- 25 Oct 08, 01:51#75921
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2007
McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
From autosport.com:
The outside world has come crashing in on F1 in recent weeks. A global economic crisis and the extravagance of F1 don't sit comfortably together. So here comes Max Mosley, reinvigorated, seizing the moment to push through his long-held vision of F1 as little more than a spec formula.
If F1 doesn't follow his vision, he implies, it will be dead by 2010. Maybe so. But F1 needs to be very careful at this crucial juncture that it doesn't throw the baby out with the cost-saving bath water. Costs do need to be cut urgently, and in the short term a measure of technical rationalisation will probably be the only way of doing this. But to extend that technical philosophy into a long term blueprint for F1 will surely kill it through lack of interest.
Long term, lower spending levels do not - and should not - mean technical sterility. MotoGP bike racing has massively more technical diversity than F1 yet is vastly cheaper. Twenty years ago F1 featured full-on technical competition in engines, aerodynamics and tyres - for a fraction of the cost of the current much more technically restricted F1.
The costs have been driven upwards purely by the commercial worth very wealthy entities have placed upon being in F1 during the boom years. Progressively restricting technology during that time has made absolutely zero impact upon costs; it has simply re-allocated them. The problem is that as the manufacturers drove the costs up, independent teams were unable to keep up and the very few that have survived are now in a parlous situation - and so, as a result, is F1.
Short term, the expected move back in favour of customer cars makes some sense. It allows two of the 10 teams to field potentially competitive cars for a fraction of the cost they'd otherwise be faced with in running slower cars. It might just enable them to stay in business by being less of a drain on the main businesses of their billionaire private owners, Dietrich Mateschitz and Vijay Mallya. That leaves Williams - as a constructor with no other business than being an F1 team - in an invidious position, punished simply for having had the temerity to keep up during the manufacturer arms race and now faced with a stark choice as the external money taps are turned off.
For the manufacturer teams that form the bulk of the grid, costs will be determined by the main boards of their parent companies. But in the meantime standardised brakes, wheels, gearbox internals, brake ducts, extended engine lives etc will make allocation of the reduced budgets easier. These moves should also reduce their potential advantage over the independent teams. It suits the moment, given that teams cannot shrink fast enough to respond to the new economic circumstances.
But to extend that to the long term? To go further down this road and into standardised engines? That is Max's ultimate vision, and it will surely kill F1. It's probably true that most television viewers don't care about the difference in gearbox internals, but that's missing an important point. I'd bet that while they may not care what those differences are, a big proportion of them want to know that there are critical differences, that team A's group of tech bods have come up with a different solution to team B's, both in turn different to team C's and that the race track is showing which of them is best.
Furthermore, the reason why they are not interested in the difference in, for example, brake discs is because these are such small matters. Such uninteresting details are currently the differentiators precisely because the formula is over-controlled technically. Regulation has taken away diversity in the bigger, more visible and interesting areas.
When F1 featured competition between ground effects and non-ground effects, turbos and naturally-aspirated, in-line four engines versus V6s and V8s, radial tyres and cross-plies, it was a vastly more interesting variation than differences in materials inside the gearboxes. Yes, the biggest interest was always in the human element, the competition between the drivers. But to narrow F1 to that and only that, will reduce interest and ultimately kill it altogether.
The immediate problem is that the spending race of the manufacturers has killed most of the independent teams already and has left the remaining ones bleeding, unable in the current climate to raise more than 25-30% of the required budget from the outside world. While the proposed standardisation measures will help, there is a much quicker and surer way of helping those independents: give them some of the 50% of the profit the sport generates that is currently being taken out of it by the owners. The logical extension to that line of thinking is to make the participants the owners and cut out the middle man.
Max has called the spending race an 'irrational pursuit of performance'. Of course it's irrational. It's motor racing. What the hell's the point of racing cars around in circles? The sport's majesty is contained by the very fact that it's irrational. It's a compulsive, addictive striving to be the best it's possible to be, to want always to go faster, faster than anyone's ever gone before. Yes the participants get reined in for safety reasons every now and again and the constraints change but the game remains the same. No-one has ever tried to impose rationality on it.
Essentially, manufacturer spending races have killed the independents and the governing body's reaction to that has been to progressively throttle any technical creativity - thereby killing one of the core points of interest for the outside world. All of the manufacturers still want to be in F1 - in many ways promoting and differentiating the image of their brand is more important now than ever before - so we have to accept that for now at least, F1 is a manufacturer formula.
Given that, longer term we should be making F1 less technically restrictive, massively so, and allowing that side of it to flower. The costs will be determined solely by how much value the manufacturers place on being there, not by the technical regulations.
If in time, the social pressures lead to manufacturers leaving F1, then some cheaper form of racing without them will fill the void. In the meantime, the manufacturers are here. We should be giving them free rein and letting the economic conditions determine their spending - and using the massive profit the sport generates from television rights and race fees in a more productive way than propping up debts the owners have incurred in their other businesses. Which leads to the ultimate question: why does F1 need CVC?
The outside world has come crashing in on F1 in recent weeks. A global economic crisis and the extravagance of F1 don't sit comfortably together. So here comes Max Mosley, reinvigorated, seizing the moment to push through his long-held vision of F1 as little more than a spec formula.
If F1 doesn't follow his vision, he implies, it will be dead by 2010. Maybe so. But F1 needs to be very careful at this crucial juncture that it doesn't throw the baby out with the cost-saving bath water. Costs do need to be cut urgently, and in the short term a measure of technical rationalisation will probably be the only way of doing this. But to extend that technical philosophy into a long term blueprint for F1 will surely kill it through lack of interest.
Long term, lower spending levels do not - and should not - mean technical sterility. MotoGP bike racing has massively more technical diversity than F1 yet is vastly cheaper. Twenty years ago F1 featured full-on technical competition in engines, aerodynamics and tyres - for a fraction of the cost of the current much more technically restricted F1.
The costs have been driven upwards purely by the commercial worth very wealthy entities have placed upon being in F1 during the boom years. Progressively restricting technology during that time has made absolutely zero impact upon costs; it has simply re-allocated them. The problem is that as the manufacturers drove the costs up, independent teams were unable to keep up and the very few that have survived are now in a parlous situation - and so, as a result, is F1.
Short term, the expected move back in favour of customer cars makes some sense. It allows two of the 10 teams to field potentially competitive cars for a fraction of the cost they'd otherwise be faced with in running slower cars. It might just enable them to stay in business by being less of a drain on the main businesses of their billionaire private owners, Dietrich Mateschitz and Vijay Mallya. That leaves Williams - as a constructor with no other business than being an F1 team - in an invidious position, punished simply for having had the temerity to keep up during the manufacturer arms race and now faced with a stark choice as the external money taps are turned off.
For the manufacturer teams that form the bulk of the grid, costs will be determined by the main boards of their parent companies. But in the meantime standardised brakes, wheels, gearbox internals, brake ducts, extended engine lives etc will make allocation of the reduced budgets easier. These moves should also reduce their potential advantage over the independent teams. It suits the moment, given that teams cannot shrink fast enough to respond to the new economic circumstances.
But to extend that to the long term? To go further down this road and into standardised engines? That is Max's ultimate vision, and it will surely kill F1. It's probably true that most television viewers don't care about the difference in gearbox internals, but that's missing an important point. I'd bet that while they may not care what those differences are, a big proportion of them want to know that there are critical differences, that team A's group of tech bods have come up with a different solution to team B's, both in turn different to team C's and that the race track is showing which of them is best.
Furthermore, the reason why they are not interested in the difference in, for example, brake discs is because these are such small matters. Such uninteresting details are currently the differentiators precisely because the formula is over-controlled technically. Regulation has taken away diversity in the bigger, more visible and interesting areas.
When F1 featured competition between ground effects and non-ground effects, turbos and naturally-aspirated, in-line four engines versus V6s and V8s, radial tyres and cross-plies, it was a vastly more interesting variation than differences in materials inside the gearboxes. Yes, the biggest interest was always in the human element, the competition between the drivers. But to narrow F1 to that and only that, will reduce interest and ultimately kill it altogether.
The immediate problem is that the spending race of the manufacturers has killed most of the independent teams already and has left the remaining ones bleeding, unable in the current climate to raise more than 25-30% of the required budget from the outside world. While the proposed standardisation measures will help, there is a much quicker and surer way of helping those independents: give them some of the 50% of the profit the sport generates that is currently being taken out of it by the owners. The logical extension to that line of thinking is to make the participants the owners and cut out the middle man.
Max has called the spending race an 'irrational pursuit of performance'. Of course it's irrational. It's motor racing. What the hell's the point of racing cars around in circles? The sport's majesty is contained by the very fact that it's irrational. It's a compulsive, addictive striving to be the best it's possible to be, to want always to go faster, faster than anyone's ever gone before. Yes the participants get reined in for safety reasons every now and again and the constraints change but the game remains the same. No-one has ever tried to impose rationality on it.
Essentially, manufacturer spending races have killed the independents and the governing body's reaction to that has been to progressively throttle any technical creativity - thereby killing one of the core points of interest for the outside world. All of the manufacturers still want to be in F1 - in many ways promoting and differentiating the image of their brand is more important now than ever before - so we have to accept that for now at least, F1 is a manufacturer formula.
Given that, longer term we should be making F1 less technically restrictive, massively so, and allowing that side of it to flower. The costs will be determined solely by how much value the manufacturers place on being there, not by the technical regulations.
If in time, the social pressures lead to manufacturers leaving F1, then some cheaper form of racing without them will fill the void. In the meantime, the manufacturers are here. We should be giving them free rein and letting the economic conditions determine their spending - and using the massive profit the sport generates from television rights and race fees in a more productive way than propping up debts the owners have incurred in their other businesses. Which leads to the ultimate question: why does F1 need CVC?
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2007
McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
