"Not one of us" - Bernie, Max, Stoddart, etc.

Have just seen reports from first qualifying in Australia - apart from the weather, most attention is on the Stoddart vs FIA war.

In this context, it appears that Bernie has been telling English media (if you can call "The Sun" that) that Stoddart should sell Minardi and get out of Formula 1. Some comments to the tune of "if you can't stand the heat..."

Although I have not closely followed what has happened, this appears extraordinary to me. Bernie is, as we all get told incessantly, the "commercial rights holder" as well as Vice President of the FIA. Vice President, mind you. Max being the President, of course; but really being Bernie's creation.

In effect, the FIA (since Bernie IS a rep of the FIA) has expressed an opinion on what kind of entrant they want, what kind of people are welcome to play. And Max threatened to withdraw all FIA sanctioning of motor sport in Australia unless Stoddart withdrew his legal action - at least according to Stoddart. If I remember correctly, the chairman of the organisers (Ron Walker ?) has always sided with Bernie before, but after this...
Quite possibly Paul Stoddart may be a real pain in the neck, and he appeared well able to modify the cars to 2005 spec after all - but this still appears like kicking (rather than beating) the guy who is already down.

Has anything like this ever happened before ? The infamous FISA/FOCA war of the early 80's was nothing like this - at least I cannot remember Balestre actually going on record about undesirables and the like.

Originally posted by Mohican
.....Max threatened to withdraw all FIA sanctioning of motor sport in Australia unless Stoddart withdrew his legal action - at least according to Stoddart.....

I hope Paul Stoddart knows that's a hollow threat!

There is a body in Australia sanctioning motor sport without any FIA ties, the AASA. And doing about half the 'sanctioning' business that there is to be done.

At the same time, the CAMS (Confederation of Australian Motor Sport), who are affiliated with the FIA, are currently facing the greatest ever challenge to their existence.

Bob Jane and his organisation, long since tired of having to put up with the dictatorial methods of the CAMS, have launched Federal Court actions under the Trade Practices Act which could ultimately see the CAMS written back to a pile of used blazers in a corner.

He stopped short of doing this once before... back in 1994... and gained several agreements from the CAMS to settle out of court. They have not lived up to those (court ratified?) agreements and now he is challenging again on that score and others.

But in 1994 there was no AASA to take control of Australian motor sport... today there is. In other words, there's nothing to stop him this time!

Not nice thing to say, but I'd like to think that Stuart Lewis-Evans is turning in his grave at what his old mate's doing these days

Here's the text of the FIA and CAMS statements:

Federation Internationale de l’Automobile
'Yesterday, a Judge in Melbourne issued an injunction ordering that two cars be allowed to run in Saturday’s practice sessions notwithstanding that they did not comply with the regulations for the 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship. The team concerned subsequently announced that it had withdrawn the proceedings and presented cars which complied.

The Stewards of the Australian Grand Prix and the FIA were given no notice of these proceedings and were given no opportunity to be present when the Judge heard the case. A hearing which the FIA could attend was scheduled for 1415 hrs after the sessions had taken place.

Apparently the Judge thought it right to interfere with the running of a major sporting event, overrule the duly appointed international officials and compel the governing body to allow cars to participate in breach of the international regulations, all this without first hearing both sides of the case.

If Australian laws and procedures do indeed allow a Judge to act in this way, it will be for the World Motor Sport Council to decide if a World Championship motor sport event of any kind can ever again be held in Australia.'

Confederation of Australian Motor Sport
'The Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) acknowledges today’s press release issued by the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and shares the concerns expressed in regard to the way a competitor sought to involve the Supreme Court of Victoria in issuing an ex parte injunction without notice to the FIA and CAMS.

CAMS needs to ascertain the details presented to the judge. The motor sport judicial process adequately provides for the determination of sporting matters and the Victorian Supreme Court has confirmed on multiple occasions that all sporting judicial processes should be exhausted prior to seeking legal avenues.

The President of CAMS, Mr Colin Osborne confirmed that the issue would be discussed by the FIA World Motor Sport Council on 30 March 2005.' Source FIA/CAMS



It seems to me, without commenting on the merits, that Bernie, et.al., are more angry about the denial of due process (as we refer to it in the States). That is, any party to an action has the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Even more vexing to those involved, I would think, is that Paul immediately reconfigured his cars to 2005 specs, and is now back in the game.
I'm not sure exactly what he was attempting to do here, beyond trying to gain what advantage he could, but it seems to me that the rules are, in fact, the rules. If you can't put a car on the grid without complying, don't.
I don't think Paul earned a huge amount of favor here.

Very strange goings on...

Not only for what happened, but for how it compares with what's happened in the past.

It has been done before, for a competitor to take something to a civil court before exhausting all avenues within the system established by the sport.

Then again, if Stoddart had exhausted all avenues, then he had a right to have it heard before a civil court.

This being so, however, the result is astounding!

The court should have made its decision on the rules, and nothing but the rules. For such a decision to have been reached as this, there must have been something else introduced of which we are not yet aware.

Or it was simply a bad (and wrongful) decision...

One thing that hasn't been considered here, is the "Concord Agreement" which, if I've understood things correctly, is the controlling document for Formula 1, and that the 'FIA' are the invited administrators of Formula 1. Not the actual rule makers as such, as this is covered in the Concord Agreement. And that Stoddart took the action that he has (keeping in mind that he is now the spokesman for the other nine teams) to test the authority of the FIA. Remembering also that he claims that some of the changes were made outside the terms in the Concord.

And I reckon this is all leading up to who ultimately runs the sport after 2007

Then again I could be barking up the wrong tree ;)

Cheers,

Ron.

Our national TV has started showing 'Inside Grand Prix' show (prolly British) and today they featured Alan Jones, repeating on several occassions that he is the only Australian world champion? Is this also Bernie's retribution? Anyways, I wish somebody told Black Jack that he (or is it, they?) lost his three titles...

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Very strange goings on...

Not only for what happened, but for how it compares with what's happened in the past.

It has been done before, for a competitor to take something to a civil court before exhausting all avenues within the system established by the sport.

Then again, if Stoddart had exhausted all avenues, then he had a right to have it heard before a civil court.

This being so, however, the result is astounding!

The court should have made its decision on the rules, and nothing but the rules. For such a decision to have been reached as this, there must have been something else introduced of which we are not yet aware.

Or it was simply a bad (and wrongful) decision...

The result isn't necessarily "astounding" and nor did any court make a decision as there was merely the issuing of an injunction by a judge. An injunction, as I understand it, is issued to stop whatever is happening until such time a properly appointed and constituted court can hear a case in full, with ALL parties represented. That court would then be able to make a considered decision.

Neil

Originally posted by Mohican

Has anything like this ever happened before ? The infamous FISA/FOCA war of the early 80's was nothing like this - at least I cannot remember Balestre actually going on record about undesirables and the like.

Oh, yes. This attitude was quite prevalent in (many) years gone by, in motorsport. I believe it was all about 'the right crowd, and no crowding.'

Plus ca change and all that old boy.

Originally posted by Option1
The result isn't necessarily "astounding" and nor did any court make a decision as there was merely the issuing of an injunction by a judge. An injunction, as I understand it, is issued to stop whatever is happening until such time a properly appointed and constituted court can hear a case in full, with ALL parties represented. That court would then be able to make a considered decision.

Quite right, Neil...

But precendent has been set that determines that a court doesn't even hear these things unless all avenues of appeal within the sport's own system are exhausted.

Were they? If they were, fine...

Of course, the court wasn't going to convene to heare the case before the race was held, were they?

Originally posted by Ray Bell

But precendent has been set that determines that a court doesn't even hear these things unless all avenues of appeal within the sport's own system are exhausted.

Not entirely - hence Tyrrell getting an injunction to allow it to race at the British GP 1984. The FIA regs provide for arbitration in the event of a dispute, but an arbitrator has no power to award an injunction; only a Court does.

You might well be right there, but I was talking about precedents that have been set in Australian courts...

Originally posted by Racecar



Oh, yes. This attitude was quite prevalent in (many) years gone by, in motorsport. I believe it was all about 'the right crowd, and no crowding.'

Plus ca change and all that old boy.

And we had racing insead of court disputes; altogether superior and without over-paid prima-donnas and nasty Machiavellian individuals.

Minardi had no business attempting to run an illegal car: at the very best it was disingenuous; at the worst a tantrum. Perhaps for the next race he'll turn up with a turbo-charger or slicks and try his luck in the Malaysian courts?

PdeRL

The Minardi was legal for last years rules.
The rule change for this year was not done by the rules (the FIA did not give the teams the required notice)
So in reality the car was legal :

Didn't Bernie buy some shares in Minardi a couple of years ago?
I wonder if he still has them.

Considering that Stoddart has seemed like Bernie's gopher for the past few months, I find all this very strange.

Or not ....?;)

Remember when Max was seen as the FIA's saviour, having seen off Balestre? Happy days .... :

Originally posted by VAR1016



Minardi had no business attempting to run an illegal car: at the very best it was disingenuous; at the worst a tantrum. Perhaps for the next race he'll turn up with a turbo-charger or slicks and try his luck in the Malaysian courts?

PdeRL

Wouldn't surprise me in the least ... the scruffy Antipodean has shown himself to be capable of anything.

Originally posted by Mohican
The infamous FISA/FOCA war of the early 80's was nothing like this - at least I cannot remember Balestre actually going on record about undesirables and the like.

But the Concorde Agreement effectively banned privateer teams - the Rob Walkers of former ages. (What they call private or privateer teams nowadays would have been called smaller manufacturers or garagistes in those days).

Didn't FIA threathen to pull out of Italy after Senna's death,
when a criminal investigation was launched against Sir Frank and Adrian Newey?

Sonds like FIA prefer countries where the courts are under "political guidance"

Bernie did not buy shares in Minardi.
It was not necessary after all, according to Stottart.

I find the entire Minardi episode of this weekend somewhat bizarre.

Given that the Minardi crew were capable of "cobbling up" (as I think I'm correct in quoting Stoddart as saying) two 2005 compliant chassis overnight, then why on earth did they arrive with their equipment in 2004 spec in the first place?! Surely they had the legal bits in their freight, as you really wouldn't want to send your drivers out in a bitza in this day and age, given that it's no longer simply a question of bashing a few bits from sheet ally...

Unless I've missed something, it's a stage-managed affair attempting to shift the political ambience somewhere down the line.

Whatever, it's all complete bollocks - and encapsulates the essence of contemporary F1 perfectly.

Very bizarre, considering that I saw an interview with Stoddart in which he stated categorically that they hadn't built an interim car because they couldn't afford it. Yet they apparently have all the parts to hand and can build it up overnight in a pit garage!

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye ....

It's ironic, really, that Bernie should be going on about the sort of person that should be in F1. I think there are a good number of people (I count myself among them) who would be very happy if the likes of Bernie and his old pal Max weren't hanging around like a bad smell. That's what happens when the rot sets in though.

Originally posted by scheivlak

But the Concorde Agreement effectively banned privateer teams - the Rob Walkers of former ages. (What they call private or privateer teams nowadays would have been called smaller manufacturers or garagistes in those days).

This is a good point. What if Stoddart shored up his finances by selling somebody a Minardi chassis, and that somebody then ran a "privateer" Minardi - of course making Stoddart & Co the "works" team ?

The term "private" team today is used, very incorrectly, as the opposite of a manufacturer-affiliated one. I do think that Williams is very much a private team, though - being owned by Frank and Patrick.

On a wider note: just suppose the other eight teams (excluding Ferrari) agree with Stoddart that the rule changes for 2005 were introduced incorrectly/illegally/whatever; meaning that they all show up in Malaysia with last year's car...not very many (except Minardi, possibly) would actually benefit. This year's BAR, Williams, Renault, McLaren (especially), Toyota, Sauber, Red Bull and Jordan alla appear rather better than last year's - which is all as it should be. But where would everybody running 2004-spec cars leave Ferrari - probably better off. Relatively speaking.

Coming back to Melbourne, though: what a mess. An amateurish, ugly mess. Whoever ran an international company this incompetently - in full view of the media - would be fired immediately.

Originally posted by Mohican
This year's BAR, Williams, Renault, McLaren (especially), Toyota, Sauber, Red Bull and Jordan all appear rather better than last year's - which is all as it should be.

Maybe better, but certainly not everybody's faster. I saw some comments like "Fisichella's overall time was just 1,5 seconds slower than Michael's last year"- forgetting that Fisi completed 57 laps this year (as a result of Kimi's hickup) and Schumi 58 laps last year!
F1Total.com made a comparison in lap times between 2004 and 2005 of all the teams: http://www.f1total.c.../05030642.shtml. Toyota (who were really dismal in Melbourne in 2004), McLaren and RBR/Jaguar were faster than last year, all the others slower. No surprise that Minardi and Ferrari lost most, but BAR and Williams lost over a second a lap as well.

Am I the only one to think that we have finally found someone who can beat Nigel Mansell in the whinging stakes - yes, Paul Stoddart.

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Very bizarre, considering that I saw an interview with Stoddart in which he stated categorically that they hadn't built an interim car because they couldn't afford it. Yet they apparently have all the parts to hand and can build it up overnight in a pit garage!

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye ....

Over the weekend, I either read or heard that the whole Minardi farrago was caused by sponsorship troubles.

It went along the lines of:
Minardi are unlikely to win a race or land on the podium and points are hard to come by. Their sponsors have a clause which says that Minardi should be within a certain percentage, performance/time wise of the other teams or no money.

Given that Paul Stoddart said that his cars, in 2005 trim, would be even slower than their 2004 spec ones, it does give an answer of sorts to his reluctance to run the 2005 spec. Also, the cars were 4 laps down on Fisichella by the end of the race. Even the Jordans were at the 'normal' 2 laps down by the finish.

To revert to Bernie's statements in "The Sun" that I referred to in the beginning of this thread, he said something to the effect that "we have until now protected Paul". Which rather begs the question, who is "we" - and what form did the protection take ? Should an individual competitor be protected/supported/helped by - who exactly ? The FIA ? By Bernie (the royal "we") ?

Let's fast forward a few months - Stoddart lets Minardi go bust, alternatively finds a buyer (not very likely, but still). Carlos Ghosn takes one look at the state of F1, and decides to pull the Renault team out of F1 for 2006 (after they have won the championship this year).
This in turn encourages the board of BMW to look closely at the cost benefit of continuing - which leaves Williams and Sauber without engines for 2006. Etc, etc.

At least then Toyota can start winning.

Would Paul Stoddart really have allowed his drivers out in their 2005-spec Minardis in a completely untested form, in a Grand Prix?
Whatever, it was yet another dull 'race'. What happened to the 'awesome racing' Jenson Button predicted? More pre-season BS, me thinks.

Originally posted by Mohican
To revert to Bernie's statements in "The Sun" that I referred to in the beginning of this thread, he said something to the effect that "we have until now protected Paul". Which rather begs the question, who is "we" - and what form did the protection take ? Should an individual competitor be protected/supported/helped by - who exactly ? The FIA ? By Bernie (the royal "we") ?


At least then Toyota can start winning.

Mike Lawrence has suggested on occasion that Minardi is actually owned by "a short gentleman" and "a tanned gentleman who has yet to realise that the peak of a baseball cap faces forwards" (or words to that effect) and merely leased to Stoddart.... Does that count as "protected"?;)

Toyota? Winning? Never.

But surely Bernie and Flavio would have let Max in on that little secret ?

Originally posted by Mohican
But surely Bernie and Flavio would have let Max in on that little secret ?

If that was the case (and I'm not saying it is or isn't!) why should they?

Sorry for intruding here, but can somebody tell me what these rule changes are that apparently only hamper Ferrari and Minardi?

Tyres.

Ferrari, Minardi and Jordan are on Bridgestone everyone else on Michelin. Therefore if you bring in a rule that favours Michelin tyres it hampers Ferrari and Minardi.

Especially if you restrict testing, Minardi and Jordan hardly test. So you have Ferrari alone trying to bring Bridgestone up to spec with the one tyre per race rule. while Michelin get data from McLaren, Renault, BAR, Williams, Sauber, Red Bull and Toyota. In thoery Michelin should develop quicker.

Ta.

Originally posted by petefenelon


If that was the case (and I'm not saying it is or isn't!) why should they?

Sorry to maybe harp on this, but i am worried for F1 racing in 2006.

Cannot see Minardi surviving for long, in addition to which i think that Renault might not be around. Schweitzer is leaving the CEO position, Faure has been removed from the top management and Briatore is leaving at the end of this year (he says).

As for the other constructors: M-B actually owns a (large) part of McLaren, which makes it difficult for them to just walk away - as they did in CART, remember - but the road car cooperation is obviously not working out.

Same applies to Honda and BAR of course. BMW, however, is NOT an equity partner in Williams (in spite of the team being branded BMW Williams) - which must make that link-up more vulnerable. If BMW were getting cold feet, where would this leave Sauber ? etc, etc.

Originally posted by Mohican


Sorry to maybe harp on this, but i am worried for F1 racing in 2006.

Cannot see Minardi surviving for long, in addition to which i think that Renault might not be around. Schweitzer is leaving the CEO position, Faure has been removed from the top management and Briatore is leaving at the end of this year (he says).

As for the other constructors: M-B actually owns a (large) part of McLaren, which makes it difficult for them to just walk away - as they did in CART, remember - but the road car cooperation is obviously not working out.

Same applies to Honda and BAR of course. BMW, however, is NOT an equity partner in Williams (in spite of the team being branded BMW Williams) - which must make that link-up more vulnerable. If BMW were getting cold feet, where would this leave Sauber ? etc, etc.

Why worry about F1 racing in 2006 in particular.
There has been very little racing in F1 for many years.

The entry of manufacturers into F1 was always going to be a disaster (how long has it taken them to realise that only 1 team can win the championship).

The manufacturers involvement with the teams is not going to be a major hurdle to their withdrawing from F1 - losing a few 100 jobs is hardly a problem for these huge companies (and tiny compared to the cuts most of them are already facing), and they have no sense of history - their involvement is purely commercial.

The best thing that could happen to F1 is that the manufacturers all go off and start their own series - they will learn even quicker that only one of them wins, and the public might also realise that F1 has no connection with road cars.

Then assuming there are some real F1 fans (e.g. if Frank & Patrick, Eddie Jordan etc are fans at heart) left they can run their own 'private' (e.g. non manufacturer supported) teams.
Get back to the days of buying an off the shelf engine, gearbox, brakes & tyres, then the teams can concentrate on racing rather than technological domination.

Of course it would be better if the real F1 teams started a series away from the FIA's manipulation, let Max suck up to the manufacturers etc and force his ideas of excitement on the spectator.

Meanwhile I can't see why Bernie is putting Stoddart up to these games - presumably it is some plan to persuade the teams to sign his new agreement, but it isn't clear why he thinks it will work.

Originally posted by Peter Morley


Why worry about F1 racing in 2006 in particular.
There has been very little racing in F1 for many years.

The entry of manufacturers into F1 was always going to be a disaster (how long has it taken them to realise that only 1 team can win the championship).

The manufacturers involvement with the teams is not going to be a major hurdle to their withdrawing from F1 - losing a few 100 jobs is hardly a problem for these huge companies (and tiny compared to the cuts most of them are already facing), and they have no sense of history - their involvement is purely commercial.
.

Personally think that the days of one engine (financed by the Ford Motor Co, remember) beating the Ferrari, BRM and Matra engines were NOT the good ol' days.

As for the sense of history: I seem to remember Honda racing, and winning, in F1 already in the 60's - and Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz for rather longer than that. The company that threw the toys out of the pram was the said FoMoCo. Actually.

If the future belongs to wheeler dealers such as Bernie & Co...that's not for me, thanks.

Completely agree with Peter and Don/Bill/whoever he is now. The sooner the manufacturers go the better, and over the past 30 years, I do think the DFV era was the best. There was a natural level of equality, with most engines seeming to give about the same level of power, so the best drivers had more of a say in end results. I can feel the rose-tints coming on ahead of tonights meeting ...

Originally posted by billthekat


I have been wondering why this thread was here, but apparently it is not going away, so.....

Your view of Ford is scarcely one that takes into account that Ford made the engine it farmed out to Cosworth to manufacture to any and all with a check for the rght amount in only the second season of its existence. With the demise of Coventry Climax as a racing engine supplier and likewise the absence of someone like Maserati to peddle complete cars to one and all, Ford simply filled a role that the Offenhauser did in American Champ Car racing -- a part of the basic package which allowed the door to be opened to anyone who could field an acceptable entry. Without the DFV, GP racing would have been in even sorried shape than it already was in 1969 and with a pretty grim future of grid with maybe a dozen cars....

Why worry about F1 in 2006? Why worry about F1 at all? I haven't worried about the current state of affairs in F1 for many years because I simply don't care any more. It has hoist itself on its own petard as many correctly said it would. Like CART, it made some very poor decisions and is now paying for them. The current F1 gang is out to lunch big time and the GPWC is just as clueless. The FIA and the GPWC have both lost the bubble and neither one seems to be much of an alternative to the other. Makes me wonder why we ever complained about JM Balestre......

Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.

As you say the days of JMB look pretty good now - when you think about it all his manipulation seems to have improved the racing, no way would he have gone for irrelevant ideas like grooved tyres and farcical qualifying (if they want to jumble up the starting grids, then simply do like they used to and draw the positions out of a hat!).

Only thing I would query is that Cosworth designed and built the DFV, Ford put their name to it but it could just as easily have had a different name on it (wasn't a company connected with the record industry a contender).

As you say without the DFV F1 would have been pretty sorry - possibly like it is now!!!

Indeed, the Cosworth involvement was a Chapman and Cosworth idea rather than a Ford idea. And I doubt that either of them ever doubted that the engine would be marketed to all and sundry in their second year... economics would have dictated it.

Ford merely picked up the tab for initial costs and basked in the sunshine for years on the strength of it.

We've discussed previously what might have happened if the DFV hadn't... Repco being a big time supplier was one suggestion...

But today is a different era altogether. Engines have advanced to such a degree that the costs are astronomical. It would be very difficult to find anyone capable of matching the pace, and if you could, the likelihood of them selling the engines at an affordable price would be nigh on zero.

Let's just admit it... the scene has had its day.

Originally posted by Ray Bell

Let's just admit it... the scene has had its day.

And I've just been reading about an era where you had GPs with about 8 entries plus assorted no-hopers and you had no chance of even starting out unless Mummy and Daddy were very rich...plus ca change.

Makes me wonder tho' whether a book about general racing politics would be a seller. Right from the Gordon Bennett races, through the genesis of Grand Prix, the Land Speed Record differences 'cross the Pond, the creation of championships from the 1920s onwards, AAA into USAC, the CART split, AIACR into CSI into FISA, Basil Tye's quixotic tilt at Balestre, Mosley's jugular cutting...given that best-selling footy books nowadays have moved from Kevin Keegan picture books to serious business studies like those of David Conn and Alex Fynn, one wonders whether it is about time the GP audience had theirs. Bernie's Game has been successful enough to warrant a paperback...

Originally posted by ensign14
And I've just been reading about an era where you had GPs with about 8 entries plus assorted no-hopers and you had no chance of even starting out unless Mummy and Daddy were very rich...plus ca change.

Makes me wonder tho' whether a book about general racing politics would be a seller. Right from the Gordon Bennett races, through the genesis of Grand Prix, the Land Speed Record differences 'cross the Pond, the creation of championships from the 1920s onwards, AAA into USAC, the CART split, AIACR into CSI into FISA, Basil Tye's quixotic tilt at Balestre, Mosley's jugular cutting...given that best-selling footy books nowadays have moved from Kevin Keegan picture books to serious business studies like those of David Conn and Alex Fynn, one wonders whether it is about time the GP audience had theirs. Bernie's Game has been successful enough to warrant a paperback...

Depends how well it was written. For something like that, essentially about deals and scams and intrigue and (for want of a better word) rogues, I think the natural candidate is Mike Lawrence, whose grasp of Shakespeare would turn it into a potent tragi-comedy.

Busy, Mike?;)

Originally posted by ensign14
And I've just been reading about an era where you had GPs with about 8 entries plus assorted no-hopers and you had no chance of even starting out unless Mummy and Daddy were very rich.....

But things were more visible, more understandable, there was no hiding everything and everyone from everyone else...

I lament at the loss of a Gold Star series in which there was often fewer than five who could make a difference in each race.

Also the loss of the F5000 era, with its snap-to-attention-we're-here! cars.

Somewhere in the past two decades the whole thing has gone sour. Or are the onlookers the ones who have changed?

But, really, I doubt that F1 or any other form of racing ever considers what the spectators want.

Originally posted by Ray Bell

But, really, I doubt that F1 or any other form of racing ever considers what the spectators want. [/B]

Off the original topic of this thread, but I can think of one instance of a formula designed to appeal to spectators. It was called Formula F100 (the only formula named after a tyre?) and it occurred in Britain in 1970/71. John Webb, head honcho of Brands Hatch and a number of other circuits, created this formula for pretty sportscars as he thought spectators liked that kind of thing and were sick of scruffy Clubman's cars. He had a point, but the formula flopped - the cars were slow, unspectacular to watch and relatively expensive.

As for the rest of the thread, I agree with what Peter (in particular), Don and Ray say.

In contrast to some of you above, i do still care what happens to Grand Prix racing.

And I do not think that manufacturer involvement is a bad thing. It is not the fact that only one team can win that will scare off the manufacturers, it is the uncontrolled greed of the "commercial rights holder" - and the simple fact that F1 is currently run in a very amateurish manner. Max, in particular, is a politician - but certainly no businessman, and even less of a manager. No wonder that people like Ron Dennis, who have really built something over time, cannot get along with him. Max would not last the day in line management in a real company like Mercedes, Renault, Toyota, Honda or BMW; and the top managers of these companies understand as much.

Rather than bitch about the money (which is easily done) and pining for the middle ages, what about looking at:

1. Re-establishing real international FIA control; i.e. get rid of Bernie & Max and their focus on money. The fact that Bernie takes more than half of the cash flow generated says it all - it is simply indefensible and should be stopped.

2. I agree that the rules should be liberalised, and would like to see a simple formula based on total surface area of the car; together with a ban on freestanding aerodynamic devices i.e. wings). Define and limit the permissible surface area, define maximum and minimum ground area covered by the outer edges of the wheels. Define what fuel can be utilised, but allow any kind of engine that use those fuels.

3. Some kind of cap on spending. Either self-regulation, or voluntary FIA auditing, on budget caps.

All this of course requires getting rid of Bernie and Max.

Sorry to disagree, Mohican. You obviously care about what happens in F1 and I respect your opinion.

What do we want from F1? As motor racing enthusiasts, I guess we would all want to see close racing, with lots of overtaking, and as many combinations as possible of drivers and cars in with a shout of winning. Yes, I can accept that sometimes - but only sometimes - there will be a period of dominance by one particular driver or car. Fine as long as someone else can mount a realistic challenge to this. Uncertainty is what makes for good racing. But we haven't had that for some time, have we?

If someone had told me 30 years ago that F1 was going to stop there and then I would have been devastated. 20 years ago I would have been merely very upset. 10 years ago, oh well, bad news but never mind. Today, well frankly. F1 can disappear up its own backside as far as I'm concerned.

OK, I'm a grumpy old man, who is often resistant to change. But what I want from F1, or any kind of racing, hasn't changed since I started taking an interest when I was about 11 or 12. Should I have modified my opinions? Clearly I'm in the wrong age if I can't find anything at all appealing about Formula Ecclestone.

Originally posted by ian senior
I guess we would all want to see close racing, with lots of overtaking, and as many combinations as possible of drivers and cars in with a shout of winning.

You know, I used to think I believed that, but actually - it doesn't bother me too much. What I want is integrity. I want to know that money isn't trumping talent and politics isn't trumping money. I want a series I can believe in - if Fred Bloggs in the Scrotum-Wartburg wins every GP I want to know it's because they're plain better at racing than everyone else.

In my ideal F1 it wouldn't make any difference if you had $30m or $300m - there'd be no point running two wind-tunnels 24 hours a day or running tens of thousands of kilometres of tyre testing...

It would be nice if the cars were a real challenge to the drivers - no electronics, minmal downforce.

Clearly I'm in the wrong age if I can't find anything at all appealing about Formula Ecclestone.

Not sure it's age. I think it's just awareness of what went before. Back when I was sharing a house as a postgrad in the mid-90s I "corrupted" the guy I was sharing with; he still thinks F1 is wonderful, loves the Tilke circuits (thinks they're a "technical challenge") and enjoys the three-stop sprints with all the passing in the pits ("Strategy! It's fascinating!"). These days I don't even bother watching most of the races. He's only a couple of years younger than me, but I'd been watching and attending race meetings since the early 70s...

Ian, I reckon you're spot on, Pete too as ever. Your phrase, re F1 'disappearing up its own....' is the very one I used last night at the Northern TNF meet. Certain of my colleagues didn't agree, DAB in particular relishes still the 'techy' side of it all....

Originally posted by Mallory Dan
Ian, I reckon you're spot on, Pete too as ever. Your phrase, re F1 'disappearing up its own....' is the very one I used last night at the Northern TNF meet. Certain of my colleagues didn't agree, DAB in particular relishes still the 'techy' side of it all....

The problem with the techy side now is it's too esoteric for mere mortals. Unless you can do computational fluid dynamics in your head, you can't see why one ugly F1 car differs from another; they are all essentially the same car with slight variations in the components. All F1 cars are essentially "the same design" now.

Let's pretend. Imagine you have never seen a motor race before, you know nothing about the sport, and in an idle moment you sit down in front of the box to watch a grand prix - any grand prix. Just what is it about F1 that would grab your attention, and make you want to watch again and find out more.

Believe me, I've just tried this, although it wasn't a fair experiment for one who has some historical baggage. And I couldn't think of a thing, except possibly the sound of the engines.

Anyway, imagine watching this race, and break it down into the component parts of what you see. The cars - OK, which one is which? They do look a bit samey, don't they? And it's not as if there are many truly distinctive colour schemes to distinguish them - most are over-designed. Aren't you supposed to be able to tell the cars by the numbers - can't see one. Drivers? Presumably there is one in there, can't see much of him though. Someone said that drivers all had distinctive helmet colours - did Jackson Pollock do all these mish-mash helmet designs? Why do they keep stopping every 20 minutes or so? God, wish those blokes at Kwik Fit could change my tyres so quickly. Bit tedious with that red car p*****g off into the distance - isn't anyone going to make a race of it? And do they just drive round like that all afternoon - doesn't anyone pass another car?

OK, a bit extreme I know - or is it?