F1 Future Directions

After the demise of Super Aguri, Mark Gallagher has written an interesting article on Pitpass.com. This is my take on what needs to be done (and an email I sent to the author).

Fundamentally, I think F1 has lost its "purpose". When I first started to follow F1 back in the 90's (I am only in my 20s), F1 was branded as the toughest and most technologically advanced motorsport series. It was where drivers raced cutting edge motor cars. Sure, technology in F1 cars do not always get to the road car; but it was more than bragging rights for the R&D teams. The cars were tough because they were the most advanced (because they were the fastest, hardest etc).

But due to F1's cost cutting moves, a lot of technology has been "standardised". Sure, there is a lot less electronic gizmos, but it has also meant that there is nothing really that distinguishes one team from another. We are steadily moving to a one make series; and in that case, why not jump ship to A1 GP racing Ferrari F2004s?

In my opinion, there are a number of factors where this situation can be salvaged:
1. KERS is ok, but it is not really what we need
Yes, engine development was one of the major costs in F1 teams. But unlike chassis, there are a lot less engine developers. I think the longevity of engines (2 races, 4 races etc) should be maintained, but freezing engine development for 10 years make no sense. Rather, than focus environmental issues through KERS, why not force development of more efficient engines. And it is far easier to mandate and police.
For example, if FIA mandated that a team could use a maximum of 10 000 litres of fuel (or equivalent energy capacity) per year, and then steadily decrease the maximum; it will force more efficient engines, and thus ultimately cheaper running costs. On top of that, the car buying public will see the effects on the streets. You know - Toyota
brings you the car that can run the equivalent of 18 GPs on one tank of fuel - that is what the car makers want after all.

2. Bring back the tyre war
The car package includes the bit of rubber that keep the car on the road. There is no point on appointing one (or even two) tyre manufacturers. Rather let any interested tyre manufacturer compete openly - and to keep costs down; mandate a maximum number of tyres that can be used over an entire season.

3. Allow chassis sales
If car companies can sell engines, why can design studios not sell chasis? After all, they might also want to sell their expertise to other motorsport series, car manufacturers etc. Chassis sales = lower costs = more teams. And more teams usually equal better show, esp if there is actual competition in qualifying (other than a good grid spot).

4. Better revenue sharing
Instead of sharing revenue between teams according to team's performance on the track, why not modularise? As discussed in the last three points, there are three major components of a car - engines, chassis and tyres. And there are teams that assemble the components and race them. Why not divide the TV revenues into four parts - engine manufacturers, chassis designers, tyre manufacturers and teams. Like teams earn points for finishing in a certain position, points should be earned for engine manufacturers, chassis designers and tyre manufacturers. This means if a team makes their own chassis (9 of them currently), they would make more money than the one or two that didn't. Similarly, engine manufacturers who supply more teams have an incentive to develop and supply engines fairly. Similarly, tyre manufacturers have something more than just bragging rights, and have a reason to focus on all their teams.

Ultimately F1 will still need a better show - but the show is not everything. F1 needs to mean something to the general public - slogans are not just marketing exercises - they define what the product is.

Reflections: A1GP Durban (sorry not a phlog)

This was my third major motorsport event, and there are quite a lot of parallels between F1 and A1GP events. I was very impreswsed with the programme, which included a supercar race, a cart race and a VW POLO race - maybe not comparable to historic car races, GP 2 etc - but still very enjoyable. As for A1 itself, it is less noisier (but still damn loud) and is slower, but was damn enjoyable none the less.

The event was also very well organised - but there are always some problems. Firstly, and the most serious was the lack of PA systems in many parts of the track, esp by the general admission areas. Lack of PA systems not only imply a lack of communication but could also be a serious safety hazard. If you watched the race, you will know that the race started quite late - and one of the reasons was the proximity of some general admission ticket holders being too close to the track - a problem that could have been easily solved if there was adequate information!

Less of a concern was the lack of TV screens - something that definitely lessened the enjoyment of the race. Other things like the centralisation of many facilities and lack of maps (where are the best gates?) also need to be improved.

But I am looking forward to the race next year, and maybe I will take up a room at the Blue Waters hotel - it was R3000 this year, but surely I can get it cheaper by booking earlier. Anyone wants to join me and chip in?

A1 vs F1

This past weekend marked the inaugural A1 GP race at the Brands Hatch Circuit in England. In many ways, A1 GP is a new concept in motorsport - its all about teams, and the driver does not matter. In A1 GP, dubbed the world cup of motorsport, the teams are essentially countries with each country having one team. The whole concept of the driver does not matter was well demonstrated by Malaysia which used different drivers for the race and qualifying (and it worked quite well too).

But the main point of A1 GP was to address the deficiencies in current Formula 1 series - a lack of overtaking, high budgets and a focus on the technology and not the show and the driver skills. A1 GP's first race shows promise - and there was plenty of entertainment. The qualifying was mesmerising, and even better than how F1 qualifying used to be before Mosley and Bernie screwed it all up. As for the race - there was overtaking and a lot of it! Although, Nelson Piquet Jnr and Team Brazil were obvious contenders for the win, the remaining positions were well contested right up to the checkered flag.

That does not mean that A1 does not have problems - the pit system was fun to watch but a bit too contrived IMO. And I would really like some live timing on the TV broadcast. But other than these minor factors, A1 GP was is well worth watching.

The same cannot really be said of F1. Along won the drivers title, becoming the youngest to do so, on Sunday but the race was boring except for the first few laps. I have not watched F1 qualifying at all this year, and while the production of the F1 show is brilliant, crappy directors (like cutting away to Ralph pitting instead of showing a rare pass on the track) really detract from the whole experience.

I have been a F1 fan for a very long time, I have gone to races, and rarely miss a race on TV - and if there was a clash between a F1 race and a A1 GP race, I am more likely to watch A1 GP ... Its just more rewarding.