Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] The relevance of F1

Source: 
grandprix.com
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15049.html
If you nose around on the Web, you can find a teeshirt which is designed
to ressemble an FBI-style Wanted poster. The subject of the poster is FIA
President Max Mosley, wanted allegedly for "crimes against F1". A cheap
shot, perhaps, but an indication that some F1 fans feel that the FIA
meddling in the rule-making process is doing the sport no good at all.
Now that Ferrari is being beaten on a regular basis, the TV viewing
figures of F1 are rising again and looking around the F1 paddock one sees
a fundamentally healthy sport, but for the quibbling of the blinkered
folk who have quibbled for the last 25 years. There is no shortage of
money in F1.
Thus Max Mosley's press release about why F1 costs need to be slashed
seems almost out of place. Formula 1 regulates itself when it comes to
money. If the money does not exist the budgets go down. If money is
available the budgets go up. If a manufacturer leaves the sport, as
happened last year with Jaguar, a rich man comes along and buys the team.
It was ever thus. One can argue that the day will come when the
manufacturers depart and F1 will be left with nothing but it does not
ring true. As Ferrari and Toyota have proved, if smaller teams need
engines, there is someone who will supply them. The manufacturers will
take care of the sport if only because to do otherwise would be to kill
the goose that lays the golden eggs.
One can argue that the young and ambitious never get a chance in F1 but
the appearance this year of Christian Horner and Trevor Carlin proves
that this is not correct. Good men will always get a chance. The
important thing for F1 is to make sure that the ambitious youngsters
remain ambitious about F1. The day they start talking about going NASCAR
instead will be the day that F1's decline will really begin. If one takes
away the technology and the glamour of F1, the danger is that it will
become a racing series like all the others.
Thus there is a fundamental question as to why the FIA thinks that
budgets need to be slashed by 90% and the sport regulated to such an
extent. And one must question whether the plans put forward leave
something worthy of being called Formula 1. There are some who believe
that the plan is really to destroy F1 in order to open the way for some
nebulous series called GP1, a more manageable championship without all
these pesky F1 team bosses who think that democracy is a good idea. That
seems a little far-fetched as one would have to be a marketing dunce not
to understand the value of the F1 brand, even if it has never been
exploited properly. The brand values that typify F1 are, in no particular
order: technology, excitement, glamour, speed, innovation and excess. But
apparently the FIA now wants to prune away away excess, technology and
innovation.
Cutting budgets and moving away from technological innovation by the use
of common parts goes against all the traditions of the sport. Moving
towards the IRL-NASCAR model because it seems to offer a better future
is, in our opinion, a bad idea. It has all the glitter of Fool's Gold. If
one looks at NASCAR these days one can see that the model is flawed.
Right now, NASCAR is fighting the onset of more and more F1-style
technology as manufacturers try to take advantage of the circus. NASCAR
teams are all in the process of building windtunnels, doing manufacturer
deals and hiring F1 engine experts. The big teams are getting bigger and
the small teams are being forced out of the business.
Thus the low-tech route for F1 may lead to commercial success but
commercial success leads to high-tech solutions and along the way, the F1
image will have been damaged. It is perhaps better to let the market
regulate itself, as it always has done.
Surely it would be better to move F1 in a direction which makes it easier
for car manufacturers to justify an involvement. Rather than cut costs,
is it not better to give better value for money? Perhaps it is a better
solution to pursue rules for the future which would have some relevance
to the automobile industry. Why is F1 looking at V8s with massive
restrictions on the cars when there is a discernible opportunity for the
sport to embark on something useful such as hybrid or diesel technology.
Why fight against a more equitable sharing of F1 revenues? Why should the
money generated in the sport be going to banks and offshore trust funds?
The announcement this week that Peugeot is to go to Le Mans in 2007 with
a plan to win the French classic with a diesel-powered prototype is a
story which highlights the fact that there is amongst car manufacturers
the desire to be seen to be technically innovative in competition. There
is a technical challenge that will help Peugeot to win market share.
Winning Le Mans with a diesel will be a great PR coup and will no doubt
bring benefits in the marketplace. Environmentally, it is hard to argue
in favour of diesels but there is a very strong case that F1 should be
embracing hybrid development.
Copyright 1988-2005, Inside F1, Inc.
-- 
Automatically gathered from the web
Subscribe/unsubscribe/info at
http://www.grandprixpassion.com/mailman/listinfo/webnews


Yet Another Usenet Node