A year ago, at an informal business forum in the alps - a sort of Davos light - I was asked how I thought motor sport would evolve over the next ten years in the light of advances in technology. It is a question we are all asking ourselves right now. Especially racing drivers. If you take the view that motor sport improves the product - that it is a proving ground for technology and safety -then the logical extension of that view is that we will be looking at driverless racing cars in the not too distant future. This gives me a chance to use that great word; oxymoron. Because to me, a racing car is a tool used by one human to race other humans. Driverless racing, is therefore, NOT racing.

We'll, don't get me wrong. Amazing achievement and all that. Wow! So fast! Computer! As Trump might put it. But frankly, is that what we're after? Is that all there is to look forward to? Its a philosophical can of worms this one because it touches on the very nature of our being, the essence of what it is to be human and whether we should be using our creative intelligence to counter our innate animal instincts to be risk takers, or not. Thankfully, our friends on the good Starship Enterprise have already tackled these issues in numerous episodes of Star Trek.....

Logic v Emotion Logic v Emotion

If you remember, the Vulcan, Spock, thought entirely logically. He was baffled by his captain's neurosis and foibles and the ease with which he tripped into the obvious emotional traps laid by the 'Green Bitch' (as Eddie Murphy called her) or various random ethical dilemmas. 'Illogical', mumbled Spock, to himself, as he tilted his improbable eye brow. 'These humans are primitive and under evolved, architects of their own sufferings, happy one second, miserable the next. To live like that would be to be like a rudderless ship in a ocean of stress. Human's must be protected from themselves, for their own sakes.' Thus spake Spock, with nothing more than a quizzical expression.

But Spock was not the captain of this ship. Kirk was. And Kirk took us through some berserk adventures. Sailed that ship right into the heart of the storm. Did all the illogical things we were told not to do as kids but did anyway, like playing with fire, climbing onto the garage roof, and jumping over our friends on motorcycles pretending to be Evel Knievel. Kirk was our hero, a flawed human, capable of being tricked and confused. It was his vulnerability and his determination that kept us rapt. Daftly and naively he tried reasoning with the aliens, repeatedly put himself in danger to save a single crew member whilst risking the lives of the rest and used a thing called 'instinct' to make decisions, against all evidence to the contrary. He lost his mind in several episodes but in doing so came back 'altered', with new insights on existence. He was our spiritual adventurer. He taught us what life could be, if we took chances. He was Odysseus, somehow always pulling through. If you want a model for an entertainment, Star Trek is it. And this is how we get to racing drivers versus driverless cars, because that kind of emotional roller-coaster is what I am looking for from sport, and I believe I'm not alone. We don't want Spock to be calling the shots.

Driverless cars are on their way. For the general population and for just getting around, I can see many benefits for the driverless car. I have a son with learning difficulties. Perhaps he could come and see us on a Sunday in his own car? The predictions are that by 2035 there will be 21 million driverless cars on the roads and some are saying that children born today will NEVER DRIVE a car! I can see that. Makes sense. More people living in urban areas, better public transport. It'll be like Blade Runner. A few years ago I met a techno-boff who had been working in F1. He'd been poached by Google to look at a driverless racing series. We'll I'd love to see it. But if the computer works perfectly, where's the anxiety? Give me Kirk and a dodgy phaser anytime.

In the face of this rapid technological evolution we have some big decisions to make, both in society and in our sport. We cannot predict the future with absolute certainty, but we can predict the future that we make for ourselves. In the light of the new appointments in F1, King Bernie having been deposed, it seems these decisions will be addressed pretty soon, for the sake of the business we call our sport. And we now know who will be making these decision, too; Ross Brawn.

Recently Ross Brawn was interviewed and asked how he'd like to see things evolve in F1. A cerebral man and logical thinker (dare I say, Spock like?) Brawn is famous for masterminding success with large complex technical companies like the Jaguar Racing Le Mans team, Scuderia Ferrari and MercedesAMG F1 teams. He has produced almost overwhelming levels of success with all of them, to the extent that his cars dominated the sport to the detriment of the unpredictability we say we prefer. If you wanted to reduce the racing, he was your man! However, having given up actually competing, he is now uniquely placed to advise the incoming administration of Liberty Media, headed by Chase Carey, a global media expert executive, on the esoteric technical matters in F1. 'How' Mr. Carey might ask Ross, 'can we make F1 Great again?' To which Ross might say, 'It is already Great and has always been Great. But, if I wanted to change a few things, this is what I would do.....'

Its interesting, therefore, that one of the things Ross mentioned in this interview was the 'Power Unit' (hybrid engine). Over the last few years we have had a push towards improving the efficiency of F1 cars. This has produced (as you'd expect with F1) extraordinary and brilliant technology. The thermal efficiency of F1 engines is getting close to 50%. To put that into context, your average runabout is about 30%. But the cost has been the 'cost', making competition almost unaffordable for smaller teams, and the 'show', in the sense of the demise of the ear-shattering 19,000 rpm 2.4L engines of the past - much to the consternation of the Ring Master, Mr. E, who fought against this FIA/Jean Todt initiative with all his might. He knew it would reduce 'peak adrenaline' and wound the appeal of the show. Personally, I love the whispering machines we have now. I can hear myself talking and thinking when I'm at a track. But he's right. The 'show' is diminished. There is no 'Shock and Awe'.

Kaboooooooom!!!!! over Melbourne Kaboooooooom!!!!! over Melbourne

At the first GP of every season in Melbourne, we are 'treated' to a fly past from an F18. This thing terrifies everyone because you can hear nothing until it's right over your head. Then it goes, BAAAACCCCHHHHHHHHHUUUUOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!!!!! It probably accounts for the culling of hundreds of old ladies who happen to live in the leafy suburbs of Melbourne. Not to mention the hundreds of cats that must need rescuing from Eucalyptus trees. Its an awesome machine. No question. Even if its primary purpose is to rain death. Then the F1 cars take the track and (if your ear drums are still working) you can just about hear them, above the sound of the sponsors guests eating and talking. If the goal was pure volume, the F18 steals the show every time. There can be no doubting that the challenge of achieving maximum energy efficiency has been conquered by the technical brilliance of F1 engineers. Its just, at what cost?

If the objective of F1 is to make F1 cars lead the way in automotive technology (which they clearly have done) then the next logical step is to get rid of the driver, too. This would be logical in the sense of proving what technology can do for us, but not logical for proving what we can do for ourselves. Indeed, much of the criticism of F1 over the last few years has centred on the over engineering of the driving by the teams. People didn't like the idea that their heroes are little more than overpaid Uber drivers. The trick to solving this conundrum, it seems to me, is to re-introduce the sporting ingredient to all aspects of our sport. 'Sport', as defined in the OED, wanders drunkenly along a line that teeters between how one dresses, shooting animals and chasing women, but in essence it means one thing: something done for entertainment or show. This is helpful in directing our attention back to where we should be going in motor sport.

A racing man A racing man

Adrian Newey has been quite radical on the subject of sport in our sport, asking recently if we should be following the logic of using F1 to cure societies automotive and environmental ills at all. Its the eight billion dollar question; "Is F1 a technical showcase for motor manufacturers, of their engine prowess for instance, or is it a spectacle that involves man and machine?" The answer is, I suspect, 'a bit of both'? But he was more clear on the question of the hybrid power units; "On the engine side, my personal opinion, which I'm sure will be a very controversial one, is that all this blurb which a few manufacturers would like to put out, that it improves their road car product, if that is the case then those manufacturers in the future, five years at the most, should be demonstrably ahead in the automotive sector of their rivals. Somehow l suspect that will not be the case, which tends to say it is marketing blurb." Agree with Adrian or not, what he is saying is that the manufacturers are in it for the publicity that F1 brings. F1 is a great way of telling a lot of people how much their company cares about the environment. The fact that an F1 race can only increase the energy released into our planet's atmosphere unnecessarily is not mentioned. Whatever would Spock say?

Imagined this? I bet you have. Imagined this? I bet you have.

So its worth asking why there is so much publicity around our sport. I'm guessing the clue is in the question. F1 is an entertainment. It puts on show the abilities (or inabilities) of teams of extremely bright technical people and some other talented individuals called 'racing drivers', who, in my view, are a much underrated and misunderstood (by those who shape the sport) ingredient in the entertainment mix. I propose that most of the viewers, whilst they are wowed massively by the technical wizardry of F1, get the majority of their excitement from some kind of empathetic relationship with a driver or drivers. After all, it is uniquely the drivers who are privileged to drive these amazing thoroughbreds. They also bear the greatest responsibility for the outcome of the race. They are the Captain Kirks who boldly go where angels fear to tread. Is it any wonder they capture the imagination? Who has not fantasised about being a racing driver? Go on. You have. To sit in the custom made seat of a four wheeled missile and to be free to go as fast as you can (or dare) on some of the most famous race tracks all over the world, be paid for it, and watched by 400 million people? I'll bet you wondered what it must be like to win the British Grand Prix in front of your home crowd. I'll bet you have. Or is it just me?

Pilots with the thing that is 'Right' Pilots with the thing that is 'Right'

In the 1983 film of the Tom Wolfe book, The Right Stuff, there is a scene where there is a showdown between the scientists and politicians on one side and the Astronauts on the other. The scientists want to control the whole operation and unwisely call the pilots 'specimens', which rightly outrages the cream of the US Air Force. They don't like being regarded so lowly. Meanwhile, the politicians don't want these maverick test pilots fouling up their Cold War propaganda efforts, either. So if the pilots don't want to be just 'Spam in a Can' and shot into space like monkeys, they have to fight for their rights. They want to pilot the machine. They want controls, things to do, ways to influence the craft. They want to be called 'Astronauts'. And they want a window. The scientist are pulling their hair out and doing their over taxed nuts. When they hear about the window they start palpitating. Its a technological nightmare. But the pilots stick to their top guns. They are not going to stand in front of the whole world and be called heroes for just sitting there and hoping nothing goes wrong. Its not in their DNA. They are pilots, dagnamit!

But they have the Ace card in their back pocket. They are already national heroes. The public can't get enough of them. They are loved and admired and offer the people the chance to experience something truly dramatic in their lives, to go through all the emotions and hopes for the dreams of mankind, and suffer all the anxieties as they pray for the safe return of their fellow countrymen. Its the most extravagant TV soap of all time. The politicians quickly realise that the Astronauts are the only reason the people will watch an aluminum firework get sent into space and promptly fall back down to earth. So, if they want funding, they will have to win over the tax payers. NASA and the politicians quickly realise that the Astronauts are key to the enabling of the mission because, as the Astronauts aptly put it, 'No bucks .... No Buck Rogers!' Lets be honest, you can't ask an aluminum tube 'What's it like in Space?'

I think I have made my point. If millions of people watch a man run, or swim, or ride a bicycle and get incredibly excited, its not about the machine, is it? Sport is about the human endeavour. That's what gets us glued to the box.

In this recent interview with Ross Brawn he talked about the importance of making long term plans for F1, instead of knee-jerk responses to criticism. I'm with him all the way there. However, he then talked about sitting down with all the stakeholders in F1; " -- the broadcasters, the promoters of the circuits, the teams, the media, journalists and the fans to understand what they want to see -- and then build that plan, debate it, structure it and see what comes out." Terrific. I'm all for it. But there is one crucial group missing in that list. Can you spot it? I can.

My message to the new owners of F1 is this; sit down with some racing drivers (not just F1 drivers) and listen to what they would like to drive, where they would like to drive, what circuits they would like to drive on and what sort of sport they would like to see for the future. There will not be one voice or opinion, but in there somewhere is the key to giving the fans what they really want; racing drivers who they can truly admire and respect and racing drivers who want to sing the praises of their sport. F1 has so much more to give. We haven't scratched the surface yet. Or we could just watch driverless cars going round, and round, and round, and ....

Sources: Http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/17973592/ross-brawn-future-f1

Http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10631835/formula-1-in-2017-adrian-newey-predicts-mixed-up-grid-but-questions-f1s-future-direction