the 15th of January, the FIA announced a number of measures aimed at helping
reduce the cost of running a Formula 1 team and ensuring that the number of
teams doesn't drop below 10 as Jordan and Minardi are rumoured to be
struggling to survive this season.
The measures that were announced were forced upon the teams after they (the
teams) had failed to reach any agreement on ways to reduce costs.
measures - spread over a number of seasons - include for 2003 the banning of
two-way telemetry and radio communications, the scrapping of the spare car
(unless exceptional circumstances) and preventing major changes to cars
between qualifying and race (enforcing qualifying in race trim). The FIA will
also attempt to ban traction control, launch control and fully automatic
gearboxes and replace them with a standard electronic control unit, however,
if this proves too costly to the teams, this will be postponed until the start
of the 2004 season at the latest.
2004, the FIA plans to introduce a standard braking system and a standard rear
wing (with 'Monza' levels of downforce). In addition to the single engine
rule, the FIA will look into enforcing long life rules to more components such
as gearboxes. The FIA will also ensure that all the teams receive engines from
car manufacturers involved in Formula 1.
the FIA plans to extend the single engine per race weekend to 2 race weekends
for 2005 and 6 race weekends for 2006.
FIA acknowledged that as an extreme case, the measures regarding engine supply
may cause manufacturers to pull out of Formula 1 and a single sourced engine
supply could be the solution.
measures will not only cut costs but will also move the emphasis back on the
drivers which is what most Formula 1 fans want. But at what cost ? By running
standard components such as wings and brakes to the extreme case of the whole
field powered by the same engine, would Formula 1 retain it's huge global
popularity or will it become just another Formula ?
costs to save Formula 1 may be required but to what degree ?
Do you approve of these measures ? Would you like to see the emphasis primarily
on the driver rather than the car ? Is it important to you that Formula 1
remains the most technologically advanced form of motorsport with the teams
fighting for supremacy ?
(only your first name and last initial will appear under your comments)
will be reviewed before publishing. Comments will be published within 24 hours of
submission. Views and comments appearing on this page do not reflect the opinion of
NewsOnF1.com cannot guarantee that all comments will be
published. NewsOnF1.com reserves the right to edit comments if deemed necessary.
What others are saying:
Fixed Rear wing - good idea, but only if it gets rid of those
stupid grooved tyres. Man, do I miss the big rubber of the 70s, 80s
and early 90s!
2 way telemetry or even 1 way telemetry - good to see it go!
Traction and launch control - I have always seen this as a joke. Let's
race trains! And without drivers. Hate, loath, detest!
ABS - I'm not too fussed about this, but would prefer to see it gone
every 2nd year say. It has great application in the family sedan so it
The idea of 1 engine/tyre for all is a joke. This kills off both the
international aspect of things and the openness of the
F1 to me has always represented the most open form of motorsport on
the planet. Though it is heavily regulated, this is to stop things
from becoming totally insane, not to suppress creativity - Bryon F
I couldn't agree more with the statements that both McLaren
and Williams are making about these new rules.
The FACT is: These rules represent a serious threat to safety in formula
1 and are also against the spirit of formula 1 and what it is
'suppose' to be - cutting edge technology developing it into the
'fastest' form of motorsport in the world. These rules will send the
sport backwards. They are pathetic because I really don't know the
reason 'why' these new rules have been introduced. The FIA are kidding
themselves if they think these new rules will bring crowd-figures up
again on television and at the track. I believe they have
jumped-the-gun here. They have looked at season 2002 when Ferrari
dominated and decided 'that' is why television audiences and track
attendances were down - and have effectively penalised them and the
rest of the f1 teams that are trying to catch up to them, because
they, (the fia) think these new rules will mean an end to dominance by
one single team - Matthew F - Australia
I think these new measures are absolutely pathetic.
How stupid and immature are the FIA. For example, banning traction
control is ridiculous because what it is doing is taking away (what I
believe to be) an essential safety device in wet weather. Formula 1 is
suppose to be the ' top level ' of motor racing, taking away
technological advancements, evolution and progress I believe is going
against what F1 is suppose to be about - the quest for perfection (and
the F2002 was damn close to that) - Matthew F - Australia
Reducing cost? Hello. Let's take a moment here to
consider what these idiots are doing: improving racing? No. Protecting
"little" teams? No. Creating something they can sell? Yes.
Protecting their (Bernie's and other bigwig's) investments? Yes.
Suppose what they are claiming happens --and Minardi and Jaguar and
Eddie Jordan drop out? Yes, there would be much grumbling and
screaming and pointing of fingers. Yes, there would be a drop
(substantial!) in the level of interest on the part of some fans
(those not interested in seeing whether the French the Germans or the
Japanese can figure out how to beat the Italians). For a year. maybe.
then, without anyone having to raise a finger or write any
regulations, it would suddenly be apparent to all of the major
manufacturers that selling their technology under license would be a
way to recoup some of their research expenditures. Look at Sauber,
they'd be saying; how can it hurt Ferrari if every once in a while one
of last year's engines beats one of this year's big red machines? it
could even be exciting!
The notion, though, that F1 would become a Ferrari (or Williams or
Mercedes or McLaren or Honda or Toyota) parade without these
"cost cutting" measures is nonsense! It's time for new
management. Didn't the big guys start thinking about their own
sanctioning body a little while back? I think they'd better start
holding their meetings again.
I don't follow F1 because I think their sanctioning body (or even
their bloody awful video production!!) is doing an excellent job. I
follow it because people like Ross Brawn and Frank Williams would
rather die than lose a race. So they spend every waking minute and
every bloody penny they can steal or borrow to make their cars go
faster than anyone else's. Drivers? yes, I like drivers. but I don't
care about their politics or their looks or their family values or any
of that other hokum. remember when Eddie was driving Ferraris? and
almost won the title? was that because he's such a fabulous driver
relative to any six or eight others? No. What do you think Jacques
last four or five campaigns tells you about drivers? You can put the
world's greatest driver in one of those bloody Jags the Austrian was
trying to tell us all were almost "sorted out" and maybe.
maybe. he'd beat the Renaults. not the Saubers. not the Macs. not the
I don't know why I'm sitting over here in Indiana knocking myself out
teaching English. I could be a bloody F.I.A. official and have a posh
apartment in the south of France and run up and down the paddock at
all the F1 races making an ass of myself by proposing rules to enhance
racing!! I mean it seriously, my main rule would be keeping the
scorekeepers busy keeping score and the time keepers busy keeping
time. Wait a minute. I've got a better idea: I'd ban all television
producers from within 100 km. of any circuit. Only cameramen would be
allowed on site --and only to record the race and relay the images to
fans. How do you get this bloody job anyway??!! - Jim W - USA
Sad to say; very contradictory!... Alberto R -
Talk about going from an extreme to another..... its
too much, a lot of what we see in our everyday cars comes from the F1
experimentations. Changes were needed, but this is dum. That is not
the spirit of F1, no more than the 2002 rules were... its worse
actually. I for one was more interested in the progress of all the
teams than following any particular favorite. I agree that costs must
be reduced, that computers drove the cars too much and thus at least eliminate
the bi-directional telemetry and let the driver manage his race, but
now with those new rules, might as well have everyone drive the same
car and bye bye innovations. I agree 100% with Joe's comments - Marc
I really think this is just going much too far. If
it is to save the small teams ok! let the big teams help them with
lower cost engines and some other technical help plus other things,
But to go in this direction is in my opinion wrong. I like many
diehard fans follow F1 for it is the pinnacle of Automobile
technology. Take that away why should I or any one else spend that big
money and time following it. To make away from two-way telemetry I say
ok because after all it's up to the derivers and not a monkey or a
guru in the pits to change something on the car that makes them win.
Two way radio must stay for many obvious reasons.
If all of this is really to happen what do they hope to achieve having
all the same cars ? Well that is not what I want to see. Then if so
who will win ? Michael of course, he is so much better then every one
with the exception of maybe Villeneuve. So I really do not like this
No spare car ok lets say we want a good show, well then we want the
drivers all out to make the best times no! but by doing this he is on
the edge and looses the car and destroys it what now no spare car! so
they pack up and go home? Once again stupid, the only thing that they
will achieve is less of a show thus less viewers yet again. Is it me
or can they not see this. I can go on a lot more but I think you get
the point - Joe - Canada
Pole and see how your predictions stack up against the others. Register