16/08/2004
NEWS STORY
On Sunday, Ferrari neatly wrapped up the 2004 Constructor's Championship, its sixth successive crown.
Hard to believe, but it is only just over five months since we were all looking forward to the first race of the 2004 season, eagerly anticipating a four-way championship struggle between Ferrari, McLaren, WilliamsF1 and Renault. After all, back in March, how many of us really expected BAR to produce such a superb performance?
What is truly worrying is that in just over five month from now, the teams will begin unveiling their 2005 contenders. Yet at this point, the rules have yet to be finalised.
A meeting of the team bosses was held in Hungary yesterday, and by all accounts it was shambolic, with one source describing most of those present as "tossers".
It's been said before that these guys can't agree on what sandwiches to order, therefore perhaps we are all being overly ambitious in expecting them to agree on anything as radical as the future of F1.
Max Mosley has given a clear warning, come up with your own idea or accept mine. The clock is ticking, yet seemingly, those charged with making the decisions can't agree on anything.
So where are we at so far?
Speaking on Friday, Renault's executive director of engineering, Pat Symonds, said that he's OK with the proposals regarding aerodynamics. With regards engines and tyres, that's another matter.
"With the engine we have got a very difficult situation because we are really looking at an interim step," he said. "It is well accepted, and again well documented by the TWG, that really the only way we were going to get the performance that we felt we required was to come down on capacity and we have been talking about that for 18 months. It can't be done for 2005 so we have to take this interim step. We need to be careful that we don't confuse money-saving ideas with safety ideas but nevertheless our team are happy with the idea of running an engine for two races, we don't believe it is a very significant step in terms of safety, in terms of what we are trying to achieve, but nevertheless it is one that is worthwhile.
"Tyres, I think, are the most difficult part of the whole equation," he continued, "and I would say as a team we are supporting the proposals that are put forward by the FIA at the moment but on a personal level I think really I do have to give a word of caution.
"I think that one of the very important things these days is the spectacle. We are talking about saving money but I am a great believer in generating income rather than saving money and I am very worried that if we do go to the single tyre rule that we will, I won't say destroy, that's an overreaction, we will certainly produce a show that I don't think will be as good as the show we have now and I think that is something we need to be very careful of.
"People say they want to see overtaking," he continued, "they want to see a change in the order of the races and it may not happen so much with a single tyre. Now, the interesting thing is that we say yes, we are agreeing with the rules and we can get on and design our cars and this is why we need to get a move on. But unfortunately these days it is not just the technical rules, it's the sporting rules and depending on what happens with the qualifying procedure will determine how we go racing and hence what our cars are like.
"If the qualifying procedure goes in a particular way I can tell you - because we have already done the simulations, we have already looked at it - even at a race like here in Hungary, you would be looking at a one-stop race and, in fact, I don't think I am giving away too much by saying that our simulations say that you go to lap 49 here, which is like then leaving 21 left, and if you can't overtake on this track and you have only one pitstop that's two thirds of the way through the race I don't think it is very exciting and I think we have to be very careful of that."
Ferrari's Ross Brawn is also confident that the rules regarding chassis and aerodynamics are acceptable. "The FIA made a proposal and I think everyone looked at it and it was very close to what a lot of us were prepared to accept, so I think on the chassis it has gone through, or will be going through," he said. "I think there is enough people in agreement to make it difficult for any alternatives to happen and, of course, everyone wants to get on with their cars. So, I think there is a reasonably substantial reduction in downforce that will reduce cornering speeds and certainly move in a direction of slowing the cars down."
As for tyres: "We have a solution that was proposed by the tyre companies, which is what the sporting regulations asked for," he said. "Michelin and Bridgestone got together and made the proposal so presumably that is settled now for next year."
And engines? "I think on the engine we are in broad support of the two main proposals, which are the two-race engines and the 2.4-litre V8," he said. "It is just the timescale makes it quite expensive to do it. Obviously over a longer timescale it would have been a little bit more economic but I think the 2.4 V8 is necessary to reduce the speeds of the cars and I think the two-race engine ultimately will make it more economic for the teams with smaller budgets to operate so we need to support it."
"Max is trying very hard to reform the sport over the next four years quite aggressively and I support some of the things he is doing," said Jaguar's Tony Purnell. "However, to be at this time of the year when you are not quite sure what the rules are to build the cars, I think very heavily favours the well-financed teams and is a severe handicap if you can't have parallel teams and you can't chop and change and haemorrhage money to cope with a change.
"In fact, the rules that have already been proposed have already caused us a bit of a problem where we have had to change next year's chassis design," he continued. "We wanted to be ahead of the game. So, I think, for the future, avoiding this lack of clarity is absolutely essential. Hopefully the Technical Working Group will settle things this weekend and we can go forwards.
"I share some of Pat's worries about the entertainment value that we will get out of this package," he admitted, "but as an engineer, you know, we need clarity and to handle the finances we need clarity."
At this point Paul Stoddart has his say: "We are not preparing and getting ready to build a new car," he revealed, "and there is a simple fact for that: We cannot afford to make a wrong choice. Here we are at the Hungaroring, traditionally a bit of a watershed race where people announce drivers, engines and are well advanced on their design and build programmes for the following year and we haven't got a clue what the regulations are.
"I take on board what the guys in front in the Technical Working Group were saying but in the team principals meetings it is completely different. We are nowhere near agreeing on any of this," he admitted. "We are not agreed on an engine for next year for two races, we have got one team principal saying he is not going to turn up if that's the case. We have got another manufacturer saying they are going to pull out if that's the case. We are nowhere near agreeing on the aerodynamics package unless, and as Ross said there is a meeting on Sunday morning, unless it's phase one because phase two is completely unacceptable.
"On tyres, there have been suggestions made but there is no agreement at the moment, and this could all get forced through on January 15, which is the final implementation date of Max's proposals," he continued. "But to a small team, or anyone who has not got the budget to run two or three parallel development programmes at the same time or the wind tunnel testing that is required to get back those aerodynamic losses - because we did one quick session, the guys in front are far better qualified to talk than I am but we lost 30 percent with the aero package as we believe it has been put forward - the bigger teams have the resources to gain that back and the actual drop you would see in the times next year would be not insignificant but it wouldn't be massive. The ones it would be massive for is the ones who haven't got the money to run programme after programme after programme chasing these rule changes. Any change costs money and no matter what it is it costs money.
"The simple answer is I think it's devastating for the small teams and if it does go to the wire, so to speak, where we don't have any clarity before, perhaps, October 30, when we have to get the sporting regulations right - I think you will probably find the whole lot will come as a package around that time, I would like to think it is going to be agreed before then but I am a bit pessimistic on seeing agreement between the team principals - I would like to think there would be some kind of alleviation perhaps along the lines of Max's suggestion that with the engines, the 2.4 V8s for 2006, the small teams that haven't got one, can't afford one or aren't in a position to provide one can continue to run their V10s and there will be safeguards in place so that you don't have too big an advantage.
"I would like to think that if we are going to be so late coming up with agreement on what it is we are building cars to next year, that some consideration is given to small teams to give us a fighting chance where we can run this year's cars for a determined period of time until we can build the new cars once somebody tells us what on Earth we are building these cars to."
At this point Eddie Jordan added his contribution: "I am trying to find how the normal person would see this," he said, "because we have got a sport and we have got to entertain and we have got an obligation to make sure it's the best we can do.
"After the last meeting we had in Hockenheim, where again the team principals failed to come up with a decision to try to agree, I was really frustrated so I wrote to everyone, which it is not a usual thing that I do, but my main message in that was that above all we do not need rules imposed on us. It would be far more prudent and sensible for the team principals to agree on this occasion, where a time factor is of the essence.
"We need, as Tony called it clarity - that was a word I used in the letter - but I also used the word certainty. We need certainty, not in October, yesterday. We need it immediately. And I would urge the guys here in front who are members of the TWG to bring forward the meeting of Sunday to tomorrow (Saturday), which might, therefore, enable us doddery old team bosses to get together on Sunday morning to ratify that and to sign it off so that there is not another race gone by before we do it.
"If that was possible, guys, you would be doing us a big favour because I think the TWG has some obligations, we have some obligations, but one thing that is of absolutely paramount importance is this business will haemorrhage itself quickly because we know the big teams will always be strong and the little teams will always be weak. Now, anyone who is not naive will understand that has always been the way it has been in this business and it's never going to change. But what it must do is give us all a fighting chance. It is just preposterous to think that a set of rules and regulations for next year's championship are not clear and defined at this moment in time and I would urge all parties including myself to come together as soon as possible and if the guys can meet tomorrow and get us team principals together on Sunday let's sign something and get it done, then it seems as if we have agreed it rather than somebody else sticking it down our neck."
Needless to say, these words were not heeded and the team principals once again failed to reach an agreement.
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable.
Tossers indeed.
Finally, if the team bosses are going to ignore the thoughts of the Technical Working Group, what's the point of it?