The Wondering Mind

According to the BBC, Lola has decided they are no longer interested in joining F1.

They quoted one person from their comments section who interpreted this to mean that Lola was sure there would not be any open slots for them, after their initial entry was not one of the three accepted by the FIA. But I think that’s the wrong takeaway here.

More likely, they recognise that the only way that a slot would open up for them is if the eight teams which are members of FOTA do not enter F1 next year. There’s physically no more slots available for any new entries unless existing entries drop out, and those eight teams have been pretty united in laying down the conditions for their 2010 F1 entries.

That means that a field in 2010 which included Lola would not include the most iconic names in motor racing: Ferrari and McLaren, to name just two. And all the major car manufacturers currently in F1, such as Mercedes, Renault, and BMW.

Logistically and technically, that would cause difficulties for the remaining “F1″. One can assume that there will be no technical help for the new entrants from the existing, and now former, teams. That may not be such a big deal for Lola, who have a wealth of experience in motor racing and lots of technical know-how. But it could hamper the rest of the field of new comers. This could make the series not competitive, reducing its attraction to audiences, or even worse, turn it into a joke, with the field populated by teams who can barely get their cars off the starting line.

More seriously, the major motor manufacturers currently supply all the engines for existing F1 teams. Although at least Force India, and perhaps Williams too, have multi-year contracts for the supply of engines, if companies like Mercedes and Toyota leave F1, they are unlikely to do little more than perfunctory building and selling of engines until the contracts end. While one might argue they would still want their engined cars to win, they would most likely to be involved in a rival racing series which they would be more anxious to promote. If you were the car companies, which series would you direct more of the development funds toward?

Granted,  Cosworth, a great name in automotive engineering and F1 racing, has been contracted to supply engines to the three new entrants, and could conceivably supply engines to other teams. But this is likely, over time, to result in a single-sourced engine series with Cosworth the sole engine supplier. Other companies could conceivably crop up, but there are no likely candidates which could compete with Cosworth.

There is also a real danger that the best drivers in F1 will have no interest in such a “Mickey Mouse” racing series. If the threat of a rival series, comprised of the eight teams in FOTA plus perhaps others, is realised, that is likely to be the series attracting the true talent, rather than second-rate “also-ran” or “has-been” drivers you can see in many other racing series already.

The only fly in the ointment for the FOTA members is the considerable difficulty in setting up a brand new racing series from scratch. To set up a rolling circus to rival the F1 spectacle in less than a year (at this point, not even 6 months) would be a Herculean task. While the companies may have the resources to pull it off, it’s not clear that they will have the talent or the organisational unity to. And the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone will undoubtedly do everything in their power to play spoiler.

No matter what happens on that front, however, the result is that any F1 to which Lola is granted entry is unlikely to be attractive. It’s just not going to be the pinnacle of motor racing that F1 currently is. And if you’re Lola, already involved in many other racing series, why bother?

Lola may, and probably have, already thought of this themselves. Which could mean that this is also a strategic move on their part. If FOTA leave F1 and start a new racing series, they are likely to want to attract new entrants themselves as well. And they would also want to institute some economising measures. This could mean that they would offer a package of regulations and technical aid which would allow a technically sophisticated and experienced operator like Lola to join such a series.

And as I’ve already noted, that may be the more attractive proposition.

Every time I hear about Bernie Ecclestone’s silly idea about medals in F1, I wish a bus would hit him.

It imports an idea alien to F1 and it is totally unnecessary. You can achieve the sort of goal Ecclestone keeps banging on about with a revamped points system, which has the added bonus of not effectively ending a F1 season prematurely. (After one of the drivers has won enough races.) I’m not sure there would be much excitement in races toward the end of the season when the “champion” is already effectively crowned and doesn’t even need to start his engines to win.

While that could still happen with a points system, it is much less likely than with medals, and it rewards consistency. Bernie might not like it, but there are fans like me who don’t think you necessarily deserve the championship because you won the most races, if you crashed in all the ones you didn’t win. There is something to appreciate in watching a consummate driver who is driving a controlled race.

The sort of system being proposed also inherently encourages more recklessness. This can make for more exciting racing, but it can make for more dangerous racing. It will probably also lead to more accidents. Aside from the greater danger, more accidents mean more costs to the teams.

In fact, the system would encourage a perpetuation of an existing team performance hierarchy. If you are a good team who have won the driver’s championship early in the season, you can then shift more resources to developing next season’s car. This will mean you get a jump on your rivals, practically guaranteeing you will repeat your success the following year.

Sure, there is the contructor’s championship, but that usually gets much less press, meaning it is probably not as valuable in attracting sponsorship money for your team. And with more money, you can keep spending on this year and start spending on next year’s car. A win-win for you. Too bad if you’re another team.

Some commentators have cited the example of the night race in Singapore as an instance where everyone said Bernie was off his head, and that was a great success. So maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t buy that. The “success” of that race seems much more dubious in the current economic times, since Melbourne refused to run a night race on the grounds that it would costs too much to light the race. (I forget how much lighting for Singapore cost last year, but it was a ridiculously large sum.) And the environmental impact made the sort of headlines car manufacturers don’t want.

I think the proper measure of the success of the Singapore Grand Prix would be after several seasons, once the novelty has worn off. I suspect it won’t really be all that interesting, and the finances only make sense in a place like Singapore where a day race, thanks to the humid weather, would be almost impossible.

I think this exemplifies the sort of thing you sometimes see in successful people like Bernie Ecclestone. People like that have been successful, and right, for so long, that they are lulled into thinking they can do no wrong. And like the original Peter Principle, where a person is promoted to their level of incompetence, people like Bernie keep making decisions which become more and more outlandish, until they make a monumental error in judgement. And then it may be all over for them, and those around them.

I’m really hoping that’s not what happens in F1.

You would think with the current financial debacle going on that some people would learn. But no.

Apparently, the English Premier League sees no dangers in teams engaging in the sorts of financial shenanigans that have brought many British banks to a sticky end. (Well, not quite an end, but nationalisation is pretty bloody close.)

It’s not like you have to look too hard for examples in other sports as to how things can go horribly wrong.

If that doesn’t convince you, I’d like to remind people who Manchester United’s jersey sponsor used to be.

Bernie Ecclestone is clearly a successful businessman. But like many successful men, he’s run his course and outstayed his welcome. At this point, the sport would benefit from someone with new and fresh thinking replacing his influence.

In the latest interview with the BBC, he again bring up the idiotic idea of medals for the racing drivers, rather than points. As far as I can tell, he is the only person involved with the sport who thinks the ideas of medals is anything other than bizarre, but Ecclestone just won’t let it go.

I suspect that like many successful businessmen, he’s been right often enough that he’s convinced at this point that he can do no wrong. And like most of those businessmen, he’s clearly used up all the good ideas long time ago.

The idea of medals is absurd. Under the proposed scheme, if you win 4 races during the season and fail to finish any other race, and that is the most wins of any driver, you would beat a driver who won 3 races and came second in every other race of the season. Many fans would think that both ridiculous and unfair.

The scenario is not that outlandish when one considers the erratic performance of both the Ferrari drivers, just to name two examples. Both the teams and their drivers and the fans have always appreciated teams who have been able to achieve consistent performance, and this system would give no credit for that at all.

I also fails to see how this avoids the failings Ecclestone is whining about. For example, if you are a driver coming into the last race with two wins more than anyone else, then you don’t even have an incentive to race, never mind try to win. Fact is that there is really no conceivable system of rewards, whether they be points or medals, which gets rid of team tactics. None! This is so obvious, you have to be crazy not to see it.

As for the main plank in Ecclestone’s complaint, that there is not enough overtaking, blaming that on the point system or some other lack of motivation on the part of the driver is rubbish, and Ecclestone knows it.

The main reason for the lack of overtaking are twofold. First, the overwhelming role aerodynamics plays in the modern F1 car’s performance means that the physical laws of the natural world make overtaking extremely difficult. In fact, the loss of aerodynamic performance involved with a failed overtaking manoeuvre actually results in a performance penalty, which is why so many drivers are shy about attempting it. Everyone in the sport, including the fans, know this. Until the FIA find some way to effectively reduce the role of aerodynamics in car design, this will be a serious problem for drivers.

The other problem is the design of many of the tracks, especially the latest and the most modern ones. Many of these tracks have been built in the last few years in countries which have no history of F1 racing, or of any motor racing, and have no fan base what so ever. They are often white elephants built out of vanity and/or for publicity, with little or no thought given to the overall health of the sport.

Before someone thinks me daft, I make a distinction between the sport and the business, the interests of which are not always aligned. Building the F1 brand in the Middle East and the Far East may be good for business, if successful.

(And evidence so far suggests that they have not been successful. These new venues pay exorbitant fees to Ecclestone’s company for the rights to host races, far more than paid by traditional tracks with history, and fans. They also have fabulous facilities for the teams and for the hospitality guests. But with the exception of the Singapore night race, very few of the races at the new venues have been successful. Some races have failed to sell out, and none of the races have, as far as I know, managed to make a profit.)

What ever you may think about the business success of the races, they have mostly failed to improve the sport. The primary reason for this being the design of many of the tracks. While their facilities, especially for entertaining rich clients, are apparently superb, the tracks are almost universally designed to make overtaking difficult, if not impossible.

This is because the tracks are not wide enough at most places where overtaking might be possible, if only there was enough room on the track. The chicanes are also designed in such a way that a following car cannot get into a position to challenge for the lead with an overtaking manoeuvre.  Again, everyone in F1 knows this, and yet we get the same stupid designs for every new track. I can only assume that this is to the financial benefit of “Ecclestone Inc”.

The reason Bernie is making the ridiculous proposals that he is, is that changes which would result in a real increase in overtaking would cost him money. I don’t mean the sport, or the teams, or the drivers. I mean it would be less profit for Bernie Ecclestone.

If you don’t believe me, let me point out something really obvious: if F1 is serious about cutting costs, cutting back races in locations far from Europe is one significant improvement they can make. With the exception of the Brazilian, Australian, and Japanese Grand Prixs, where you have knowledgeable and enthusiastic fan bases, how are the teams and the sport benefiting from the expense of flying out to venues with little local interest or support?

Most of the other non-European races are notable primarily for the fees they pay Bernie. But they cost the teams huge sums in flying all their equipment to the other side of the world. In Europe, they at least get to drive their gear from race to race, saving on the cost of air freight.

So please, Bernie. We get it! You’re in it for the money, and you really couldn’t care less about the “sport”. And I certainly can’t fault you for it. But don’t treat us like idiots and stop trying to push through moronic ideas which would ruin the sport, just to try to throw up a smoke screen over your greed.

This is really old news, but I really enjoyed this article because it wasn’t in tune with the usual cult-like worship of Hamilton by the British press.

Yes, Hamilton is brilliant and a future (maybe even this year) champion, but let’s try to be a little objective guys.