bodywork and a new quick shift gearbox. The fancy flip-ups attached to the sidepod cooling towers don’t even get a mention, however.

Take a look at this photograph taken from above the car – in spite of all the winglets and protuberances demanded by aerodynamics, it still forms a harmonious overall design.

An old F1 saying is that what looks right, is right. If that is true, then the BMW has a very good chance in 2007. I wish the team well, although I’m still betting on Button for the championship.

I see the aerodynamicists are wanting a share of the F1 limelight now, no doubt encouraged by the engineers becoming stars alongside the drivers and team managers. Willem Toet, BMW’s head aero man, has been talking about the FIA’s proposed CDG (Centreline Downwash Generating) wing and the alternative proposed by the aerodynamicists. He wants the aero boys to be consulted by the FIA before any rule changes are made.

Well, good luck to him, say I – getting the FIA to listen is an achievement nobody has managed so far. But the whole business does illustrate how the FIA has gradually expanded its powers into areas that should not be the concern of a governing body. Their job is not to design cars, it is to set a basic framework for the technicians to work within.

So, for example, they might set the maximum engine size at 2.4 liters but to specify number of cylinders is overstepping the mark. The whole point of F1 design competition is that the engineers be free to experiment and invent within given parameters. By entering what is really the design arena, the FIA have created a situation where complexities multiply and their task of overseeing things becomes impossible.

Twenty years ago cars were becoming faster than drivers could safely cope with, thanks to ground effect technology. The solution applied by the FIA was both simple and obvious – they ruled that cars should have flat bottoms and no skirts. That is a perfect example of how a governing body should function – no messing around giving exact specifications of what is allowed and what isn’t, no introducing their own design that everyone must use, just a simple, bald statement. And designers had to work within the new rule, like it or not.

During Mighty Max’s presidency the FIA has increasingly forced its way into areas that are not their business. The CDG wing is just one instance of this; other examples are legion. For instance, that long-running bugbear, overtaking, should not be any concern of theirs. The more they meddle with detailed specifications to the finest detail, the worse things get. Until they get back to their primary task of setting the basic formula and leaving the technicians to decide what they will create within those boundaries, we can expect only more and more interference and lawsuits from the FIA.

We approach a situation where the FIA designs the whole car through the rulebook. Already the only thing that distinguishes one car from another is the paint job. Ultimately the rules will become so constrictive that F1 might as well be a one-make formula, all because the FIA thinks its “experts” are better designers than the guys who actually create and race F1 cars. It is a ridiculous situation.

The criticism always leveled at the freedom proposed by me is that the cars will become too fast. But the FIA never consider the most obvious solution to that: the halving of engine size. Their thinking is that F1 must have larger engines than lower formulae or it loses its credibility; but this is nonsense. In the early 60s the engine size went as low as 1.5 liters and it did not result in the sport being disregarded. To the contrary, that formula produced some of the best racing ever seen and a long list of drivers that became household names.

It makes no sense that the FIA should be fiddling about with design nuances in their quest to keep speeds within acceptable limits when there is such a simple and straightforward alternative available to them. If they were to use engine size as a control, rather than interfering with the type of wing allowed, the engineers and aerodynamicists could get back to their task of trying to out-think the competition and we could have our sport back, the sport that pits the most skilled drivers and smartest engineers against each other.

Yeah, I know – fat chance.

Just as I waver in my prediction of Button for champion in 2007, the Honda team get it all together in testing at Jerez, with Barrichello fastest and test driver James Rossiter very close behind him. Clearly the team have got the measure of the Bridgestone tires and that bodes well for the coming season.

Autosport magazine has a full list of the times from the final day and they make interesting reading, even though they should be taken with the usual pinch of salt. These are not next years cars, after all, and each team is trying out different things, not necessarily competing for the quickest time.

But they are racing teams and I refuse to believe that they can ignore the times completely. Competition is in their blood.

Mark Webber and David Coulthard must be a little disappointed to be down in 12th and 14th places, even though they are still running the RB2 with Ferrari engines. How they must long for the introduction of Adrian Newey’s RB3. Scott Speed must be looking forward to the new Toro Rosso as well, especially as there are suspicions that it will be an RB3 too, albeit with a Ferrari rather than a Renault engine. And that’s if the other teams do not manage to put a halt on Toro Rosso’s plans – the protests against their using what amounts to a customer car are beginning to gather.

Lewis Hamilton was third fastest although de la Rosa wasn’t far behind him this time. The young Brit looks as convincing in testing as did Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel.

Toyota and Renault make quiet and confident progress, going fast enough yet without setting the world alight. Steady is the word that springs to mind and that is just what is needed at this stage. The Ferrari times can be ignored – they had a bad day, that’s all.

Note the speed of Anthony Davidson in the Super Aguri, however; he was only half a second slower than Barrichello. That’s not bad considering that Aguri were the bottom team of 2006. I guess it shows one of two things: either Aguri are really getting it together and could be looking at the mid-field next season, or testing times don’t matter at all!

Away from the track, the World Motor Sport Council have issued their take on the changes to come in F1 according to Max Mosley and Burkhard Goeschel. Essentially they agree completely and have added a few tweaks of their own. For instance, for the first time “standardized aerodynamics” has been mentioned. Couple this with the intent that any new technology introduced will be for sale to everyone, and you have a standardized formula. Lola are good at that – why not just get them to make all the cars for the teams?