|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFOS's First White Paper Released
20 June 2009
Formula 1 as we know it is seemingly on a collision course with the end, the actions of the FIA, FOM and FOTA are turning what has always been a political sport, into a nonsensical collection of egos and misguided good intentions. As always in situations like these involving sporting codes, the biggest losers are the fans and supporters of the sport, and in the eyes of most fans, Formula 1 is surely at its lowest political ebb in living memory. Yes, there have been wars before, yes there has been controversy, but at no other point can I recall a time where the very essence of the sport seemingly hangs in the balance.
It all harps back to the FIA and their intentions on reducing costs and, hopefully, making the sport more viable and attractive to new teams. Max Mosely and his plan of bringing the teams into line and capping their costs (excluding some salaries and commercial costs) to 45 million Euros was, in essence, a sound idea, but was always going to meet with fierce resistance. It's not that the teams aren't interested in participating in F1 for less, it's that the figures are too extreme, let me explain.
Some teams at the moment spend in excess of 350 million Euros merely making cars and going racing. To ask them to cut their costs by 90% is something that the teams would find unfathomable. Of course, saving money is terrific, but think of it this way. If you usually do your grocery shopping with $200 in your pocket, that is how you are used to it, you walk into the shop, you find the things you need, and you roughly know what you will get for that money. Imagine for second, if you will, that your grocery budget has just been slashed to $20. There are two key questions to answer here, firstly, what can you actually achieve with that money, will you need to change brands? Secondly, and more importantly, can you even successfully achieve your shopping goals with that $20?
That is effectively what the Formula One Team Association (FOTA) are arguing, that to strip the teams of up to 90% of their budget on the period of one season is just far too much, these guys wouldn't even know where to begin, and in theory, could even spend themselves out of their budget before the first race of the season. FOTA then suggested a slower implementation of the budget capping regulation, bring it in over a period of two, three or four seasons, let the teams adjust over time. In return, the teams would commit themselves to the sport for the foreseeable future. Although, sounding like a reasonable solution to everyone who read it, the FIA instead insisted that the 45 Million Euro cap was being brought in next year, whether the teams like it or not, and if the teams didn't like it, then they were free to pack up shop and head for the hills and do as they pleased elsewhere. I, like I'm sure every F1 fan was, was dumbstruck, and infuriated.
This increasingly hard line approach from the FIA needs to come to an end. Us, as fans, have had quite enough of the FIA and Bernie Ecclestones Formula One Management (FOM) running the sport like a dictatorship. I appreciate that Mosely and Ecclesstone have done much for modern day F1, but time has come for reform in this sport. Over the past five years, we have witnessed some of the biggest regulation adjustments Formula 1 has ever known. Engines were converted from V10 to V8, rev limits cut, engine life expectancy has more then quadrupled, and gear box life expectancy is now more than double. Testing has been slashed, the cars have had all manner of aerodynamic devices carved from their body work, and this is all before we even get to the driving itself. Qualifying has evolved almost every season, regulations have constantly come and gone, and whilst this isn't individual to Formula 1, it's becoming increasingly difficult for everyday fans to follow the racing. How many times have we all been asked this year "What the hell is KERS? Why aren't all the teams running it? How can that obviously slower car possible deserve to stay in front of the clearly faster one?"
The fact is that Formula 1 is now being managed and moulded and fiddled with to within an inch of its life, what I would like to achieve with this note is point out, from a fans point of view, what Formula 1 is doing wrong, and what, in my opinion, could be done to rectify it.
Firstly, I struggle to fathom how FOM can charge a country in excess of 20 million Euros merely to host a race, that isn't even excessive, it's insane. At regular intervals in the last seven years, we have seen some of the worlds greatest tracks abandoned because their so called "facilities" weren't up to scratch or because they simply couldn't afford to pay (think Canada, Silverstone, USA, France, Imola and the two German tracks at Hockenheim and the Nurburgring. These are historical, important tracks to Formula 1's DNA!) and they are replaced with generic looking Tilke clones in places with very little in the way of racing history. (Think Turkey, Bahrain, Malaysia, China, Abu Dhabi and Singapore.) I have nothing against new tracks, and a track can't get history if you never race there - but not if it comes at the expense of one of the greats.
What can be done? Firstly, FOM cap their race hosting fees at a sensible level, adjusted perhaps to incorporate logistical costs in transporting equipment to various places (for example, Britain's fees should be less than Australia's'). Secondly, ensure the core, historical tracks are maintained and ensure that F1 has a presence of every continent that wants it. I'm sure that if the fee for hosting a Grand Prix was lower, then more countries would be interested in hosting it (and the FIA and FOM can't argue this point, because it's the same reasoning as suggesting that with a budget cap, more teams would look to enter the sport). The result is two fold, firstly the core F1 tracks will be maintained, tracks like Silverstone will not have to yield to financial pressure, and in fact, facilities can and will improve if more finances are freed up through paying a lower fee.
Another, final, point on tracks. If the eventuality arises that we have more countries vying for a Grand Prix then we can physically fit onto a calendar, I don't understand why we can't rotate certain Grands Prix over a two year cycle. Surely it's not unfathomable that we could cycle races over a period of time so that each track hosts at least one Grand Prix every two seasons? Of course, the core F1 tracks wouldn't rotate, but certainly newer countries and tracks entering the calendar could be rotated through to make sure everyone has a race at some point? It would remove a sameness to the Championship as well, and add to the variability of each season.
My next point is on Technical Regulations. For two long, the sport has been descending into a whirlwind of undecipherable rules and regulations which, seemingly, fly in the face of what F1 is all about. Freezing Engine design, locking down restraints on car design and aerodynamics, as well as stifling new technologies along the way (Renaults Torque Converter being an example). Various other rules have lead to confusing discussions on Double Diffusers, and, of course, KERS - F1 is about technical reform, but it is becoming far too difficult to understand. I believe that Technical Regulations should be restrained, to a point, but that we are locking down some of the key aspects of development that we have seen in F1 over the past fifty years. We have locked down engines, and yet allow free reign on KERS.
What can we do? Open up the regulations to allow some freedoms in all areas. I believe that Engine Freezing is the opposite of what we should be doing. In these times of concern over CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption, I think that allowing teams to create and innovate new ways to create more power for less or new systems of fuel consumption or even cleaner and "greener" cars is something that should be lead by the front by F1 car makers. Would it not be great to see an F1 supplier come up with a Diesel Engine, a cleaner option, better fuel consumption that all of a sudden gives that car a short lived advantage? I say short-lived because within six months, another manufacturer would have one to match, and if the Le Mans race has taught us anything, it's that engine innovation can make the cars cleaner and less fuel thirsty without sacrificing power.
That is but one area, but my point is the same across the spectrum, allow technical freedoms within a set of rules, primarily, a Budget Capping system.
That's right, a Budget Cap, the same problem which was the trigger for this mess, but with some changes. The idea of a Budget Cap is sound, and if set correctly, will allow all teams to race on a level playing field. My suggestion is that a cap be introduced, but have it set at a higher level than that being considered by the FIA. I believe that having a cap set somewhere between 75 Million and 100 Million Euros will satisfy all parties. I believe that it's a figure attainable by both the largest and smallest teams, when you take into account revenues and sponsorships for the teams. As a part of this larger cap, teams should be granted larger, non-aerodynamic, technical freedoms, to research, test and implement new racing technologies, including Engine and Gearbox development, as well as new technologies such as KERS. This may sound like a contradiction to what I was saying earlier about the sport currently being harder to understand, and I guess it is, for example, with expanded Technical Regulations, you may well see Petrol and Diesel powered cars on the track at the same time, but I feel that overall, for the sport, the positives would outweigh the negatives.
I also feel that allowing a team these technical freedoms (within the bounds of the Budget Cap) will be more appealing to manufacturer teams and, I envisage, would give them more encouragement to stay within the sport long term. At the moment, I feel Technical Regulations are too restrictive for teams to seek real advancement.
Another big point is better distribution of revenue to the teams, in my opinion, far too much money is held directly by FOM, and yes, I accept as commercial rights holder, it is entitled to profit, but I feel that under the terms of a new Concorde Agreement, teams should be entitled to a bigger stake of the revenues. This is a no-brainer for me, I mean, how rich can one guy get? (Ecclestone) If we can get that money back into the sport, whether it be as increased winnings or as higher Television revenues, then it will make the sport more attractive to both existing and interested teams. Alternatively, we could use that money to develop the sport, make it more interactive, make it more accessible. As a supporter sport at the moment, Formula 1 is too expensive, it has failed to capitalise on the Internet revolution, many countries do not get Qualifying and/or the race itself live, and it is unavailable online either by fee or free unless you live in Europe. If additional monies can be made available to improve accessibility of the sport, then the supporter base will increase. If we were to combine that with a lower hosting fee, and therefore, hopefully lower ticket process, then people would vote with their feet and we wouldn't have instances like we saw at Turkey with empty Grand Stands.
While I'm on the subject of FOM and Bernie Ecclestone, I'd like to add that I think he needs to curb his own opinions. I respect him for everything he has done for the sport, but coming out and making negative comments about drivers, or the teams, or the sport itself is going to do little to increase it's popularity. Hand in hand with this comes F1's inability to clean it's dirty laundry inside. Far too often, disputes are made public and the racing takes a back row seat to egos and disputes. This really must stop, the FIA, FOM and FOTA must learn to maintain professionalism and not resort to petty bickering, because I guarantee that from a fans perspective, it makes the sport very unattractive. This season, for example, we have seen one of F1's under dogs, Jenson Button, get up off the canvas of 2007 and 2008 and deliver what has been the greatest performance that we've seen for many seasons, and yet all we are talking about is the FIA/FOTA war. Get a grip guys, leave the egos in the Motorhomes and smile for the cameras. Dirty laundry should be kept far away from the public eye, everyone is guilty of this, so consider it a blanket criticism.
At the moment, the sport is too inaccessible, carrying on from the point I made earlier. Ticket prices are too high, the cars do not spend enough time on track to justify the cost of the ticket - and it's becoming increasingly difficult to source on-line content since FOM shuts down everything posted on public broadcasting sites. The sport needs to work its way into the 21st century, an unusual criticism of such a technical series, but at the moment, Formula 1 is trailing a lot of other sports, and I feel that in the technically savvy times of Gen-Next, it's going to become more and more difficult to entice new viewers if you aren't appealing to them on their own medium. No F1 console or PC based games for the 2007 and 2008 seasons, whilst games for the biggest consoles (Playstation and Xbox) will also be lacking for 2009. Seemingly, no effort at all was made for last two years to resolve this, and moreover, there was no justification or explanation from FOM explaining why this was the case. The Formula 1 website, whilst flashy and pretty, lacks heart and imagination. Fans demand a more up to date news feed - including what could be just rumour - and they also demand more interaction. Games or Fantasy Leagues are a great way to get more people interested, yet the F1 website is sterile and mainly ignored by fans in favour of other websites that provide more stories and insight from the paddock. Sorry guys, sticking to a diet of press releases and a random Q&A is not going to be enough to satisfy fans in the information age.
As a follow on from that, more video should be available, and online streaming of sessions, including practice, should also be available from the site, even as a fee based service. Those of us, and there are many, who live outside of Europe are appalled by the lack of coverage we get and lament the fact that we basically have to break the law to see a live feed of practice or Qualifying, and for some, even the race. I concede that, yes, it is the responsibility of the host broadcaster to show what they like, but in the end, it's FOM that benefits from the people that watch, and it's their sport, surely a feed available on the F1.com site would go a long way towards feeding peoples hunger for F1, as well as enticing new fans for the sport? Add a nominal fee to that, and you end up with another revenue stream for FOM that I think could well go into the millions. (10 Euros a year for a Live F1 feed of Practice, Qualifying and the race? I could guarantee that would net tens of millions of Euros for FOM).
A final point on accessibility, F1 needs to be more interactive. Add a blog to the site, add a forum, let people connect at the highest level with the sport. Let us ask questions, let us learn, and that will bring a better feeling of belonging to F1. At the moment, the sport has an air of arrogance and stand-offishness, it should tare down those walls and open itself up to the current generation and appeal to it on the level that current generation operates at.
Finally, I'd like to turn attention to matters on-track. Current regulations have stifled the amount of time cars spend on track. With a limited supply of engines and ban on testing, we are having to wait for each Friday to see cars on track, and that's only up to three hours, max, and let's face it, a lot of that time, the cars sit in the garage for a good while. I'd like to see Fridays re-opened as test days and cars given free reign on track for at least four hours. These days could be made available to test drivers also and could be excluded from the Engine and Gearbox restrictions, meaning that the cars would be free to run without the fear of blowing an Engine or a Gearbox and wearing a penalty. This would entice more fans to the track on these days and would give us exposure to F1 test drivers (it would also give them something to do in this current climate), as well as offering further exposure for sponsors and teams. To add to excitement, perhaps a cash prize could be awarded to the driver who sets the fastest lap of the day (or maybe even a Championship point to the team that sets the fastest time).
Qualifying, as it stands now, is nearly perfect. The anticipation and excitement of Q1 and Q2 is terrific, but I can't help but feel Q3 lets it all down. As I mentioned earlier, we live in a modern world where there is concern for CO2 emissions and fossil fuel burning, and yet how do we justify having cars lapping around on race fuel without purpose? A better alternative for Q3, in my opinion, would be a one-lap shootout scenario, where drivers in the top 10 would have one shot, one lap, on low fuel to set a Pole time. You may argue that this would lead to the fastest cars continuously taking Pole, and whilst I don't agree because drivers make mistakes, and in the end, one-lap is very difficult to get right, I also have no problem with the fastest car/driver combination winning, after all, it's what motorsport has always been about. Think of the excitement at the end of a long qualifying session when it's the last guy of the top 10 runners on track, with it all to himself, with only the clock to beat. I think it would certainly take Qualifying up a notch, as well as using less fuel and bringing uncertainty back to race day.
Race Day, finally I get to it. First things first, bring back the Sunday warmup - even if it's just 30 minutes long, let the cars shake down and give the fans something to see instead of having to sit around all day waiting for two o'clock to roll around (or later depending what Grand Prix you're at). This helps build anticipation and excitement for the race in my opinion, again, maybe even offer some kind of incentive for being fast during the session. Before I move onto the race itself, I want to say one thing about how the racing currently is. You can not artificially create racing, you can not create rules that somehow create racing out of nothing. At the moment, we have a number of rules doing this.
First of all, the two-tyre-compound-per-race rule, it's not in the spirit of the sport and has done nothing to improve the racing. The problem with having so many smart people working at every F1 team is that, in the end, given time, they all come up with very similar looking strategies for their tyre-compound use. Most cars now start on the same tyre, change to same tyre at the same time and finish on the same tyre - therefore, the thought that on occasions some cars would be two seconds a lap faster than others, has not really played off. We haven't even really seen any clever strategies to catapult drivers up the grid this season, it's all been very samey.
I have an idea for what we could do, we could allocate three compounds to a weekend, allow teams to decide which one they want to use, and make them declare that choice before qualifying (but allow cars to qualify on whatever tyres they like). What does this do? In my opinion, it throws strategy wide open, cars that are kinder on tyres could go softer and maybe aim for shorter stints, whilst some may choose a harder compound and run longer - in the end, it would mix things up a little, and certainly offer the teams a bigger option in strategies. All that we have seen from this years tyre regulations is the abolition of one-stop strategies and the absurdity of seeing cars on track all of a sudden driving two seconds slower then they were previously.
On a similar note on creating artificial racing, the KERS situation has bothered me all season. I understand that it is a technical innovation, but the fact that we saw a Brawn GP car unable to overtake a McLaren at Turkey despite being obviously faster, makes me worry about the technology. I really dislike push-to-pass racing, and I dislike push-to-defend racing even more, and since straights tend to be the only place outside of the pitlane to overtake these days, the KERS cars are making a bit of a mockery out of things. I like the KERS system, but I think if it was adjusted to provide automatic acceleration boosts rather than a push-to-use function, it would offer a better solution. What I mean by that is that KERS stored power could be used when the car is placed under acceleration immediately out of a braking zone with no further input from the driver, and therefore offer a faster exit (I understand the implication of traction, therefore, perhaps it could kick in from 4th gear onwards) and would still give the car behind the chance of overtaking the car ahead by the time the braking zone for the next corner comes along. KERS, as it is now, is generating artificial racing, and I mentioned before what I thought of that concept.
One thing I would like the FIA and FOM to consider would be the implementation of some of FOTA's regulation suggestions made last year, the ones I recommend are listed here, followed by my own recommendations:
FOTA Recommendations:
1. Prohibition of a wide range of exotic, metallic and composite materials
2. Standardised telemetry and radio systems
3. New points-scoring system (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1), to give greater differentiation/reward to grand prix winners
4. Radical new points-scoring opportunities (eg, one constructors' championship point to be awarded for the fastest race pit stop)
White Paper Recommendations
1. Reduction in Grand Prix Hosting fees to allow more countries to afford a Grand Prix and to lower ticket prices
2. More Technical Regulation freedom inside the devised Budget Cap to allow teams to develop new technologies, with a particular focus on fuel consumption and reliability
3. A Budget Cap set at a realistic figure between 75m and 100m Euros, a figure which should appease the bigger teams without it being out of reach of the smaller teams
4. Improve revenue distribution in the sport to ensure teams are getting value for money from F1 participation
5. Divert money into programs to increase awareness and participation of Formula 1, including online content and material that fits the context of the current generation (games and interactive material)
6. FIA, FOM & FOTA to maintain professionalism and refrain from criticising others in the eye of the public domain in an effort to keep the racing, and not the politics, as the number one story in Formula 1
7. Formula 1 needs to be more accessible with more information and live feeds available to the global audience via F1's Official website
8. An opening up of Friday track activities. Increase practice times to a minimum four hours, allow test drivers to drive and allow the use of Engines and Gearboxes not covered under the "must-last-so-many-races" rule
9. Modify Qualifying so that Q3 is a Top 10 shootout on low fuel to garner excitement as well as offering Television exposure for all cars in the Top 10.
10. Reinstate Sunday Warm-Up
11. Abolish "two-tyre-compound-per-race" rule, in favour of offering multiple compounds and allowing teams to decide
12. Modify KERS design to be automatic rather than "push-to-pass/defend"
I'd like to conclude by saying that I side with neither the FIA, FOM nor FOTA on Formula 1's current state. They are all playing a role in these problems and none are offering a sensible solution or voice. The FIA is far too hardline and inflexible and resorting too quickly to petty fighting with FOTA. FOTA, for its part, has made some great suggestions, but can't seriously think anyone would be comfortable with the teams writing the rules, whilst FOM has not said a sensible word on this topic sense it started. I think the true solution for F1 lies somewhere in the middle of the three, and that's where we should be working to be instead of being so busy refusing to yield that we forget to note someone else's point of view.
My final thought is directed at the FIA and FOM. Please be more open with public, and please stop trying to dictate the sport without consulting it's most important employees, ie: its fans. We have a voice and we are willing to share it. The current processes are flawed and clogged with friction, rule and regulation change should be about consultancy and innovation, and it needs to be done in the right spirit - that way, we might just all get a little something of what we want.
And hopefully, the sport will get what it needs.
|
|
|
|
|