Bill142 From Australia, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 8487 posts, RR: 8 Posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
In recent years Forumla one has seen a number of changes to its regulations. Alot of these have been brought on through the dramatic increase in car speed and a number of smaller teams going out of business, such as Prost and Arrows with Minardi coming very close on a number of occasions. Max Mosley the head of the FIA has been on a drive to cut costs and slow down cars, which in my opinion he has failed in doing both.
Some of the proposals put forward by Max such as to introduce a V8 engine to me dosnt' make sense and having to design and build an all new engine will send costs up. The new regulations for 2005 have also according to teams and drivers made the cars harder to handle and somewhat unsafer in their view. In the future we could see a single tyre supplier, this in max's opinion to slow the cars down and cut costs. But at what cost?. By eliminating a tyre supplier and having a control tyre you are eliminating one aspect of the competition which formula one is all about.
Mosley has been forcing himself upon the teams and the teams aren't interested in his ideas. They prefer to come up with them as they have done in the past and many feel Max is using his powers as the head of the FIA incorrectly.
The latest saga between the teams, in particular Paul Stoddart, and the FIA comes with legal action brought on by Minardi to compete in the championship using 2004 spec cars. Stewards found that the cars were not considered safe enough to compete and thus Stoddart took the matter to court. Stoddart recieved and injuction, but has since modified the cars to 2005 spec. As a result the FIA have threatened to drop all FIA events in Australia. A devistating blow to the many in this country who follow it, and something the teams, according to Stoddart, won't stand for.
The sport revolves around the allmighty dollar and everyteams wants a bigger slice of the pie. Bernie Ecclestone wants to make his bank account grow larger as well and give less on the money to the teams. This is where the Grand Prix World Championship (GPWC) comes into it. The current commercial agreement only offers teams around 50% of all the television funding and is due to expire at the end of the 2007 season. The GPWC which is formed by the major manufactures expect Ferrari who signed onto extend the current commercian agreement, are offering the teams around 80% of the television funding.
While this is a breif insight into what has been happening this saga has been going on for a long time and will continue to go on for a while. Max Mosley's mandate as FIA president, I believe is due to run out in October. After that could we see some stability come to F1 or will the new president carry on with mosley's reform drive. Only time will tell.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13510 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
The real problem for F-1 is their addiction to money, especially from the cigarette makers. Ferrarri gets the most from the USA based Philip Morris Marlboro brand and pratically have an unlimited budget courtsey of them. More and more countries where F-1 races have been run for generations are losing races to places like China, as they do not limit tobacco adversiting, hurting F-1's primary fan base, which is in Europe. By banning the advertising of tobacco and sponsorship by Tobacco product brands (and to also include alcoholic beverages, due to some countries rules) can there be a fairer playing field for all teams as would balance sponsor monies among the teams.
An article in the USA magazine Car and Driver, found some of the proposed rules, as noted in the intial post, are going to make F-1 cars more like the USA's NASCAR Nextel Cup cars, but with exposed wheels. The article suggested to make massive changes to reduce the downforce of the cars, thus putting back the drivers skill as the dominate factor of success as would allow passing by effectively reducing braking ability into corners. This article also noted the new rules makes teams and manufacturs have cars with a level of tech lower than many preformance or luxury cars (like magneisum blocks, any number of cylinders, fuel management, etc)
MNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
People like the sport for the speed. I think we gave seen a gap in what F1 was is the past few years with the domination of ferrari. There rules were meant to give other teams a chance but they didnt work very well. I think this year we will begin to see the revival of F1 back to its original glory. Many teams were able to get their cars in gear and the drives have improved.
As for the changes they are pointless and this weekends qualification proved that they could have a negative effect on the sport. IN the end they still hurt teams with little money. I also belive that with a ban/limit on the exposure of tobbaco producsts will help increase competition, but there will be millions of companies paying millions of $$ to have their logo displayd on the Ferrari cars.