Gilles Simon was announced as the new FIA Technical Director last September, taking on the role at arguably one of the most difficult times in Motorsport’s history. Formula 1 is currently disputing the 2021 Engine regulations, WEC has no new manufacturers on the horizon, WTCC has failed, while Formula E continues to scoop up any manufacturers that are left. Add to that the declining Motorsport fanbase, the dieselgate disaster and people’s attitudes starting to shift towards electric mobility and it’s clear that Simon has a lot to do. So how is the FIA going to bring order to this chaos?

Q: Motorsport needs to increase its audience and to do that Formula 1’s new owners have put Entertainment at the ‘top of their list’. Which do you think is more important to focus on – Entertainment of Technology?

‘I don’t feel that entertainment and technology are against each other. As a promoter in any of our championships, they want the championship to be interesting to the last minute, to be spectacular and provide a good show. This is the best way to catch fans and keep them interested, and is generally the case for all sport and all entertainment. What is specific to motorsport is that there is a motor, so you have already technology there. Part of the fan interest is about the cars. It is about the fight, but it is also the beauty of these cars. It is about having spectacular and fast cars, and also anyone of us looking at any kind of race, it is about the engineering of these cars. Why is this one faster, and behaving like this? Part of the show is due to the technology.’

‘There is no antagonism between technology and entertainment, there is just balance for each championship. The costs have to remain in a window that is acceptable. The issue is probably more to have a sustainable model in each formula of motorsport, so to understand what kind of budget makes sense in F1, endurance, GT or touring cars, once you define this, you have to identify the technology within this window.’

Q: How important is it for Motorsport to remain road relevant?

‘In June, I was at a congress on gasoline engines, discussing this with other people, and I understood that at least two big OEMs started a programme on energy recovery on the exhaust, because they knew this was a potential solution. They never had the ability to get the budget to research it. As soon as they said “it’s the system that they use in F1”, they got the budget. This effect of leading has always been so, and I believe that it remains important for our industry and our sport.’

‘The tricky question for us from a technical regulations side is to find a balance between the cost and the maximum technology that you can fit into it for that price,’ says Simon. ‘We are facing some difficulties but we have to find a compromise. The question is simple; we have to find the right balance. It is tricky and you have different opinions, but we have to discuss it at length to find what is reasonable and the right direction. Our approach is to sit down with interested parties rather than say ‘this is the regulation’.’

‘The best engines in F1 are at 50 per cent efficiency, say, but what does this mean? If you had this efficiency on your road car, your consumption would be around two litres per 100km, or something in this range, and that’s spectacular. But how do you translate this to a car that is above 800bhp and 70 per cent of the time under full load? If you try to do this with your car, the fuel consumption will be up, but the efficiency, the fuel you burn for the horsepower you need, is very high. I think some figures can be difficult to explain, while others can be translated. If you speak about fuel consumption in a race, in a lap, or per 100km, it is high because it is very fast, but if you try to go that fast with any other car, it will be at least twice that, and maybe you are as fast. We have to explain it properly so that anybody sensible can understand good performance from a technical point of view.’

Q: How can the FIA attract more Manufacturers to Championships such as WEC?

‘I think that the problem that we may face in many championships, and we face in the endurance championship, is that you discuss the regulation with a small group of manufacturers. Obviously, motor racing means being submitted to the possibilities that an OEM can withdraw from one date to another, some are committing to a long term, and that gives an image of consistency, but each manufacturer has to deal with its own image. When you discuss very hard with the manufacturers about how things should go and then a week later one sends a communique that it will not be present the following year it is not a good situation for anybody and not giving a good message, but that is how it is.’

‘Endurance racing, we have two issues. The first is short term. We have two categories able to race in LMP1, hybrid and non-hybrid. By the way the regulations were designed with two in parallel, there was not a huge consistency between them. For instance, some aero are forbidden for hybrid and accepted for non-hybrid, which is unfair on hybrid; but on fuel consumption, hybrid is favoured, due to combustion plus hybrid. What we have done first, discussing with the ACO but we are taking the lead, is to analyse the fuel efficiency of the different engines, and set a power unit balance. We set it such that this car should have similar performance. I cannot say the same because of the precision of the calculation, but the target was a fair calculation. This is what we have done from September on with a clear view that this is fair and honest with everyone.’

‘Hybrid is our target, with a much simpler system, and just one system, typically a powerful KERS. For now, it is too early to know how far it will be standard or non-standard. We need to discuss this with our manufacturers.

‘We will then extend discussions not only with the manufacturers and the ACO but also with IMSA. The concept is to go to higher identification of the brand. Our proposal is to take our responsibility as a governing body to measure the cars. Let’s imagine that we define it as GT Prototype, so it can come from a road car, developed for a race version, or a racecar that can have a road car version, but that is not needed for us. What will define the car is the dimensions for the windscreen, length and so on. One configuration of bodywork, and we will define an aero efficiency figure that gives the drag figure and load, downforce, that you have. Everyone will have the same frontal area and aero efficiency in a given condition. We already test the GT cars in the wind tunnel to define their aero efficiency. We can be more precise and define one point. To homologate your car you need to be at this point. Once we have done this, we can define such that it will not compromise your design, your efficiency with a car that looks like your brand car. You will do so. We have to define this target figure low enough that you can target some design of the car that fits. You can look at figures of exceptional road cars.’

‘What we believe is that the fact that aero target and efficiency target will be defined and controlled by us, will allow a reasonable running cost because you will not have to invest much in development once the car is homologated. If you look at the cost of the GT3 car, for example, it is quite high but that is not an issue because you have professional organisations that are racing this car every weekend, so it is an investment. It is like a machine tool; you use it to make components, that is not a problem, it is good amortisation. We should think like that, and what is important is that you don’t need to change the machine every race. What is important is that once you have homologated it and the targets of aero and weight and performance of the power unit is set, this is it. Then you open it to the market of the serious privateers.’