Team owner Frank Williams has called the upcoming meeting of the Formula One Commission on October 28th the most crucial meeting in two decades for Formula 1. He's undoubtedly correct but perhaps not for the reasons being put forth in the motorsports press. What will probably be decided on October 28th is who owns Formula 1.

For most of the past two decades which Williams alluded to there has been little question of that: Bernie Ecclestone "owned" Formula One.

But all that changed in the last two years when Ecclestone, in a complicated series of transactions, sold 75% of Formula One to the German media giant Kirch Gruppe. The Formula 1 constructors were furious and demanded an equity position in the series. When that was not forthcoming, the automobile manufacturers threatened to start an alternate Formula 1-type series, the Grand Prix World Championship, to commence after the expiration of the current Concorde Agreement--the secret agreement governing the financial arrangements in Formula 1--in 2007.

Earlier this year, the Kirch Gruppe went bankrupt and SLEC, the holding company for Formula One's commercial rights, came into the possession of three of Kirch's creditor banks: the Bayerische Landesbank, JP Morgan and Lehmann Brothers. The Formula 1 manufacturers then entered into negotiations with the banks to purchase an equity share of SLEC. The banks first offered the auto makers a minority stake and were refused, with the Formula 1 constructors demanding at least an 80% share. Price is reportedly also an issue with the Kirch stake in SLEC having cost $2 billion. The banks are said to have loaned Kirch $1.6 billion so it can be assumed that that is their bottom line. Not only do the automobile manufacturers not want to pay that amount but the television revenues which underlie the value of SLEC have fallen precipitously this year.

Negotiations between the parties had apparently stalled when the Formula One constructors apparently hit upon a new strategy: winning control of the Formula One Commission, the ultimate decision-making body in Grand Prix racing at the meeting on October 28. This would put them in a position to dictate terms to SLEC and Bernie Ecclestone (who still retains a 25% stake in the holding company) when the Concorde Agreement is to be renegotiated. Thus, they would not need to start their own championship and Formula 1 would remain intact.

The structure of the Formula One Commission is such that its 26 votes are apportioned between the teams, the sponsors, race promoters, engine manufacturers, tire manufacturers, the FIA and Ecclestone. The FIA is headed by Bernie's friend and lawyer, Max Mosley, and can be expected to vote with Ecclestone. Eighteen votes are needed for control of the commission. The teams are allocated a block of 12 votes, based on the will of the majority. If they are split equally, so is their block of votes. Otherwise, the block goes with the majority. Significantly, it does not matter in the voting how many teams participate. The thinking of the auto makers was that they could carry out an internal coup of Formula 1 by putting together their 12 votes with two votes from the sponsors (Marlboro and Exxon Mobil), one vote from the tire manufacturers (represented by Bridgestone), one vote from the engine manufacturers (represented by Ford) and two votes from an undisclosed source (obviously the promoters and an FIA representative).

This was the situation into which Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley in recent weeks introduced their divisive 9-point plan purportedly designed to improve the Formula One show and cut costs. This has caused quite a bit of discontent as the proposals raise important questions about the future of the sport. McLaren team boss Ron Dennis accused Bernie Ecclestone of using the "tactics of diversion" to derail the issue of the ownership of Formula 1.

If so, the FIA proposals have had at least some of their desired effect. The teams linked with the GPWC are McLaren, Ferrari, Jaguar, and Renault. Sauber votes with Ferrari. Prior to the issuance of the FIA plan the independent teams, Williams, BAR, Jordan, Minardi and Arrows were expected to join the GPWC group in the takeover. Toyota does not get a vote. But several of the smaller teams have come out in favor of some of the FIA's more radical proposals, like weight handicapping, and are beginning to feel that a Formula 1 Commission run by the automobile manufacturers might not be in their best interests. If they stick to that conviction, the teams block vote is split 6 to 6 and the coup cannot succeed.

As a result, in recent weeks the right of some of the small teams to participate in the October 28 vote has been called into question. At the moment there are theoretically 10 operational Formula One teams. Arrows has not been seen since the Grand Prix of Germany and missed the last five Grands Prix but, due to an inexplicable failure to act on the part of the FIA, would still seem to have some vague right to vote on the Formula 1 Commission. This would be decided by the chairman of the Commission, Bernie Ecclestone, although in practice he usually hands the task over to Max Mosley. But would the decision hold up under scrutiny? McLaren boss Ron Dennis, among others, is vocal in his objection to Minardi having a vote because the team has not scored enough points in recent years. His attempts of late to extract the Prost team's Concorde money, which was gifted to Minardi by Ecclestone, is hardly likely to enlist the team's cooperation in any attempted coup. This may account for his objection.

If Arrows and Minardi are deprived of their voting rights, there will be only eight teams left. In such an event, if the vote is split four to four, the teams' 12 votes will be split into six for a proposal and six opposed. In order to defeat a proposal--such as one of Max Mosley's 9-point plan elements--eight votes are needed. The big teams can count on the two sponsors, the engine manufacturer and the tire manufacturer to vote with them so that creates the necessary block to any of Mosley's more frivolous suggestions. However, if there are nine teams and the split should go five to four in favor of a proposal, the teams' entire block vote would go with the idea and it would pass.

It is a delicate balancing act. It is precisely the special interests which have prevented the auto manufacturers from gaining political control of the Formula One Commission in the past. This time around Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Sauber seem united with the votes of Jaguar and Renault uncertain. All the big four need is one of the undecided to carry the teams' vote but already there is talk that Jaguar will not support any action which attacks Minardi (a Cosworth customer) and that would deprive the big teams of a crucial two votes as Ford, which represents the engine manufacturers, will back Jaguar.

Earlier this week, the German newspaper Suddeutsch Zeitung reported that an agreement had been reached between the Kirch creditor banks controlling the Formula One group of companies and the automobile manufacturers. According to the paper, which has strong connections within financial and industrial circles in southern Germany, there is a deal in place to extend the current Concorde Agreement for another 10 years, until 2017. The article stated that this would be done with two 5-year contracts, allowing for a certain amount of renegotiations with each contract renewal. No details were given as to how the money in Formula 1 would be divided up in future but there was a suggestion that in the long run the agreement would enable the auto makers and the teams to take an equity position in Formula 1. As part of the deal the banks have apparently agreed to give the teams more of the income which comes into the Formula 1 associated companies in future.

This is not the first time that a report has been made saying that this deal is done but on each occasion there has been an immediate denial from one of the involved parties. So far, no one from the GPWC or the banks has publicly reacted to the story.

Which leaves a number of questions unanswered. If the banks and the auto makers have reached a separate agreement, do the manufacturers need an internal takeover of the Formula One commission? In either case, could this mean an end to Bernie Ecclestone's rule over Formula 1?

Assuming that it doesn't, it will undoubtedly mean that Bernie's share of the revenues from Formula 1 will be diminished. Is this why Bernie is reportedly trying to buy a controlling interest in CART? Does he see it as a new source of revenue? His own alternative Formula 1 (he has trademarked the name)? A way to make his leadership more attractive to the Formula 1 automobile manufacturers? A pawn to be used in the upcoming Formula 1 Commission battle? And, if so, how will it be used?

It's interesting to note that Ecclestone reportedly tried to buy a third interest in Ferrari recently. Bernie has a long history of doing business with Ferrari, so he may have seen Fiat's apparent need to divest itself of the company as a good deal? Or he may have been trying to buy control of the Ferrari vote in the upcoming Commission meeting? In any case, Fiat reportedly withdrew Ferrari from the auction block last week.

The entire Formula One world is in motion and the moves and countermoves by everyone involved promise to continue right up the moment of the vote(s). Come what may, there is going to be epic event in motor sport taking place on October 28.

 

Williams takes swipe at Ecclestone

Williams F1 team boss Sir Frank Williams, talked to Richard Williams, Guardian journalist over the weekend. He had this to say about Bernie Ecclestone's decision to sell 75% of F1 a couple of years ago: "If so much money hadn't been taken out (of the series and into Bernie's pocket), and if the revenues had been split more appropriately, there wouldn't be so much woe," says Williams.

 

Williams talks about changes

Williams F1 team boss Sir Frank Williams, talked to Richard Williams, Guardian journalist over the weekend. He had this to say - "It's arguably the most important meeting we've ever had," Williams says of today's meeting at Heathrow. "Formula one doesn't need much of a makeover but it does have to provide something that persuades people to switch on. Television exposure drives the flow of revenue into formula one. Without that, we can't do what we want.

"The whole thing is born out of the fact that one team is utterly dominant," Williams says of the proposals that are up for discussion. "Unfortunately in one of that team's cars is a driver who is superior to his peers. The trouble is that Michael is racing seven days a week and the rest are not. They think a bit about the cars but mainly, if they're not testing, they relax and enjoy themselves. Michael is a machine. Formula one is suffering because of it, but it's not his fault.

"I don't wish to discount in your newspaper every single one of the proposals submitted by the FIA," he continues. "But the one that is most discussed and dismissed is the one of ballast." He then comments on Mosley's plan to have drivers 'swap' teams. "It's another attempt to mix up the grid but it's not a practical idea," he says.

On the issue of limiting teams to one engine: "The idea is to cause upset on the grid and save money," says Williams. "But how do you explain to someone watching the last race of the season, with Michael and Juan Pablo going for the championship, that Michael's been pushed back to the fifth row of the grid because his engine broke in the warm-up? It might give you a great race but it would ruin the championship."

And aerodynamics? "Aerodynamics are the biggest single factor in the car's performance," says the man whose cars have won 9 Constructors' and 7 Drivers' titles. "It would mean that if you turned up in Australia for the first race of the season and you'd got your calculations wrong, you'd be out of the championship. It would be won by the time you were allowed to change your car."

Williams likes the idea of changing qualifying: "I don't think you'll find many people against that," he says. "And it's easy to adopt." As for the proposal regarding the standardization of various components: "We're interested in that," he responds. "We're not just a bunch of no-nos. We have diverse interests but we realize that we want to grow revenues by making the show more attractive while exerting strong downward pressure on costs." "We also need to improve the ability of the circuits to promote overtaking," he adds.

"It's not a matter of giving Max something to announce to the world. It's important to come out with something that genuinely moves the business on. "The best should be the best," says Williams a man who wants to see his cars dominating the sport because they're the best not because the rules favor them and handicap their rivals. "I don't want Williams to be humiliated by having to get Ferrari to help us. We're not in that business. We'd rather take the pain."

 

Aggressive Tactics Press On Reform

Eponymous team boss Sir Frank Williams has hit out at FIA President Max Mosley and F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone's employment of aggressive tactics for reform.

Ever since Michael Schumacher and his consummate scarlet army stole unpredictability from Formula One racing, the governing duo have been eagerly campaigning for revolutionary - often outlandish - reform.

But Sir Frank is hoping that their harsh and hard-line tactics for agreement will leave room for 'clear thinking' ahead of today's meeting of the F1 Commission at Heathrow Airport.

Formula One's stakeholders - including all team bosses, Max and Bernie, race promoters, tire and engine suppliers and sponsors - will vote on a controversial nine-point plan for regulation reform in London.

Reforms to world championship points-allocation, aggregate qualifying and testing restrictions are likely to get the nod, but tension is building in relation to the more outlandish changes like driver swaps and success-ballast.

After initially scotching the 'absurd' suggestion, Williams is now saying that a success-ballast regulation would be embraced as a last resort to saving his beloved Formula One.

'As a last resort I would agree to the adding of ballast for success,' the famous English team boss said. 'But only if it was demonstrated this was the only element which would save Formula One.'

Dreamt-up by Bernie, the success-ballast regulation would require that a runaway champion - like Michael Schumacher - be handicapped one kilogram of ballast for every point scored towards his world championship.

As a precursor to today's all-important congregation, the team bosses met with the FIA at their Trafalgar Square headquarters on Friday to find some common ground ahead of the F1 Commission.

The Grand Prix teams, with a collective 12 of 26 F1 Commission votes, must find unanimity and vote 'as one' in today's reform meeting.

And Sir Frank reports that the Trafalgar Square meeting was heated: 'Max and Bernie are harrying the teams like a pack of hounds terrorizing a flock of sheep,' says Williams.

'I just hope there will be plenty of clear thinking on Monday.'

Until Friday, Mosley and Ecclestone were having trouble convincing the F1 fraternity that horse-racing-like handicaps were best for the troubled sport.

'But whichever is the best team would still actually win the championship with the kilo a point,' Mosley insists.

'It's just that it will take them longer and it will be more difficult and they will win at the end of the season rather than at the beginning. It will be much, much more exciting.'

But skepticism of the wild reform has been scathing. BMW chief Mario Theissen is the latest to add his opposing voice to a growing army of dissent for this radical idea.

'We want to beat Ferrari because we perform better,' he told the press on Friday. 'And not because our opponent is slowed down by putting lead in their cars.'

The F1 Commission, which meets later today at Heathrow, requires 18 out of 26 votes per item for ratification in the World Motor Sport Council.

'Not everything will go through,' says Bernie. 'The F1 Commission will pick and chose but change is inevitable.'

 

One-Engine Rule To Be Scrapped?

Bernie Ecclestone has admitted that new-for-2004 regulations restricting the use of multiple engines will not necessarily hit Grand Prix racing.

The Formula One Commission will meet today in London to vote on a raft of radical and outlandish proposals for Grand Prix reform, but also on the agenda will be further detailed discussion about the new engine rules.

Grand Prix racing's governing FIA propose that each driver/car combination be restricted to the use of a single V10 block per Grand Prix event, non-compliance resulting in hefty penalties such as grid demotions.

And, as part of Max Mosley's new nine-point plan for reform, the FIA want to intensify the rule for earlier introduction and a longer engine life.

However, 72-year-old impresario Ecclestone - celebrating his birthday today, incidentally - admits that the plan has met with intense opposition and may not find introduction in any form.

The new rule, say representatives of Formula One's engine builders, will actually fail in reducing development costs on the Formula One world.

They argue that fresh, expensive design procedures to construct a long-lasting engine will merely replace dollar-for-dollar the present regulations for the development of a normal Formula One engine.

Moreover, additional concerns are that teams may 'save' their engines during Free Practice sessions, robbing the paying public of the on-track spectacle of Grand Prix racing.

'There's discussion as to whether that's going to stick or not,' admitted Bernie Ecclestone. 'There's a lot of opposition against one engine for the weekend. People say it's not Formula One and they want more freedom.'

There is also confusion as to what parts of an engine will be fixable; can you change a split hose, or a fuel-pump? And how will such a rule be policed?

Additionally, the engine manufacturers argue that the new rule will require the design and construction of two types of Formula One engine.

One, they say, will need to be conservative and capable of 800km, whilst a second, higher-performance unit will need to be ready in the event that the first powerplant expires.

In the end, however, Formula One's supremo supports the FIA's pursuit to curb the development costs of engine building:

'I suppose in the end it's probably a good idea because the public don't really know how many engines somebody uses - whether they use four or three or two or one and they probably don't care either.'

BMW are amongst the toughest opposition to the new-for-2004 regulations; their latest boast, remember, being that the Monza-spec unit broke traditional high-revving barriers by surpassing 19,000rpm.

The primary function of today's Heathrow meeting is to progress a raft of wild reforms to the World Motor Sport Council for regulation ratification.

Ecclestone's brainchild is a plan to handicap the fastest runners with ballast, whilst FIA President Max Mosley is keen to push through his revolutionary driver swap proposal.

Our sources indicate, however, that qualifying and points-scoring reform are the only ones likely to be green-lighted.

 

Driver Swaps: Are They Serious?

It has been branded 'wild', 'outlandish' and 'absurd', but our sources indicate that a proposal aimed at forcing driver swaps stands a chance of slipping the net.

When the F1 Commission meets at Heathrow Airport later today, the sport's main stakeholders will vote on a radical raft of proposed regulation changes; one of them an idea to force Michael Schumacher into a Minardi.

Under the plan, F1 drivers would no longer be employed by the teams but by the Federation Internationale d'Automobile (FIA), standard salaries paid from a central fund.

Each driver would drive for every team in the first ten races.

Widely dismissed as unworkable and comical, however, the rule's inventor - FIA President Max Mosley, no less - remains adamant that 'There is a very strong case for doing it.'

Formula One is presently suffering a serious slump in interest stemming from a lack of track spectacle. Throughout 2002 in particular, the red Ferraris have dominated a lackluster season at the head of the field.

Coupled with deeper commercial issues, the threat of a manufacturer 'breakaway' and a diminishing Grand Prix grid, Mosley says that the only way to save Formula One is to stab at its waning sporting heart.

He says: 'If you can criticize F1 or indeed motor sport generally from a sporting aspect probably the biggest criticism is you might get a mediocre driver in an outstanding car and an outstanding driver in a mediocre car.'

He adds: 'You never quite know, unless it becomes absolutely obvious which it does from time to time, which is the best driver. You never quite know which is the best team. A lot of the time there is a question mark.'

Mosley says his plan for reform would answer the question of who is the best driver and which is the best Formula One team.

'It also holds the fascination of seeing what certain drivers could do in certain cars,' the FIA President adds.

In the end, though, the eleven Formula One teams - with their 12 F1 Commission votes - wield the ultimate power for Grand Prix reform.

'We can't force anything through,' says Mosley whose governing FIA authority has one vote while commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone has another.

'We need to get the 18 votes and get the majority of teams in favor,' Mosley adds. 'We are saying to the team bosses that there is a problem, and here are a couple of possible solutions.'

Race promoters, tire and engine suppliers and sponsors also have a vote in the F1 Commission.

All speculation and conversation will, at last, be put to rest when Mosley reports from a press conference after the Heathrow congregation rises this afternoon.

 

Irvine Slams 'Stupid' Ideas

Never stranded without an opinion, Jaguar pilot Eddie Irvine has slammed Formula One's proposal to weigh down a runaway world champion.

Responding to a waning television spectacle and deep commercial unease, FIA President Max Mosley and F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone are heading a push to - amongst other things - handicap the Formula One field to curb track dominance.

And, while 36-year-old Irvine recognizes the need to reform, he refuses to accept that horse-racing handicaps will save Formula One. 'They have to do something fairly quickly,' Irvine admits.

'They have to overrule the interests of the big teams, foremost,' the Ulsterman adds. 'But I don't agree with the weight penalty.'

Coupled with the present system for awarding FIA prize-money, Irvine says the addition of encumbering ballast makes no sense.

He says: 'Why give Ferrari $30 million of TV money, which they then spend on testing and aerodynamics to make their car go quicker, and then put 30kg of lead in to take away that $30 million of investment?,' he asks.

'Just give the $30 million to Minardi, and see what they do with it. It's just a stupid idea.'

The FIA allocates television-revenue to the Grand Prix teams according to their championship position. Married to their massive commercial budget, then, world champions Ferrari receive the lion's share of TV cash for season 2003.

Pitlane minnows Minardi, on the other hand, will receive minimal assistance for air-freight and television money by dint of their trailing championship charge and meager two world championship points.

Irvine questions that system, which is not proposed for reform at today's F1 Commission meeting to be held at Heathrow. 'Spreading the TV money more evenly would help,' the Jaguar pilot explains.

'It doesn't make sense,' he adds. 'Ferrari are only one eleventh of the show, but this current system is about making the rich richer and the poor poorer and wrecking the TV show as much as possible.

'It's not just a case of reducing costs, it's reducing the amount of money that certain teams have.'

The problem is compounded, says Irvine, by the fact that Ferrari are not willing to go racing at the head of the field.

Formula One endured a similar period of dominance in the late Eighties with McLaren, but the Ulsterman says the duel between team-mates Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost was 'the most exciting ever.'

'Because Prost and Senna fought tooth and nail with each other,' the 36-year-old, with a Jordan, Ferrari and Jaguar career behind him, adds. 'But this year, Ferrari have proved they are not interested in racing.'

Hence Eddie's novel solution to the waning track spectacle: 'The TV show could be better if you just ignore Ferrari, because they're not racing, and concentrate on the guys who are.

'Just look down the field, at McLaren, Williams, Jordan, Jaguar. Forget about Ferrari, take them off camera and you'll notice almost instantly that Ferrari change their tune and start racing.

'Marlboro, Vodafone, Shell - they'll see to that,' he laughs.

But Eddie - undoubtedly one of Formula One's more colorful figures - adds that Formula One is also missing out on the personality front.

The sport, for example, suffered a blow when flamboyant and fiery French-Sicilian Jean Alesi was nudged from Grand Prix racing's shores at the end of last year.

'A lot of the drivers don't have anything to say,' says Irvine.

'When you think about last year, F1 got rid of Jean Alesi, who was one of the biggest names in F1 ever, even though he'd only won one race.

'He was a huge draw and they just let him go and recruited a whole load of youngsters who don't really do a lot for the sport. Some of them are good, but who's going to go to Wimbledon if there's no Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi?

'It doesn't take a lot of working out. People are interested in names.'

Bernie Ecclestone, it seems, agrees. The F1 supremo has outwardly proclaimed his affection for MotoGP Champion Valentino Rossi, who will take to the wheel of a BAR-Honda in the early days of 2003.

'Formula One needs a Rossi,' said the 72-year-old.

 

Panic Grips Formula One World

Bernie Ecclestone is playing down concerns that Formula One is about to be swept away amid revolution.

Teams, sponsors, suppliers and other stakeholders will vote on a controversial and radical 'nine-point plan' for reform drafted by FIA President Max Mosley later today at Heathrow airport.

The most controversial proposal is a plan to force the best drivers to chop and change between Grand Prix teams, other regulations for discussion including success ballast, testing restrictions, development freezes and standardized parts.

A letter from Mosley, addressed to all Formula One team bosses, reads 'Arguably, a change as radical as this is what Formula One now needs in order to re-establish its image.'

It continues: 'We need to recapture the interest of the public.'

But F1 impresario Bernie Ecclestone is attempting to ease the storm ahead of today's F1 Commission meeting in London. According to the 72-year-old, Formula One is not about to crumble.

'We shouldn't panic just because one team has been hugely successful,' he says. 'And we certainly can't stop teams spending their money how they want to.

He says: 'The sport overall is in good shape.'

Another keen proponent for conservativeness is Sir Jackie Stewart, former triple world champion, ex-team owner, and President of the British Racing Drivers' Club.

'There's no other sport in the world that can drive a business like motor racing,' the little Scot said. 'I'll give you a good example...

'HSBC (a global bank) is in 81 countries. Formula One tattooed their logo around the world in a window of time that no sport, or other activity for that matter, could have done.

'It's right, we shouldn't panic and there are some tough decisions to take. My concern is that people not used to making big decisions will take them.'

Worryingly, Max Mosley, Bernie Ecclestone, eight race promoters, tire companies, engine manufacturers and sponsors hold more votes in the F1 Commission than the eleven Grand Prix teams.

But a majority vote from Formula One's 12-strong block-vote has an effective veto-power in today's Heathrow meeting.

Nonetheless, Sir Jackie is scathing of Max Mosley's suggestion to stab at the heart of motorsport's pinnacle.

'Suggesting swapping around drivers so that Schumacher ends up at Minardi is just not reality,' says the former triple World Champion for Tyrrell.

'Why even put it into the melting pot? Contractually you couldn't do it. Why risk the sport's credibility by even thinking about it?'

Formula One's plight has taken a turn for the worse in 2002 as disillusioned television audiences change the channel in favor of packing a picnic or switching on to close golf, tennis and snooker contests.

A study showed last week that tennis has surpassed Formula One as the world's second most-watched global sport.

Many point the finger at Ferrari's controversial imposition of team-orders at the Austrian Grand Prix. 'Ferrari's problem was the way in which it was conducted and Michael should have ignored the instruction,' says Stewart.

'He's powerful enough to have done that. Michael should just have said no.'

Another band of protagonists blame the foregone conclusions of 2002 Grands Prix. The Scuderia, with their consummate F2002 package, soared to nine one-two finishes and fifteen wins this year.

'The predictability argument just doesn't wash either,' adds Stewart. 'In 1971 I won six of the first eight races. All that has happened is that the public has become more demanding.'

Another former world champion, Emerson Fittipaldi, sees the escalating costs of running a Formula One operation as the biggest problem for modern Grand Prix racing.

'We have got to make the sport cheaper,' says the Brazilian. 'The money that you need to win is now beyond most companies' global budgets.

'Ferrari has two wind tunnels at Maranello that are in operation 365 days and nights a year.'

One of the proposals on the F1 Commission table today is a plan to restrict in-season testing to just twelve days.

Fittipaldi adds: 'We also have to remember that this is really a championship for drivers, not cars. The problem we now have is that the public is just not sure that the drivers make much difference at all.

'When I was racing in the mid-70s, there were seven or eight drivers that you knew could win at almost any time. It was not easy to dominate. Jackie dominated, but that was the exception.'

Max Mosley will report the F1 Commission's findings from a press conference this afternoon at Heathrow.

 

Irvine's solutions to F1 woes

Jaguar Racing driver Eddie Irvine gave his opinions on how to improve the sport. Many radical ideas have been suggested in the wake of Ferrari's dominant season but not all of them have met with positive responses. "They have to do something fairly quickly and they have to overrule the interests of the big teams," said Irvine.

"But I don't agree with the weight penalty. Why give Ferrari $30 million of the TV money compared to a team like Minardi which they then spend on testing and aerodynamics to make their car go quicker, and then put 30kg of lead in to take away that $30 million of investment? It's just stupid."

Irvine suggests that the best way of evening up the playing field would be to limit the amount of money that the leading teams receive through television coverage, at the same time limiting their airtime thus forcing the sponsors to rethink their levels of investment. "Spreading the TV money more evenly would help," explained Irvine.

"Why give Ferrari most of the TV money? It doesn't make sense. They are only one eleventh of the show or whatever. The whole thing is about making the rich richer and the poor poorer and wrecking the TV show as much as possible. It's not just a case of reducing costs, it's reducing the amount of money that certain teams have.

"The TV show could be better if you just ignore Ferrari, because they're not racing, and concentrate on the guys who are racing -- McLaren, Williams, Jordan, Jaguar. Forget about Ferrari, they're about trivializing F1. Just take them off camera and Marlboro, Vodafone and all those people will soon alter the team policy. Probably within an hour you'll get results!"

The outspoken Ulsterman is also of the opinion that the sport badly needs a big personality to draw in the crowds in the mould of a Senna, Alesi or even an Agassi! "A lot of the drivers don't have anything to say.

When you think about last year, F1 got rid of Jean Alesi, who was one of the biggest names in F1 ever, even though he'd only won one race. He was a huge draw and they just let him go and recruited a whole load of youngsters who don't really do a lot for the sport. Some of them are good, but who's going to go to Wimbledon if there's no Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi? It doesn't take a lot of working out. People are interested in names."

Another possible way of evening things up is, according to Irvine, by limiting teams to one tire formula over a race weekend with all teams using the same tire manufacturer.

"Maybe there should be a one tire formula, although in a lot of cases the racing might be better with two because sometimes one company has a big advantage in the race compared to qualifying," said Irvine. "It can spice the racing up. But it would be more of a level playing field if one tire company pays to supply the tires for all the teams and the money is divided.

Taking off the electronics won't make any difference because it didn't help the racing before. The big problem is you can't follow the guy in front because of the aerodynamics."

Irvine's final suggestion is to restrict the amount of testing that teams are allowed to do, limiting everybody to the same mileage. "I would give everyone 3000km of testing, or some other agreed figure, and that's for the year.

Ferrari did three times as much testing as us this year, so you take away the advantage of someone being able to run three test teams. Limiting testing reduces their ability to buy performance.

I would also limit the number of people teams can bring to a race. If you do that you also limit the amount of stuff they bring, because there's not the people to operate it." -jaguar-

 

I didnt have time to read all that, but I found out the other day that my favorite F1 track will not be on the 2003 calendar. No Spa in 2003

 

They made the announcement? That sucks, F1 will not be the same without Eau Rouge...

 

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE
PRESS RELEASE

The FIA Formula One Commission met in London today (October 28th, 2002) and decided on the following regulation changes:

Qualifying
- There will be two qualifying sessions - Friday and Saturday, both 13.00 - 14.00;
- qualifying to be one (only) flying lap for each car, cars to run one at a time;
- running order on Friday to follow Championship (previous year at first race), with Championship leader going out first, 2nd in Championship running second, and so on;
- running order on Saturday will be determined by the Friday times (which do not count for the grid), so that the fastest on Friday runs last on Saturday, the second fastest second last, and so on.

Practice schedule
This will remain Friday: 11.00 to 12.00 and Saturday: 09.00 to 09.45 and 10.15 to 11.00 (with qualifying from 13.00 to 14.00 both days, as above).

Testing
Provided that by 15 December, at least three teams undertake to the FIA not to run more than 10 car-days of private testing between 1 March and 1 November, the teams which have given this undertaking will be able to test at each Event from 09.00 to 11.00 on Friday and may use their spare car and their test driver during this period.

World Championship points
From 2003 points will be awarded down to 8th place on the scale 10:8:6:5:4:3:2:1 (previously to 6th place on the scale 10:6:4:3:2:1).

Team orders
Team orders which interfere with the race result are prohibited.

The 2003 Belgian Grand Prix
In the absence of unanimous agreement by the teams to run at the 2003 Belgian Grand Prix without tobacco advertising, this event has been removed from the
World Championship calendar.

Tyres
Each team will be allowed to use two different dry tyres at each Event, (previously each tyre company could supply only the same two dry tyres to each of its
teams). Teams will continue to be limited to 10 sets of dry tyres per Event. Only one type of wet tyre to be used per Event.

EDIT: Formatting



[Modified by wakaru, 12:14 PM 10/28/2002]

 

Nice to see the F1 threads are still going. Anyway, I look foward to watching F1 next season...and hopefully more talant will find its way BACK into CART.

Here's a pretty interesting article on spying in F1.

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=06733029

 

“I have seen a copy of a race engineer’s sheet as he was writing it taken from the floor above,” says Jordan. “The whole setup of the car can be seen. How can that be right? Don’t think [spying] doesn’t happen. It can happen in war and it can happen in Formula One.”

tehehe