Changes to the shape and cost of Formula One

It looks increasingly likely that very significant changes in Formula One technical regulations and costs are going to be driven through against the wishes of some of the teams. The Times has obtained a copy of the draft agenda for the meeting between Max Mosley and the team principals in Geneva next Tuesday and it makes interesting reading.

One important aspect we did not have any room for in the paper today are the proposals in the agenda documents for dealing with the differentials in engine performance on the grid under the present engine freeze. The FIA explanatory notes for the meeting deal with that issue as follows:

2009
When the decision was taken to "freeze" the engines, certain teams asked for and got a period of time in which to address reliability problems and re-tune for 19,000 rpm.  Some teams took advantage of this period to improve the power output of their engines.  This was not intended.  Other teams did not improve their engines, believing performance to have been "frozen".  This has produced unfair and inequitable differences in performance.  The World Motor Sport Council has therefore decided that engine performance will be equalised in accordance with the 2009 Sporting Regulations in order to re-establish the position as it was when the freeze was agreed.

The FIA would like to discuss with FOTA technicians how best to achieve equalisation in a way which is fair to all and involves minimal cost.

One, unrelated, final thought before flying to China...
Many of you have no doubt noticed is what appears to be the start of a change in policy on the part of FOM regarding key video clips of incidents during races which are normally removed from sharing sites for copyright reasons. However, pressure from contributors to sites like this one, appears to have convinced Bernie that it is in the interests of the sport to allow greater access to these images. That's a big step forward, non?

Comments

[Michael Grinks]

Good news about the change in policy regarding videos. There aren't many ways to actually see F1 in the States, so those little snippets on You Tube mean a lot. Especially with the traffic cop mentality (perfect analogy there, Mr. Gorman) that seems to prevail in the FIA these days.

While I'm at it I should ask if anybody could recommend a good way to get the TV broadcasts of the races over the internet. I've looked but with no success. The BBC used to put up their radio coverage after the race, but that went away and all you can get now is the post race commentary. So all thats left is the Live Timing on the Official F1 web site. Any help would be appreciated.

[Weasel]

Ah yes, Formula Twingo - now that'll make for some really exciting racing won't it - you know - none of that pesky overtaking stuff triggering multiple stewards inquiries.

Anything else there to bore the pants off the few remaining Formula 1 fans?

[Riz]

The US commentators (in The Speed Channel) mentioned that the Fuji GP's TV recording/broadcast was *NOT* handled by FOM, but by a local company. (The only other GP which has its broadcast handled by a separate, local company is the Monaco GP)

I don't know how this affects copyright claims, but could this be why, for example, the YouTube clip of Massa hasn't yet been taken down?

[LAK]

On your last thought, yay! Someone began to listen!

[IDR]

Michael,

TV broadcasts of the races have the same problem than youtube. FOM works actively to cancel every link from the moment is published in one of the most read sites (like this one).

If you want to watch it life, you should go to F1 Fanatic Live Blog on Practice, Qualy, and Race. If you get into the life blog and ask somebody to give you a working link, there is always somebody who can provide you a working one.

I do it every Friday because in Spain there is no way to watch Fridays practice sessions and it works perfect for me. On the other hand, live blog is great to follow.

On the other hand, good news to know that FOM are someway changing their previous stupid policy of restricting every initiative.

What is really funny is the question they putted on the screen: "Japaneese Grand Prix footage, What do you think?"

Thanks god they don't give us any possibility to write what we think about!!!!

[Gary M]

@ Michael Grinks

I do not want to print it here as do not want the site shutting down and don't want to get Ed into trouble. But there is a really great and free live stream of the ITV coverage available.

I am happy for Ed to pass you my email address or if he does not mind I will send the link to him and he can send to you. Whatever is easier.

Cheers

[Joaquin Carrasco]

All incidents here:

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/10/8530.html

[Michael Cowley]

Car development is part of the soul of F1. Restrict costs, by all means, but don't prevent teams from building their own cars. We don't want a GP2 + 2 formula....

Micharl Grinks - videos of the races are often distributed as torrent downloads, usually a couple of hours after the race. I'm not sure how legal the downloads are but you will find them at http://thepiratebay.org

You will need a bit torrent client (which is perfectly legal) - try utorrent - www.utorrent.com

[Bob]

These cost cutting proposals are going to far. If people wanted to watch a field of identical cars there are existing racing series that are just that, the reason that people don't is that they're rubbish!

There has to be a more innovative way of keeping costs down and making the sport viable for the independents.

Some kind of mandatory secondary market? A team can innovate as much as it likes, but has to offer each part to at least two other teams?

[Thomas]

Here's something you should know, Max. I only watch F1. I don't care about nascar because that much overtaking is just boring to me. I definately don't watch WRC because .. well how fun can it be to watch a single car running at a time? It's like F1 quali used to be when nobody bothered to watch.

Hungary was if not the most exciting then top2 for me this year. Because as a Formula 1 fan I enjoy the strategic element. I marvel at an overtaking move that should not be doable. I really enjoy seing a driver drive through the field because I know how hard it is. It's amazing for me that these drivers are so good that they can outdrive their machinery. And I rather enjoy the development battle.

What FIA need to look at is not standard engines or standard chassis parts, it is their own big heads. Who else could really belive that freezing an engine yet still allow changes would stop the maniacs in F1 from developing it? Get real. What they have done with the sport is effectively killing cleverness to the point that the only inventions that goes on today is how to get around the rules.

They have created a sport where finding small gains costs massive amounts of money, and they are slowly killing the independent teams. Let's look at the "cost-saving measures":

'04: The collective F1 field sucks so badly the FIA has to implement a no tyre change rule for '05 to stop Ferrari dominance. Massive testing and research for only one season.

'05: Engines will be changed to 2.4 litre V8s, wings will be smaller to slow speeds. Teams spend mass money on engine development and claws (as usual) most of the lost speed back.

'06: Single tyre supplier for next year. Engines will be frozen. Teams spend extra money getting more out of their engine. Extra testing because of unknown tyre for most. 3rd year with pretty much the same limiting regulations puts a premium on smaller expensive details. One team even runs some right out of the future nanotech material on front wing to reduce drag but finds it too expensive for F1(!).

'07: Hey guy you know engines arent really frozen they are just more expensive to get anything out of and the gains are smaller. Oh and new standard ECU for you to learn. And we ban the TC despite neither car regulations nor tyres are made for no TC. And for the 4th year you have to claw something out of an already overdeveloped car.

'08: Ok so most teams now caught up, F1 is incredibly competitive and the field is so close that we've had an incredible season with so many classic races that I for one can't even begin to list them. Yea we now have a completely new set of regulations for you, and you also have to develop KERS, a fancy systems that gives about the same extra power as you lose by actually installing it in your car. Oh and did we mention KERS is a about as expensive as the engines, so we are screwing the independents even more.

Budget limits. Now there's something cool. F1 should be about engineering excellence, so what you do is this:

- First; free up the technical regulations.
- Then set a budget cap.
- Watch as the clever engineers now stuck reshaping small bits of carbon fiber wakes up and makes something amazing. Watch them do it 10 times over. Marvel at the spectacle.

Option 1:
- demand that F1 engines must give at least 20mpg, let them chose everything else. Marvel as the world's fuel crisis is solved within 8 months.

Option 2:
- Get rid of Mosley and get someone usefull in there. Someone who can think up cost-saving and overtaking on the spot. You know I could have told him that lowering the front wing, widening the car, getting rid of tc and getting slicks back would give us F1 as it should be ... when I was 14.

[CHIUNDA]

Hi Ed

Your pre-race commentary for Japan did mention the possibility of the stewards having an impact on the remaining races in the season. But you made it in passing and like the rest of us didn't believe it would be very significant.

However now that we all know that it will be very significant (it can be argued that a full 8 points in the title race this year are due to the stewards - 6 from spa and 2 from japan for the bourdais and webber incidents) do you think you can attempt a guess at how the stewards will try and influence china and brazil races?

[CHIUNDA]

Ed

Please give Gary M my email too for that ITV link.

[Will Harris]

Limiting the total fuel for a race would be the best way to force development of fuel efficient racers. This would help us all.

Most other constraints to reduce expenditure are nearly impossible to police and just lead to daft sums spent on marginal projects.

This is Formula One not stock car racing for the hard up. this is the pinacle. There really shouldn't be a need to restrict the expenditure. But that said, it should be a goal to level the playing field and see racers racing each other on ability.

But how many of you love the technology of F1 as much as the races. I wish an hours show could be broadcast each Grand Prix just covering the technology and developments. The engineer in me would love it. Killing this is a damn shame.

I'd like to see active aerodynamics. So that as speed changes the shape of the wings adapt. There could be fuel economies in this which could trickle down to production cars and other areas.

In the end, it should be a business decision how much money a team puts into F1 determined by how much they perceive they get out. Perhaps once they're all on the same tyres, the dimensions of the car should be fixed, the weight fixed and the fuel reduced each season by 3%. Give them 8mpg to start with and make them go from there. You'd have some amazing development and fanastic new technology useful to us all.

[PT Race fan]

Ed, excellent blog, in the midst of all the "biased" info out there, your blog is clear, informative & seperates the wood from the trees!.

Plse send the me ITV link. Cheers

[David Jones]

Ed and all other editors of anything to do with F1, please please can we have no more photos of Max Spanker Mosley.
I don't kn ow about other but I find images of this oik of a man repulsive as I keep getting unwanted images of him and his *************** Euston********Chelsea*** hookers*****Arrgghhhhhh******* Huge Grin******yuk!!!!!!!!

The only way real F1 has a future is to break away from the FIA. it's time for the teams to stop letting the tail wag the dog. Why can't the teams see this?

Why, could anyone explain, would McLaren want to be involved in a motor racing formula with is so obviously anti them, a formula where they are not allowed to become champions? Why? I can't see it, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Derek Smith]

It's Formula Ford. If one wanted to watch identical cars one could follow the Ginetta Series.

This is another nail in the coffin, at least under the control of Mosley/FiA. if he wanted to put a dagger in the heart of the F1 industry in this country then I can't think of a better way of doing it. What will be the point of having all this expertise if it can't be exercised?

Is this an attempt to remove the manufacturers from the sport? I feel certain that Mercedes will not want to pay money to have their badge on an engine that is the same as everyone else's.

The bright side is that another open-wheeled formula might start up funded by the manufacturers, to be run at circuits other than those built on sand or covered in rice.

Mosley/FiA seems intent on abandoning Britain, the USA and Canada and many other European circuits are under threat. As there seems to be no intent to make running a GP cheaper I can see there's a big gap in the market for a class leading formula run by and for the manufacturers. With money, the best drivers will migrate away from F1.

A Ferrari with a standard engine? Has Mosley no soul?

The FiAsco of the stewards' decisions is showing that F1 is no longer the highly professionally run organisation it used to be. With poorly designed circuits being pushed one wonders if anyone will bother to watch Mosley's shadow of F1.

What will I do with my Sundays in 2010?

[David Hodge]

Spot on Thomas! Great post.

To expand on a couple of your points... They have a tyre allocation for the weekend now, only so many sets available. So do the same with fuel with a consumption guideline of 20mpg. Calculate an arbitrary number of laps for practice and qualifying, plus you already know the number of laps for the race. You use more fuel in practice, you have less for the race. You need to lean off the engine to save some. You develop a really good engine giving, say 25mpg, so you have more laps for practice. You have a thirsty engine, you do less.

The budget cap is also a fantastic idea. Leave the innovation to the team engineers instead of Max's pet think tank. As long as the bodywork of your car is within certain boxes, then fine. Remember the old days where there would be innovations well outside of the rules, like Tyrell ground effect or Jackie Stewart's six wheeled car. I would love to have seen the regulations from those days which allowed engineers the scope to design at will. In those days, it seemed innovation was king - and the teams would protest and if things were that different, they would be banned.

[Chris Waby]

I’m old enough to remember when Formula 1 was the pinnacle of international motor racing and teams were given a set of regulations that laid down such parameters as the cars weight, length, width, height etc. The engine regulation were also more flexible centering on the cubic capacity, fuel to be used and whether turbo charged or naturally aspirated. These regulations allowed designers to be innovative which in turn led to exciting racing. Nowadays however the FIA likes to regulate everything and this is not good for the sport, I’m all for regulations that are responsible and safety related but if these engine regulations are adopted the spectacle that is Formula 1 will be dealt a death blow.

Think again the sport is supported by the fans as well as commercial interests and if the spectacle is ruined no one will watch and Formula 1 will no longer exist, perhaps that’s what the FIA want.

[Mazagoitia]

I have the solution to decrease the cost to 0.

No courses, no racings and al the years give the title to Hamilton.

[IDR]

@GaryM

I would like to have that link!

I would appreciate if Ed pass my email to GaryM, thanks.

@THOMAS

Great post.

[PRH]

Totally agree with Thomas - impose a budget cap, free up the regulations and hence encourage innovation. Granted the FIA would need a crack team of accountants to keep the teams in check. If the cars need slowing down, periodically decrease engine capacity. With the research effort spread over all areas of the car, no one area (e.g. aerodynamics) would become overdeveloped.

Like many other fans, the technological side produces half the enjoyment of F1. Otherwise we'd all be watching GP2 instead!

[F1-Insider]

Thomas
How could I not agree? Excellent

David Jones
Excellent, I see you advocate what I have been saying post after post after post, there is no other way and I think it would all be for the best.
I suggested a new V10 series but I like the idea Thomas says better that is that the engineer's be free to do whatever they like so long as the minimum fuel consumption is way better than we have today (maybe 15mpg as 20 is reaching for the stars to start with, maybe 15 year 1, 16 year two etc)?

Derek
I wondered how long it would take you to see what I have been posting IS the only way. The facts are that Mosley and Ecclestone rather than improving F1 are destroying it.
What the likes of you and I have seen this year is nothing short of disgraceful and knowing that every time Mosley's lands a dagger into Ron's McLaren is making a certain person happier and happier makes my blood boil.
I have also lost a lot of respect for Frank Williams as he sees and knows what is going on and rather than standing up and saying is staying silent just like the other wimps in F1.
Frank should remember that it is he and Ron that were F1 for so many years.
I see what's happening within the F1 ring at present a little like Germany in the late 30' where the silent majority found it easier to stay silent, this is wrong. The first corner punishment for Hamilton in Japan was, in my view F1's lowest ebb so much so I don't know if I will be able to enjoy F1 again.

The only way is for one or more of the current manufacturer backed teams left F1 and started over just think of the circuits at their disposal right now, many of the finest and most historic in the world - I urge them to do it and remove the stain of the Mosley/FIA and money grabbing commercial people at a stroke.

[David Hodge]

Not really on the subject of F1 but I am sure all people will join with our Spanish brothers and sisters on this blog to wish the very best to Seve Ballesteros. Of course I am an F1 fan but I have also been entertained royally for many years by the genius of Seve. I wish him well in his recovery.

[Martin Mannion]

To the chap in the USA - you need to get Speed Channel on your cable provider, also some races are on FOX - check out www.speedtv.com.
Ed - isn't Formula1 all about being the biggest, best and bringing the most innovation, I fear all that will happen is a new breakaway group will emerge to race "modified" series. Instead of cutting costs force people to be profitable maybe..

[Ron]

They must switch to electric cars, NOW. SOd ferrari and their big bucks, Who drives a ferrari anyway?

[Richard]

DEREK - "A Ferrari with a standard engine? Has Mosley no soul?"

I can guess who might be awarded the contract to supply the engines, it probably wouldn't be Mercedes, Honda, Renault, BMW, or Toyota!

[Stelmara]

David Jones
I too cannot stand seeing Max smaker Mosley's face in the papers and on the net, it really does give me the creeps, what an odious man he is (my view).

Thomas
you make some really good points, I agree let the engineers freee to innovate and we'll see great racing but I also think F1-Insider, Derek, David Jones and others that are saying the only way is a breakaway is the only way and I would certainly follow it.
The points made about the tracks (just announced that the French GP 2009 has been cancelled because of money problems and the fees required by FOM) available shouts to us all just one area where F1 has gone wrong. I wonder if Monaco would be interested in being part of a new series?

Ed,
Please do your bit, NO more images of Max Bleeding Mosley

[brett sinclair]

Freezing engine development is not the only way of lowering costs in F1. What about salaries and overheads... Why doesn't the FIA put a restriction on the cost of designing and building an F1 car?
Remember, this is a competitive business as well as a sport.

[Michael Grinks]

Thanks GaryM, IDR and Michael Cowley for all the tips on finding some F1 tv on-line. I'll try them out this weekend. As for my e-mail address, Ed, you can give it to Gary M if you think it is not going to get you fired from the Times. I could see there being some kind of ethical objection to helping pass on information that might promote the use of illegal web sites.

[Onome O]

Great blog as usual.Please give Gary M my email too for that internet link.

[Fher]

@David Hodge

Beautiful words in a beautiful Blog :) Seve is now playing the match of his life, I am sure we'll see him winning again.

Regards

Fer

[Tim]

Derek Smith - there's nothing wrong with Formula Ford! A relatively inexpensive single seater series with large grids, fierce competition (between drivers, teams and chassis suppliers), cars that are fun to drive, cheap to maintain, no ugly aerodynamic appendages and fantastic racing. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the FIA adopts FFord rules but what more could you want from F1?

Perhaps modern day Formula 3 would be a better illustration of your point? Effectively a single chassis series (Dallara - no one else has been able to get a decent foothold in recent years despite wins by Lola, Lola-Dome and Mygale), tightly regulated engines that are basically the same, too much reliance on aerodynamic downforce, not enough overtaking, consistent domination by the best teams (ASM and Carlin) and still too expensive. I have a soft spot for F3, especially Thruxton-style slipstreamers, and it's a good training ground for future F1 drivers but it isn't the most spectacular and exciting racing.

I don't think this latest set of proposals is an FIA attempt to get the big car manufacturers out of F1, more to maintain the balance between manufacturers and the private teams. The experience of other racing series is that too many manufacturers (or over reliance on a few big manufacturer suppliers) is an enormous risk.

In the mid-1990s the BTCC had around ten different manufacturer teams but it was unsustainable - someone always has to be last and no big car manufacturer wanted to spend enormous amounts of money just to take part. That kind of investment can be justified if you can pull off a title challenge or even the odd win, but not 15th place.

Both Champ Car and the IRL in the USA suffered from the entry of Honda and Toyota, who were prepared to spend big bucks to win at the expense of the smaller suppliers. Eventually, every car in the field was powered by a Japanese engine and when either supplier dropped out there was no commercial justification for Honda/Toyota competing against itself. The same happened on the chassis front - the IRL is now just another Dallara formula.

The DTM survives only because Mercedes and Audi both provide large numbers of cars, and would collapse (again) if one pulled out. The series is continually looking for a third manufacturer to spread the load and costs have to be carefully controlled to avoid a repeat of the old ITC, where escalating costs caused the series to implode.

Nor can F1 risk the discontinuity of the Le Man 24 hours, where several manufacturers (BMW, Toyota, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, Peugeot, etc) have come in with a works team, won the race (or not) and left almost immediately afterwards. Audi is the notable exception.

F1 is clearly better with participation from the major car manufacturers - it proves the old maxim that racing improves the breed. But F1 must continue to encourage old style private teams like Williams to compete on a reasonably level playing field and avoid becoming a mere plaything of the manufacturers. F1 needs to likes of Force India - someone has to be last, but no one wants to spend a fortune for the privilege. It's a difficult balance to strike. The customer car issue complicates things even more - increasing the number of quality cars on the grid is clearly a good thing, but the risk is that F1 becomes like the current DTM where all teams are effectively an arm of McLaren or Ferrari.

Trying to contain costs is also difficult, much like tax legislation - those with the most resources recruit the best accountants/engineers to find loopholes to minimise the impact and gain the most advantage. I don't have the answer and I don't think the FIA does either, but that's probably more a reflection on the extent of the problem.

Finally, we must try not to take everything that emerges from the FIA on this subject at face value - this is a negotiation. Max and Bernie are both very skilled and experienced in this area and both often come out with comments/proposals that seem shockingly extreme, but then get what they really want disguised as a compromise. Is the proposal for a standard engine a true reflection of what the FIA wants, or is it just a ploy to get the manufacturers to finally deliver the cheap engine deals they've been promising for years?

We should all be able to agree that F1 needs a sustainable platform that combines exciting racing and technological innovation at a reasonable cost. Changes need to be made, although not necessarily those proposed by the FIA, if F1 as we know it is to continue for the long-term.

[Derek Smith]

Tim,

I didn't mean to criticise Formula Ford but to suggest that if that was what you wanted to watch, then go ahead. It is already there. However, it is hardly the pinnacle.

I think the problem with the BTCC was that the market it was aimed at was too small. If it has been international then it might well have been as sustainable as the German series.

Further, any new manufacturers' series would be run outside the control of the FiA and the rules would be made to suit them rather than some unrepresentative body.

I'm not suggesting it would be better than F1, only that Mosley is risking such a series by his interference. The leaders in this should be FOTA not Mosley/FiA.

The thing that costs the teams the most is change, of that there can be no doubt. McLaren and BMW have complained of just that. RD explains the hidden costs by saying that the engine freeze made wholesale changes to his organisation essential. Now it is being lifted for 2009, he has to re-reorganise (his new word) his team and that McLaren had already lost some of its expertise because of the promissed freeze.

And further, a completely new forumla, which Mosley/FiA's proposals are, must be phenominally costly. The smaller teams, those that Mosley/FiA suggest they are after encouraging, will again be left behind. Fair engouh, they may well catch up after two or three years but then the rules will be changed yet again, because that is what Mosley/FiA does all the time.

What is needed is a radical approach, something totally new, off the wall in fact. Something that no one has ever thought of let alone tried before. How about - wait for it - a Concord Agreement that all parties, including (and this is the essential part) Mosley/FiA, cannot opt out of on a whim.

Yes, I know it's risky, I know it has never been tried before, but let's face it, it is a much better solution to these perceived problems than Mosley's daft proposition.

F1 under Mosley, at least since 2005, has been a disaster. One stupid scandal after another. We had never had such a pointless race, such a FiAsco, as Indy that year. And then we get scandal on scandal, pathetic decision after decision, penalty after penalty despite F1 being the same as it always was.

We need F1, or Grands Prix, run under whatever regs, managed properly. If I was a major investor in F1, as a manufacturer, team principal, sponsor, circuit owner, whatever, I would want it run under the FiA.

Remember, it is not F1 that is the pinnacle of our sport. Grands Prix are and these can be run under any regulations and any regulators.

And Tim, whilst I don't want to pick up individuals, I would say that Mosely is not a clever negotiator. He imposes his will. He did it when abandoning the Concord Agreement. The essence of negotiation is compromise. Max and Bernie compromise? I'd have to be sitting down if I ever saw that.

The only time I'd ever heard the word compromising with Mosley is when modifying the word situation.

[Antonio Xixon but in UK]

Thanks David, yes, I guess that everyone is expectant about Seve's fate. I wish him a prompt recovery.

This disclosed note from FIA clarifies (at least to me) why Fabio said that some teams have been braking the rules about the engines. Obviously Renault was one the ones that either followed the rules, or broke them but didn't manage to evolve the engine. I think that it is the first assumption, because the improvement of the car in recent races can't be due to specific settings favorable to Renault (Japan is a non Renault-friendly circuit), so probably they started to develop the engine just after Briatore saw that some teams were developing the engines regardless. This is going to be very interesting at the end of the season, because meanwhile the teams that have been developing have a clear and defined path, the ones that started later on can choose a different way thinking in next year, maybe an engine that will be more affected by aerodynamics, more versatile, I don't know. I only can stop thinking of what happened when Renault introduced the super charger, and how the teams without it were doomed. Maybe Renault will surprise us with something similar...and Fernando won't leave them, although I'm still of the impression that he has something already arranged with Ferrari.

Same type of engine for everyone?, that will kill F1 as such. I'm already for coming back to multiple tire providers. This thing with Bridgestone can't carry on for much longer.

[Tim]

Derek - My point about Mosley being a good negotiator was exactly that, i.e. he tends to get what he wants.

How does he do this? Quite simply, his MO is to make very radical proposals which are much more extreme than he actually wants - he demands 10 apples when he only really wants 5. He then appears to compromise by accepting a lower number of apples. You may not agree that this is good negotiation in the sense of achieving a fair compromise, but it's certainly effective.

And, by and large, the teams fall for it. The formation of FOTA may mean the teams put up more of a united front but with it having to represent the diverse views of manufacturers, private teams and customer teams I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I agree with you on the hidden costs of change - in monetary terms and increasing the gap between the front and the back of the grid. But in the current world economic climate is F1 2008-style sustainable, i.e. is no change or limited change really an option?

Toyota is reported to spend $450m per year, ahead of McLaren and Ferrari. Against a backdrop of falling orders for new cars, how long will Toyota's board sanction spending so much for so little return? BMW and Renault get nowhere near the exposure of the top two but don't spend very much less. RBS - a major Williams sponsor - has effectively been nationalised by the UK Government so how long can it justify its expenditure on F1?

The main point of my previous post was this - F1 as a plaything of the manufacturers will fail. Manufacturers are there to win, not just to take part, and will often pull out on a whim. History has shown that over-reliance on manufacturers carries with it enormous risks. The current F1 grid of just 20 cars would be reduced to a joke were Honda, Toyota and Renault (2008's underachievers) to pull out tomorrow citing insufficient return on their investment. It isn't that hard to see it happening.

F1 needs to allow privately funded teams like Williams, Red Bull and Force India to compete on more of a level playing field. It also needs more of them.

Change, even with the extra costs that brings in the short term, appears to be essential. I don't want to see F1 becoming a stock formula either (or Formula Ford for that matter - I was merely celebrating FFord's many fine characteristics). That doesn't mean wholesale adoption of the FIA proposals. But it will require FOTA to avoid the usual trap and come up with a meaningful alternative that truly cuts costs and helps the private teams.

[Daniel Tyler]

Quite right, 2.4 litre v8's ? Seriously ? Lets just go to 1 litre hairdryers and have done with it ! This is formula one, not formula ford !

[steve]

One post i read about F1 being more "GREEN" was to use a "DYSON DIGITAL" engine,can i ask since when has Dyson become an engine guru,what will it be for one race alone,30 pitstops to recharge? i agree things could be "Greener" but we are talking about ultimate motor racing,then again i guess they could build in a filter to suck in all the debris,anyway,my thoughts are to have an engine freeze on power output,the FIa need to set a limit on costs,also a maximum BHP,but never have one engine supplier to go in all F1 cars,let the teams be able to maximise development,so long as they remain within the limits,otherwise we might aswell have scalextric races.

[Colin Thomas]

I have spent the last few days re-playing the first corner at Fuji on my Sky+. The scenario is common to motor racing and will be apparent to anyone who has taken part in a motor race and any intelligent enthusiast. Hamilton pulls alongside Raikonen on the inside and outbrakes himself. If the two were racing on their own Raikonen would now brake in the normal manner, pass behind the car of Hamilton and dissappear down the track whilst Hamilton ran wide.This is a common overtaking manouver when the driver on the inside has made such a foolish error, but what prevented Raikonen from doing this was that Kovalainen was now inside and leaning on him. How could this be Hamilton`s fault. If you have today`s ( Thursday ) copy of Autosport I would ask you to look at the photograph on pages 4 and 5.

The most sickening sight during the TV transmission was to see the Ferrari mechanics cheering when Massa rammed Hamilton off the track.
Ferrari`s sporting instincts?

[christoff]

Ed,
Controlling the amount of fuel available would be fine, but I fear we may see cars running out of fuel and failing to complete the race. You may say fair enough it's their own fault however that wouldn't look too good in the eyes of the lesser informed media.
If the maximum amount of fuel flow was limited this could persuade engine manufacturers to 'get the biggest bang for their buck' so to speak, which may eventually trickle down to road cars in the form of increased economy.
I believe this idea was first bandied about by one Max Mosely a few years ago, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on either account.

[william]

In the interest of the sport..It would be better to start again. bypassing the acid drop and the gimp they are turning a once great sport into a circus

[william]

turning F1 into A1. and for all interest to disappear what made the sport worth watching is already going
great tracks being substituted for crap street racing with limited over taking..And endless safety cars.Faceless stewards manufacturing results to favor Ferrari for commercial reasons.....give it to sky sports extra its not worth tuning in any more...How many watch A1?

[Graham]

The best way to introduce higher interest and fair competition is to isolate the driver & manufacturer champs by rotating drivers around the car teams. Each race a different driver for each car randomly. then you really see best driver & best car, and give lower budget teams a better chance.

[Derek Smith]

Negotiations are, it seems, over before they have begun.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71456

The only question remaining is when will the manufacturers leave. It seems that Alonso will get his wish and drive in front of a Ferrri engine in 2010.

[P Jordan]

One answer would be to keep the races in Europe, there by saving vast amounts of money shipping the circus around the world. This of course would not please the FIA nor Bernie because it would cut out the exotic nature of their lives. Further it would cut the money in their pockets because the nouvo rich
money is in the far east. But it would save hundreds of million across the teaams.

[P Burrett]

....silly me, I thought Formula 1 was a development formula