Sporting thoughts
Well, that's it then. The fat lady has unleashed a vocal cry from her V10 vocal chords and flung down the curtain upon another season of Formula 1 racing. It's been a season low on drama and high on controversy. It has seen television audiences slump to a five year low and two teams go out of business. Much of the controversy has surrounded one man and one team. Michael Schumacher and Ferrari have commanded the season yet again and the complete dominance of the men from Maranello has brought into sharp relief the problems of Formula 1. Or rather the perceived problems of Formula 1.
Damon Hill recently added his penny's worth to the current debate about how to make racing more exciting. Max Mosley, president of the Federacion International de Automobile who runs the sport suggested rotating drivers or handicapping the leading cars. These ideas are about as helpful as an umbrella on a sinking ship. Presenting slowing Ferrari down as the answer to Formula 1's ills is to present a two-dimensional answer to a three dimensional question. The problems of Formula 1 spread throughout the sport and very few of them have anything specifically to do with Ferrari.
First of all, it isn't Ferrari's job to slow down, its time everyone else got their arses in gear and sped up. Leaving that issue aside we come to what is surely the most concerning aspect of this season. The fact that within the space of six months two teams, Prost and Arrows went bust has revealed a serious problem with the sport. It is just too darn expensive. An engine costs £500,000; a gearbox over £200,000. Ferrari operates with an annual budget in excess of £120 million. Ferrari gets their money because they are tied to the massive FIAT consortium and their millionaire bosses, the Agnelli family. Williams and Mclaren have massive sponsorship deals and huge engine contracts with BMW and Mercedes respectively. The others are left to scrap for the rest of the cash that's left. Each of the top ten teams get cash according to where they finish in the end of season league tables. Takuma Sato's two points in Japan took Jordan above BAR and Jaguar and therefore were worth millions in extra revenue for next season. Here we see the crux of the matter. A vicious circle of unimaginable proportions is created by this system. Teams that do badly are condemned to get worse and eventually spiral out of business. The teams at the front already get much greater benefits because their advertising space is in greater demand. Therefore why not make shares of television revenue and gate receipts equal? That might create a more level playing field for all. In fairness the governing body are aiming at reducing costs but rules regarding the number of engines per race that can be used won't come in until 2004. Action needs taking now.
Criticising Ferrari because they use team orders to make sure they get maximum benefit from their points is simply running away from the central issues. Ferrari did cause harm to the sport and they were about as subtle as an air raid about it, but Formula 1 is a team sport as well as an individual one and this cannot be forgotten. There doesn't seem a way in which the favouring of one driver over another in terms of tactics can be stopped. Therefore the only answer is for other teams to break Ferrari's dominance so that there is less chance for team orders to be applied so often.
Another reason that Formula 1 has become a boring procession at times is that overtaking is now virtually impossible. That is simply to do with the regulations and the tracks. When Prost, Senna and Mansell won their titles they were driving cars that were, compared to today's cars at least, about as aerodynamic as a double decker bus. This meant that one could hide in the massive slipstream of the other and catapult past into the corners. Today's cars are too narrow and the tires too lacking in grip. Bring back wings like barn doors and mammoth tyres I say. All the old masters had the added problem that they actually had to drive a car, not a computer on wheels. If you get rid of anti-lock brakes, launch controllers and remote control whizzy bits you would at a stroke reduce the amount that technology can do to help the driver. The better driver in a poor car (e.g. Jacques Villeneuve) would then have a chance of beating an average driver (Jenson Button) who has a better car. The contest suddenly becomes more interesting. Then you have the problem of the identikit tracks that now are dominant and bore everyone to tears. The classic example is the Nurburgring in Germany. The original track was a 16-mile epic, which plunged its way through the Eiffel mountains. The new one is like a cycle lane, only with less charisma. Herein lies the dilemma.
Don't get me wrong, Formula 1 cannot go back to the days when tracks were lethal and cars were flimsy in a bid for excitement but the challenge of the sport must be restored. In the late 1960s one driver in four would die motor racing. That is clearly unacceptable but the 200 mph computers on wheels must be turned back into cars and the drivers must face more of a challenge. Despite what the press appears to believe Ferrari are not the main issue here, the problems run far deeper than that.
17th Oct 2002