Dear Pitpass staff,
I am writing this e-mail from the point of view of a fan of Formula 1 who has been constantly angered in recent times by the increasing number of media appearances by Mr. Bernie Ecclestone, media appearances which have only served one purpose: putting forward various proposals meant to "improve" the quality of the sport, and, at the same time, several media attacks aimed at the FOTA and especially at its chairman, Mr. Luca di Montezemolo, the Ferrari president. As I have noticed recently, there have been some contacts in recent days between Pitpass and Mr. Ecclestone, and I would be very grateful if this e-mail can also make its way into Mr. Ecclestone's view, in order to see some of the issues and flaws that we, the fans, have noticed in his recent proposals and in his recent on-record behaviour.
From now on, this e-mail will be directly addressed to Mr. Ecclestone.
I am a 17-year-old who has been watching F1 for the past 12 years, and I feel that the direction in which the sport is currently headed, with Mr. Bernie Ecclestone at the helm, is not the correct one and might, in an extreme case, lead to the sport's demise. It is an issue which angers me and many other fans, and has even caused some of them to turn their backs on the sport.
The main problem that we fans see in recent years is that the sport of Formula 1 is losing its essence, its spirit, by moving away from the traditional locations towards places which, in general, have no motorsport heritage whatsoever, and are only driven to host a race by their desire to be pinpointed on the world map because of the fact that they are hosting a Grand Prix. Most of all, the news that angered a lot of fans in recent times concerned the loss of the Canadian GP and of the French GP.
First of all, the Canadian GP was a necessity, especially now that there is no USGP and there has been no Grand Prix in Mexico since 1992. Both the fans and the manufacturers see a significant need for a Grand Prix in North America, the manufacturers because of the publicity potential and the massive market that needs to be exploited there via success in motorsports, and the fans because, even though American motor racing fans are mostly focused on their "home" series (Nascar, IRL etc.), there is a very strong Formula 1 fanbase in North America, and the loss of the only Grand Prix left in the area has angered them, especially since that particular location has offered some spectacular races in recent years. I doubt the reasoning behind the dropping of this race, and not only because of that, I have started, along with many others, to question the wisdom behind the multi-million dollar race fees that the FOM is demanding from the organisers, especially with yearly increases. With the current economical climate, this is far from the wisest thing to do. It's only a measure that alienates the race organisers and sours relationships between the organiser and the governing body.
Secondly, there is the issue of the French Grand Prix. France is widely regarded as the birthplace of Grand Prix racing, mainly because the first race that was titled as a "Grand Prix" took place in 1906, on French soil. Formula 1 cannot afford to lose France as a location, but, sadly, recently, the interest is dropping mainly because of a lack of French drivers. However, even though the location of the race is somewhat unattractive, there are more potential venues for the French GP, even though one of those venues has been modified into an exclusive test track. My belief is that, with some modifications, a circuit like Paul Ricard may yet come back to host a Grand Prix after a 20-year hiatus and prove to be the salvation of F1 in France. I know of the fact that the conversion to a test track has involved tearing down the grandstands, but the myriad of potential layouts would make for exciting racing and, by bringing people to see the races, would soon balance the cost of rebuilding the spectator facilities.
Thirdly, it is the more pressing matter of the British Grand Prix. If Donington Park fails to meet contractual obligations, I gather that the GP will be removed altogether from the calendar. Well, in my opinion and in the opinion of millions of fans worldwide, it would be a severe mistake. Six of the current nine Formula 1 teams are based in Great Britain, and currently the sport is undergoing a surge of popularity in the country that is probably equal, or maybe even more significant than the phenomenon of Mansell-mania which dominated the late 1980s and early 1990s. An unreasonable working approach towards the owners of Silverstone could lead to the loss of the Grand Prix which is, most likely, the epicentre of modern motor racing, and was the place where the first ever World Championship race took place almost 60 years ago. I firmly believe that the negotiations for upgrades at Silverstone should have been taken personally to the Government, asking for the proper funding needed for those upgrades, instead of forcing the BRDC to look for support. A much more high-level approach was needed, and unfortunately, the FOM has failed to take that approach. Because of this, in the event of Donington failing to meet its deadlines, F1 might lose a significant fan base along with a Grand Prix.
Another pressing matter is that of the revenues going to the teams and of the independent teams' predicted downfall. This brings me back to the part that the organisation formerly led by Mr. Ecclestone, the Formula One Constructors' Association, played in the early 1980s in the now infamous FISA-FOCA war. If I remember correctly from all the articles I have read on the subject, the FOCA was opposing moves from the FISA that were intended to favour the car manufacturers which possessed Formula 1 teams in the detriment of the independent British teams. Right now it seems as if history is repeating itself, but in a mirrored way, because the current rule changes and agreements with the manufacturers are slowly driving the independent teams out of F1. We've seen Minardi being sold, Jordan being sold, Sauber being sold, Super Aguri trying to make it as an independent and eventually failing, and now one of the sport's great names(Williams) struggling through a heap of trouble. A lot of this has happened due to problems with the teams' funding, their budgets being stretched to the limit and sometimes beyond it. The smart move in this climate would be to allow a bigger share of the revenues to go towards the teams, but aimed more towards the independents, allowing them to increase their budget and, via this method, their competitiveness. Also, moving the revenue bias towards the independents would also enable other teams to come along and fill the void that exists on the grid. There is still room in F1 for 3 more teams under the terms of the current FIA F1 Sporting Regulations, and a bigger share of the revenue for this type of teams, combined with the cost-cutting measures agreed by the FIA and FOTA, especially in terms of a "low-cost" full-support engine supply, would enable independent teams to try and enter Formula 1. But this must also come in action along with a reduction of the exorbitant entry fee requested for the Championship, because that is one of the discouraging elements faced by any new team.
If I remember correctly, as well, the advice from the FOCA towards the FIA during those turbulent years that led to the formation of the current style of the championship was "Don't put all your eggs in the manufacturers' basket!" And it proved to be correct, when applied to cases in point in the late 1990s, when two FIA-sanctioned championships met their demise because of excessive manufacturer involvement, which led eventually to their withdrawal.
Then, we come to the proposal for medals used instead of points. This is why over 90% of F1 fans think it is a seriously flawed and inapplicable idea to modern F1:
First of all, by restricting points to the first three, the reason for racing for the lower positions is gone. The drivers have an incentive to pass when they know they can get more points, especially in the latter half of the points-scoring positions or at the limit between points-scorers and the other runners. Take away the points system and their incentive to race is gone, no matter how much it would help their teams in the Constructors' Championship.
Secondly, medals won't allow for more exciting racing for the podium positions. Current regulations mean that the driver has to nurse the car in order to avoid penalties, so he avoids putting undue stress on it. Removing the penalties for engine/gearbox failures would make for more exciting charges, because a driven knows that he might have something to lose in this race in case of car failure, but it would not carry extra "weight" for the following rounds. It's not like, with the current rules, one would attempt a charge ? la Mansell in Silverstone, back in '87, for fear of the car letting him down and also giving him a penalty for the next round.
Thirdly, the best idea for a major incentive for the second-placed driver is to severely widen the points gap between first and second place. It's not an imperious necessity for the winner to get 10 points; after all, the winner only got 10 points from 1991 onwards. Why not increase the gap between first and second to 6 points? Coupled with overtaking-enhancing technical regulations, it would make for exciting battles at the top, because a driver knows he has to pass the man in front if he wants a truckload more points towards the Championship.
And fourthly, with reference to the medal allegedly awarded to the late Ayrton Senna. I am of the opinion that the medals should only be applied for drivers whose careers have been remarkable, as a sort of a "lifetime achievement" award when they have reached the twilight of their career. But using medals for determining the World Champion is a flawed idea. For example, in the event of medals having been used for the 1983 season, Mr. Ecclestone's driver, Nelson Piquet, would have lost the World Championship to Alain Prost by one gold medal (=one extra win).
Finally, it's the matter of trying to extend the sport's appeal. I tend to agree with this, but I find myself in disagreement with the methods which might be planned for this purpose. For example, the film idea was touted with in the late 1990s, but it was eventually abandoned, and the film was moved towards another genre of racing, and critics' response to it was horrific. Do F1 fans want to see their sport from that point of view? I think not. And trying to extend the sport's appeal towards children is relatively flawed, because some might not have an eye for such things. I happened to have one and was hooked on the sport from a very early age, but some others might not be interested, despite all the planned initiatives. And also I think it's wrong to try to cover up the technological side of the sport and to dampen its particular appeal. Those technically-minded fans may mature into the F1 engineers and team managers of the future. After all, how did people like Ron Dennis, Ken Tyrrell, Colin Chapman, Frank Williams and the like have "caught the bug" and become some of the most succesful engineers and team managers of the sport? They were technically-minded and they were hooked right away by the technical side of the sport. I feel that Formula 1 has a very subtle form of appeal, which can be felt even in the present day, and that it is not a wise idea to meddle with it.
I hope I have touched the significant points of interest in current Formula 1 and have done it in a convincing and informed manner.
Best wishes to the Pitpass staff,
Victor Rad, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
