We are fast approaching a time in F1 where teams without major manufacturer involvement (either in terms of ownership or supply) will be essentially competing for a second tier championship. Ferrari has strolled to the driver's title this season and even BMW Williams and McLaren-Mercedes have looked hopeless at times. All of this cannot be good for the long term future of a sport that burns cash at an alarming rate when set against the backdrop of global economic unrest. Tackling cost issues and current regulations is therefore a must to resolve the competition issue and safeguard the sports future.
Take the example of the dominant Ferrari squad. Their performance in 2002 thus far has stemmed from having a combination of the best 'element' in every category - the main categories being driver, chassi, tyres, engine, team personnel, and general resources. Last season Ferrari lacked the complete packaged a few times and it was only then that BMW Williams and McLaren were able to compete when they trumped Ferrari in one or two of these elements (eg. Engine or tyres). Tackling some of these elements individually instead of offering compromises that lack substance (in terms of increasing competition and reducing costs) is the way forward for F1. I would therefore like to consider a couple of the most pressing elements of the F1 'package' that desperately need addressed.
Chassi: recently, when the option to ban mid season testing was mooted, Ross Brawn of Ferrari stated that his team would simply run their windtunnels 24 hours a day or perhaps build a few more. Competitive and cost issues stem from the fact such teams have the resources to circumvent any minor changes introduced by the FIA. What is really important is to tackle the root cause and potential solutions come from the design process for modern F1 cars.
Consider the introduction of a standardised front/rear wing assembly, diffuser, sidepods and so on. This would reduce the advantaged gained from having bags of cash and being able as a result to conduct endless aerodynamic assessments of a car's performance characteristics. Ferrari for example has brought in aero tweeks every few weeks, while Arrows might get theirs out by mid-season. A secondary advantage would be that this could reduce the role of aerodynamic grip overall, increasing the importance of fine tuning the mechanical aspects of the chassi design. Many observers have claimed this is the greatest problem in current design because it almost prohibits overtaking during each race.
Getting away from aero issues, we can also add fuel tanks to the list. I hate pit stop strategies, they do not interest me and I cannot believe that any fans of F1 would rather see a race won through clever pit strategy than by on track battles. Given that refuelling is likely to remain a fixture in F1 attempts must be made to reduce refuelling to the level of being a necessity to keep the cars running rather than something that determines the outcome of the race. While it would be impossible to regulate the fuel efficiency of every engine, introducing a standardised fuel cell would reduce the parameters within which teams could operate.
From a cost perspective, because these components (front wings, fuel cells, diffusers) would be of a common standard, production and reproduction costs could be minimised and there would be no requirement (or scope) for teams to introduce tweeks depending upon their budget. Much of this might seem like a pipe dream but there are advantages to be had from most parties involved, with the notable exception of aerodynamicists.
Tyres: when McLaren jumped ship for Michelin from Bridgestone it was a big mistake. They left Ferrari as the only front running team on Bridgestone and created a situation where their chief rival was bascially offered bespoke tyres. And since neither Williams nor McLaren are in a position to (or wish to be in a position to) demand preferential treatment, the French manufacturer is forced to create a 'compromise' tyre. Therefore, another important step would be the introduction of a regulation stipulating that manufacturers must test their tyres with all contracted teams. This season, extensive testing by Ferrari has cemented a close working relationship that has benefited both Ferrari and Bridgestone, but probably no one else. If Williams had been in a similar situation they wouldn't have had to find a solution to their penchant for eating rears.
Going further to introduce control tyres or to ban testing by teams altogether is unlikely to ever be considered, never mind implemented - both the teams and the tyre manufacturers have too much to lose. It is therefore the case that a compromise situation, where no one team/tyre relationship is allowed to dominate all others is preferable.
General resources: this final section is perhaps the most difficult to tackle and yet also the most important. Ferrari have bags of cash, Minardi don't. Ferrari can maintain two teams within a team, sending their cars to regular tests; the likes of Arrows test on Fridays (although even that has dried up recently). The creation of testing 'windows' is preferable but the resources available to the big teams will undoubtedly compromise this. As mentioned above, they will simply run their wind-tunnels all day, every day and conduct private testing. It is therefore clear that a combination of some of these suggestions is necessary if the competition in F1 is to increase. Several different areas must be tackled by new regulations at the same time, as opposed to picking off one or two at a time as the FIA seems to prefer.
There are additional benefits too. Lower costs will make sponsorship more tempting as teams will not have to seek mega-bucks from one or two massive corporate sponsors such as Marlboro or HP/Compaq. Small sums from several sponsors could potentially be enough and might go some way to insulating the sport from economic slumps. Furthermore if competition is increased and costs reduced more companies, manufacturers and teams could be attracted to the sport.
Recently, the head of VW stated that the cost of F1 was far too high to warrant his company's presence and he suggested was likely to force current participants to leave if results remained poor. If the likes of under-performing Honda and Ford (Jaguar) were to withdraw, F1 would really be stuck and that proves that the sport must consider some of these issues urgently, for the good of the sport.
Back to F1 Discussion Page
Back to Main Page
