This article formed part of my winning submission for the Guild of Motoring Writers' Sir William Lyons Award in 2005.MICHAEL SCHUMACHER'S VICTORY in the 2005 Indianapolis Grand Prix is unlikely to be remembered for his personal performance. Prior to the race, Michelin announced that the fourteen cars it supplies rubber for had unsafe tyres, which would last at best ten laps of the circuit. As a result, seven teams pulled out, leaving only the six cars running on Bridgestones to begin the race. It was hardly surprising to see a Ferrari passing the chequered flag first. Admittedly, this is the first time in recent memory that such a fiasco has beset a Formula 1 race, but it nevertheless raises important concerns about the current state of the sport.
The finger pointing that followed was the most absurd thing of all. The seven teams who felt compelled to pull out of the Grand Prix blamed Michelin. Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, blamed Michelin. Even Michelin blamed Michelin. The only people who seemed to blame the teams were those sitting on the World Motor Sport Council. From the outside, it appeared a very simple situation. Michelin underestimated the forces placed on the tyres in one of the high-speed corners and supplied the teams with equipment that would have been inadequate and dangerous. However, thanks to the regulatory web that seems to suffocate Formula 1, it was the teams who were held principally accountable.
Still, it must be said that many guidelines brought in by Formula 1’s ruling body are intended to make the sport as safe as possible for the drivers. Since the Formula 1 World Championship began in 1950, it has experienced the death of at least one driver in every decade since the series began, with one exception – the decade we are living in now. The most recent fatality came in 1994, when Ayrton Senna suffered a high-speed impact at the Imola circuit in San Marino. It is a credit to the manufacturers that drivers in today’s championship have been kept safe, despite the cars becoming even faster.
The FIA have also tried to bring more excitement back to the sport. Most driver aids, as well as the two-way telemetry systems used to reconfigure the cars during the race have been banned. There are also much stricter regulations limiting the replacement of engines and tyres. With engines having to last longer, tyres having to survive the duration of the race and refuelling prohibited between final qualifying and the race itself, teams have been forced to reconsider their strategies. I love cars, I love speed; I should love Formula 1. Until now, I simply haven’t. However, the effect of these recent changes in the sport’s rules is all too evident to its spectators. We are beginning to see a greater array of drivers on the podium and there is now a resemblance of a real contest. It’s exciting again. The FIA must be careful though, not to compromise driver safety. For example, the suggestion of banning traction control could be seen as negligent, as it could mean less control for drivers when their cars are at the limit.
There has been a shift in Formula 1 towards business and bureaucracy. It is arguably much more professional than it once was and it is certainly more money-orientated. Nevertheless, I don’t think increasing commercialism is the underlying reason behind much of the frustration with the sport. I think it’s much simpler than that. I think it’s Michael Schumacher. He has dominated Formula 1 for a decade, but whereas some view this as consistency, others see it as monotony. Michael Schumacher is in the same domain as Tiger Woods or the now-retired Pete Sampras. They are all champions, but at the same time they have all dominated their sports to such an extent that the most exciting element of competition has been removed – the uncertainty. They have all been the ‘safe bet’. Besides seven World Championships under his belt, Schumacher also holds the records for the most wins, the most points and the most podiums in the series. We are not bored by prominence, but by longevity. We love champions. But if there’s something we love more than a champion, it’s a rising star; a challenger; a new champion. Enter, Fernando Alonso.
Having said that, we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of the commercial aspect of Formula 1. Sponsorship from the tobacco industry alone is estimated to be worth in excess of £150 million a year to the sport, but will vanish completely when new laws come into place banning its association with the racing series. Besides sponsorship worries, Formula 1 is fighting for its very existence. Discontent with the current series has resulted in the creation of a proposed alternative competition, known as the GPWC, or Grand Prix World Championship. Formed by Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW and Renault, the GPWC group is unhappy with the revenue currently allocated to teams – believed to be less than a quarter of Formula 1’s estimated £500 million profits. Yet it seems to have been little more than a bargaining position for Ferrari at least, which has recently signed up for Formula 1 beyond 2008 and received around £57 million from Bernie Ecclestone in the process.
So what should we make of Formula 1? On the one hand, we have an excessively expensive sport that can easily be steeped in controversy, confusion and commercialism; regulations that force teams to adopt more precise strategies and a champion we have become bored with. On the other, we have a unique racing series that offers its audience an unbeatably high-octane atmosphere, pitching a handful of the world’s best drivers head-to-head at 200mph. It is very difficult to dismiss. Formula 1 is becoming more competitive and more exciting, but in order to survive, it must retain its appeal to all parties involved – the drivers, the teams, the manufacturers and the fans – balancing all of their needs. The mere fact that several teams are even thinking about an alternative championship shows that this balance has not yet been struck.
0 comments:
Post a Comment