V12
8th December 2008, 16:48
..for any of those who have been running F1 in recent times.
They have been towing the political "cost-cutting" line (especially Mosley), because of the risk of losing their beloved manufacturers.
It is the powers that be that not only courted manufacturer and big-business involvement in the first place, they introduced the 107% rule which practically killed off the smaller teams, they introduced the 12 team limit which rendered F1 teams as nothing more than US sports-style "franchises" - they lost their identity and became nothing more than a commodity to be traded (e.g. Tyrrell->BAR->Honda->???, Stewart->Ford->Red Bull, Jordan->Midland->Spyker->Force Whatever). They introduced the huge entry bond that meant that even with a vacant "slot" on the grid, only the likes of Toyota could afford it.
They are the ones responsible for this situation, but expect others to accept a dumbed-down F1 while they continue to cream off a handsome little profit for themselves.
History shows that manufacturers and wealthy backers owning teams is a recipe for disaster. Manufacturers, should they become involved in F1, should supply engines - that's it. Ferrari being the exception as they were historically a race team first, and only started selling sportscars in the first place to fund their racing efforts,
Likewise sponsors (Mateschitz, Mallya), by all means fund a team in return for advertising space, but when a sponsor OWNS a team, in the same way as a manufacturer does, that team is sensitive to the whims of that owner.
Which basically leaves only Williams as the only "proper" F1 team left, with Ferrari and McLaren as sort of half-and-half (in that they are part-owned by manufacturers).
Of course I welcome the involvement of automotive suppliers (i.e. the manufacturers) - providing they are just that - suppliers. You don't see Nike or Adidas owning football teams, do you? No, they supply football teams, and get their advertising kudos from when the teams they supply win. There's nothing wrong with Renault screaming from the rooftops when Nigel Mansell's Williams FW14 wins race after race with their engines, but when the OWNER of a team is just in it to sell his/their product - that participation cannot be taken for granted.
But my point is that the F1 leaders created this environment and have been doing so, well from the mid-90s at the latest. The private teams that are the lifeblood of the sport were forced out, one-by-one, as Bernie and co. chased the almighty dollar, building F1 into a nice little cash cow for themselves.
Now that the house of cards is beginning to tumble, they are going and crying to the media about cost-cutting, however to me measures like common components, and qualifying these suggestions with comments like "it adds nothing to the show" - imply that they still see F1 as a business first, and a sport second (or should that be third, fourth or fifth?)
F1's downfall has been it's constant drive in recent years for homogeneity. Every race we have the same teams, running the same number of cars each, in the same livery as each other, employing the same drivers, on a track that looks the same as the one we were at a fortnight ago, all running on the same tyres. Going the common components route simply furthers this idea.
Indeed what drove F1 teams in the first place to spending massive amounts of money? Ever increasing regulation. Whereas in the past the team could rely on the genius of a Chapman, Murray or Newey to find time on the track, the ever-increasing clamp-down on innovation and such leads to teams resorting to multi-million dollar windtunnel programs, and "spending $800 on a wheel nut". Standard engines will see teams throw even more money into wind-tunnel programs. Ban wind-tunnel testing? Well I guess that's more resources to throw into researching new erm....wheel nuts. Make wheel nuts a standard component? Well they'll find somewhere else to gain an advantage.
To sum up: F1 doesn't need "cost cutting", it needs a reality check, and it needs that reality check delivered with the most almighty metaphorical slap around the face. I'm more than happy to see F1 go through a very rough period with tiny car counts providing it gets that reality check.
F1 doesn't need yet MORE regulation and standardisation piled on top of existing regulation and standardisation, it needs all these layers ripped away till there's nothing left but the core - that core being competitors, who exist only to compete (not to sell something), competing against each other on and off the track.
Here's what I'd do, and you will notice how the majority of my points say "lose this", "drop this", rather than "add this", "do this"
*Loosen up the regulations - no homologation, no spec components, just a set of simple, unambiguous technical regulations - any car that turns up at the track complying with said regulations, is free to race.
*Drop the 12 team limit - anyone who wants to enter a race-legal car can do so.
*Drop the requirement for two cars - a team that can only afford to show up with one car is surely better for the car count than that team not showing up at all?
*Drop the requirement to enter on a season-long basis - This would allow one-off entries to bolster the grid, perhaps local competitors that might add a little extra spice and an extra talking point to the weekend.
*Drop other stupid little niggling requirements, for example that a team must run in identical livery - I noticed it's allowed for little gimmicks like Coulthard's last GP, but when it might actually BENEFIT a team (such as a backmarker that has found two sponsors willing to stump up the cash to each run one car, providing they are that car's title sponsor), it's not allowed?
*Relax paddock access resistrictions - let the great unwashed mix with their heroes - it might scare off a few celebs too, which will all help F1 get rid of its throw-money-around-like-its-going-out-of-fashion image.
*Bring back classic circuits and venues. Instead of catering to corrupt governments and sponsors in far-flung corners of the globe - again showing F1 is motivated by money. Construct a calendar with a staple of traditional venues, with a variety of track layouts. I guess it's too late to bring Hockenheim's long straights back, but we have Monza still, Monaco's streets, Silverstone's airfield, Spa's roads, hell run a race on a US style oval, and allow the owners of that new Argentine track that ran the FIA GTs recently to name their own sanctioning fee, even if it's zero.
F1 in its current form is a giant, money-driven dinosaur, weighed down and bloated by layers of needless regulation, pretention and image, and should very probably be allowed to become existinct.
In its place needs to rise a form of motor sport that is very, very simplistic in its essence. Open to all - but the fastest wins. Just like how it used to be, which is kinda how the sport built up it's popularity in the first place, ya know?
They have been towing the political "cost-cutting" line (especially Mosley), because of the risk of losing their beloved manufacturers.
It is the powers that be that not only courted manufacturer and big-business involvement in the first place, they introduced the 107% rule which practically killed off the smaller teams, they introduced the 12 team limit which rendered F1 teams as nothing more than US sports-style "franchises" - they lost their identity and became nothing more than a commodity to be traded (e.g. Tyrrell->BAR->Honda->???, Stewart->Ford->Red Bull, Jordan->Midland->Spyker->Force Whatever). They introduced the huge entry bond that meant that even with a vacant "slot" on the grid, only the likes of Toyota could afford it.
They are the ones responsible for this situation, but expect others to accept a dumbed-down F1 while they continue to cream off a handsome little profit for themselves.
History shows that manufacturers and wealthy backers owning teams is a recipe for disaster. Manufacturers, should they become involved in F1, should supply engines - that's it. Ferrari being the exception as they were historically a race team first, and only started selling sportscars in the first place to fund their racing efforts,
Likewise sponsors (Mateschitz, Mallya), by all means fund a team in return for advertising space, but when a sponsor OWNS a team, in the same way as a manufacturer does, that team is sensitive to the whims of that owner.
Which basically leaves only Williams as the only "proper" F1 team left, with Ferrari and McLaren as sort of half-and-half (in that they are part-owned by manufacturers).
Of course I welcome the involvement of automotive suppliers (i.e. the manufacturers) - providing they are just that - suppliers. You don't see Nike or Adidas owning football teams, do you? No, they supply football teams, and get their advertising kudos from when the teams they supply win. There's nothing wrong with Renault screaming from the rooftops when Nigel Mansell's Williams FW14 wins race after race with their engines, but when the OWNER of a team is just in it to sell his/their product - that participation cannot be taken for granted.
But my point is that the F1 leaders created this environment and have been doing so, well from the mid-90s at the latest. The private teams that are the lifeblood of the sport were forced out, one-by-one, as Bernie and co. chased the almighty dollar, building F1 into a nice little cash cow for themselves.
Now that the house of cards is beginning to tumble, they are going and crying to the media about cost-cutting, however to me measures like common components, and qualifying these suggestions with comments like "it adds nothing to the show" - imply that they still see F1 as a business first, and a sport second (or should that be third, fourth or fifth?)
F1's downfall has been it's constant drive in recent years for homogeneity. Every race we have the same teams, running the same number of cars each, in the same livery as each other, employing the same drivers, on a track that looks the same as the one we were at a fortnight ago, all running on the same tyres. Going the common components route simply furthers this idea.
Indeed what drove F1 teams in the first place to spending massive amounts of money? Ever increasing regulation. Whereas in the past the team could rely on the genius of a Chapman, Murray or Newey to find time on the track, the ever-increasing clamp-down on innovation and such leads to teams resorting to multi-million dollar windtunnel programs, and "spending $800 on a wheel nut". Standard engines will see teams throw even more money into wind-tunnel programs. Ban wind-tunnel testing? Well I guess that's more resources to throw into researching new erm....wheel nuts. Make wheel nuts a standard component? Well they'll find somewhere else to gain an advantage.
To sum up: F1 doesn't need "cost cutting", it needs a reality check, and it needs that reality check delivered with the most almighty metaphorical slap around the face. I'm more than happy to see F1 go through a very rough period with tiny car counts providing it gets that reality check.
F1 doesn't need yet MORE regulation and standardisation piled on top of existing regulation and standardisation, it needs all these layers ripped away till there's nothing left but the core - that core being competitors, who exist only to compete (not to sell something), competing against each other on and off the track.
Here's what I'd do, and you will notice how the majority of my points say "lose this", "drop this", rather than "add this", "do this"
*Loosen up the regulations - no homologation, no spec components, just a set of simple, unambiguous technical regulations - any car that turns up at the track complying with said regulations, is free to race.
*Drop the 12 team limit - anyone who wants to enter a race-legal car can do so.
*Drop the requirement for two cars - a team that can only afford to show up with one car is surely better for the car count than that team not showing up at all?
*Drop the requirement to enter on a season-long basis - This would allow one-off entries to bolster the grid, perhaps local competitors that might add a little extra spice and an extra talking point to the weekend.
*Drop other stupid little niggling requirements, for example that a team must run in identical livery - I noticed it's allowed for little gimmicks like Coulthard's last GP, but when it might actually BENEFIT a team (such as a backmarker that has found two sponsors willing to stump up the cash to each run one car, providing they are that car's title sponsor), it's not allowed?
*Relax paddock access resistrictions - let the great unwashed mix with their heroes - it might scare off a few celebs too, which will all help F1 get rid of its throw-money-around-like-its-going-out-of-fashion image.
*Bring back classic circuits and venues. Instead of catering to corrupt governments and sponsors in far-flung corners of the globe - again showing F1 is motivated by money. Construct a calendar with a staple of traditional venues, with a variety of track layouts. I guess it's too late to bring Hockenheim's long straights back, but we have Monza still, Monaco's streets, Silverstone's airfield, Spa's roads, hell run a race on a US style oval, and allow the owners of that new Argentine track that ran the FIA GTs recently to name their own sanctioning fee, even if it's zero.
F1 in its current form is a giant, money-driven dinosaur, weighed down and bloated by layers of needless regulation, pretention and image, and should very probably be allowed to become existinct.
In its place needs to rise a form of motor sport that is very, very simplistic in its essence. Open to all - but the fastest wins. Just like how it used to be, which is kinda how the sport built up it's popularity in the first place, ya know?