The last few weeks have seen substantial shifts in Formula 1’s political, sporting and technical structure and future. Some changes have been made with good intentions, others with hidden agendas, and others for completely illogical and barely decipherable reasons. Perhaps it’s time to step back and work out what the focus really should be and whether F1 is in fact making changes in the right areas for the right reasons.
The most immediate change in the last fortnight has been Tony Fernandes selling out of Caterham, replaced by mysterious Swiss and Middle Eastern investors headed by Christijan Albers. It’s never nice to see an entrepreneur’s dreams come to an end in F1, however we should be thanking our lucky stars that there was a buyer with money ready to go and that the team is still on the grid for the remainder of the year.
What the whole saga does demonstrate, however, is how ridiculously expensive F1 still is, how ineffective any cost cutting to this point has been, and how financially dependent success in the sport remains. For all the noises about cost caps, the sport has no defined cost cutting strategy with which to move forward, and in its absence, the sport still teeters on the edge of a sudden and irreplaceable loss of independent teams.
In this sense, any future political, sporting and technical changes should be framed with cost cutting in mind. A bigger understatement there never was. Blissfully ignorant of how exciting F1 2014 has actually been, many also still agitate for changes that ‘improve the show’. While not pressingly necessary, such changes aren’t necessarily objectionable, so long as they stop short of being artificial and depriving F1 of its sporting purity.
So what are we getting next year and in the years to come? Does it tick the ‘cost-cutting’ and ‘show-improvement’ boxes directly, does it also nail an alternative agenda, or are we descending into utter madness?
Let’s start with the good news. Everyone seems to have forgotten about the sound of the cars, because, logically, the purring turbos have been deemed to be preferable to the hideous megaphone amplifiers. In addition, changes to the height and length of the nosecones next year means we’ll no longer have to deal with those horrendous anteater protrusions we have currently. Two ticks then for improving the ‘look’ of F1.
The stewards have now decided not to penalize drivers every time two cars touch unless it’s obviously one driver’s fault. This was hugely overdue, and finally, we can watch races where the stewards don’t think they’re the main attraction, with drivers overtaking in riskier situations without the fear of a penalty later.
We’ll also get some exciting racing in 2015 if safety car restarts become standing starts off the grid. Sure, some are worried about tyre temperatures and potential crashes, but the reality is that there’ll only be a 30 second pause on the grid, and no greater chance of an accident than we already have and have previously seen.
Two more ticks then for an improved ‘show’. Double points in the final race, though, is a step too far, and manufactures a championship finale where luck becomes too great a factor. However, if this doesn’t actually decide the title (fingers crossed), then there isn’t much to dislike about the improved ‘show’.
However, all these changes do, is tweak a show that’s already produced some pretty epic races this year. What the changes don’t do is save money. They don’t benefit the small teams struggling to make ends meet, they don’t attract new teams and they distract the debate from what should really be the main focus: costs.
And on that front, we have an entirely inadequate response, obscured and obstructed by vested interests, a lack of unanimity and a range of hidden agendas. The risk of another Caterham-style collapse is as real as it has always been.
I would personally favour a cost cap because it would even the playing field, restore the key battles to the design front and the race track, and most importantly, keep F1’s existing teams in business while attracting a high calibre of newcomers.
I’m also a realist, and with the decision-making Strategy Group’s six representative teams being the top five from last year’s championship plus Williams, the impetus to cut costs is just not there. Those teams can (a) afford the current level of spending and (b) find a way to win in this environment, and as a result, won’t act or vote in a way that benefits the greater good of the sport, purely because their current ‘competitive’ advantage could be eroded by any limitation on spending. It’s like getting the turkeys to vote for Christmas. In any case, F1’s teams, let alone the teams acting in conjunction with the FIA and FOM, don’t exactly have a history of unanimous agreement on all that much of any real substance.
What we can only really therefore hope for, in the absence of anything meaningful, is a series of regulatory changes that, in aggregate, create the desired saving for the teams. However, even that has proven to be impossible, with the proposals of the Strategy Group being termed “a joke” by Jean Todt, but somehow still making it to the World Motor Sport Council for ratification.
So what do we actually end up with? A couple less tests, closer to the team’s bases, a couple less personnel at races and some tyre blanket advertising. Wow. Give me a moment to tally up those savings.
If the vested interests of the teams weren’t holding progress back enough for you, let’s get a few hidden agendas involved. Because to make matters worse, the FIA now wants to ban FRIC suspension in the name of cost-cutting and throw in some sparking under-trays to improve the show. Not only are such changes going to cost money as teams are forced to adapt, the hidden agenda of pegging back two areas where Mercedes is perceived to have an advantage is not welcome in a sporting sense, especially when the FIA tries to falsely masquerade such changes as being cost or show related.
Maybe Mercedes loses a race or two. F1‘s sporting credibility doesn’t deserve that. And maybe we’ve saved $5 million. If we’re lucky.
For all the good that’s been done to put on a mega show, what’s the point if there’s no one left in it or no one left watching it? It really is time for the FIA to take all regulatory and cost control away from the vested interests of the teams, and impose a long term cost-cutting solution that places the sport as the only priority.
