03/04/2007
FEATURE BY STUART GARLICK
 |
The late, great motoring journalist Russell Bulgin once coined the phrase "Minardi-cool", to describe the positive vibes felt when supporting a cause unlikely to be the winning one. Minardi-cool is evident in all walks of life. What a shame it is for someone, given the sports pages, a football sticker album, and encouragement from parents, to choose to support an English team like Chelsea or Manchester United. What a wasted opportunity to teach people what Honda like to refer to as the power of dreams. Downsize to the likes of Crewe Alexandra, or my local team AFC Telford United, and supporters can always yearn for more, and speculate over what the future might hold. What do Manchester United supporters dream of? Another treble? When it's all been done before, there is no further to climb. For many followers of Formula One, the same sentiment applies.
Minardi went the way of a long line of other teams in recent history, sold following an offer impossible to refuse, taking its charisma with it and leaving a vague feeling that something was missing. Motor sport followers started searching for another team to support, and many are still searching. To be a real heir to Paul Stoddart's outfit, a team has to have spirit and a sense of fun.
The budgets and goals of F1 teams have been ratcheted up to such a degree over the past ten to fifteen years that now, when one thinks of "the little guy", one person vox-popped for a recent launch presentation was able to cite Williams. Williams is one of the most successful constructors in the sport's history. Support it by all means, but remember the reactive suspension days of 1992 and 1993, and don't call them underdogs. Looking elsewhere for a true minnow, options are thin on the ground. Red Bull may not be owned by a manufacturer, but if Jordan could challenge for the 1999 World Championship with money tight, Red Bull has the resources to win races, even if it is debatable it has the knowledge or group dynamic to do so.
Toro Rosso? Gerhard Berger is a hero to those who loved a winner on the track with a keen sense of slapstick and an eye for the practical joke, but the only fun thing about his team is Vitantonio Liuzzi's dress sense, more Fifty Pence than 50 Cent. Super Aguri is backed by Honda, so lacks Minardi-cool, as it is overseen by a major manufacturer.
The only small squad that can claim truly to be fighting adverse odds is Spyker. As Mike Lawrence commented recently, why it is in F1 is questionable. Somehow, though, that makes the fact that it is there all the more cheering. What is sad is that Spyker will find it incredibly difficult to build and race a car that has a chance of finishing in the top six in the foreseeable future, let alone on the podium. For F1 fans who recall Ivan Capelli's Leyton House March jostling with Alain Prost's Ferrari during the 1990 French Grand Prix at Paul Ricard, or Heinz-Harald Frentzen and Jordan's heroics in 1999, it begs a question. Why does that not happen today, and could it ever happen again?
Formula One has never been socialist. Like most other sports outside of the United States, part of F1's appeal has been that the best are encouraged to get even better. When Ferrari wanted to pay £25m a year for Michael Schumacher's services, that was no problem. But how can the FIA maintain this principle, and also ensure entry to the sport, and success on a limited budget, is an attainable goal?
The key has to be stability in the sport's regulations. Ever since the prohibition of electronic driver aids in 1994, there has been a torrent of new entries in the Formula One rulebook. Nearly everything has been tried. The regulations forced through following the tragedies of 1994 have had a broadly positive effect on the sport, and it is beyond dispute that the circuits and cars have never been safer. Introductions such as higher cockpit sides, tethered wheels, a pitlane speed limit and much more rigorous crash testing of new cars means that it is now far less likely a fatality will occur.
Nonetheless, during the same period of time, the FIA has sought to regulate speeds and bring back overtaking as a serious proposition (overtaking became a scarcity around the same time as the 1995 regulations to reduce the size of cars' wings were rubber-stamped, although there are other factors). Tyres were narrowed for 1993, and then the cars themselves followed in 1998, when grooved tyres were also introduced. These schemes have not stopped F1 cars getting quicker, and overtaking is no easier now it was than before '98. All we have is a grid of stunted-looking cars on tyres that do not get the power down onto the tarmac the way they would if they were slick. Grooved tyres are not used in any other major open-wheel formula. Their introduction fundamentally changed cars' handling characteristics; that and the change to narrower cars meant a lot of extra development work was required for 1998 by Minardi and other small teams.
The given reason for changing the rules is usually safety, in order to add to the excitement, or to reduce costs for competitors. But instability in the rules, such as has been prevalent over the past decade and more, only raises prices for teams. In CART or the IRL, outfits can start on a good footing, and challenge for wins, with the right package, from the off. In the second or third season, a good small team will know the car inside out, and be able to challenge for titles with the right driver and engineering line-up, whilst still remaining a small operation. In F1, no-one can say with certainty what the rules will be two to three years in advance, let alone plan development for a long-term period. Hopefully the FIA will work closely with teams up and down the grid in a consultative capacity on the planned 2011 energy recovery systems. Otherwise, it will only be the richest teams, the Ferraris and McLarens, who benefit on the track.
The FIA finds itself in a new situation, with Formula One teams predominantly run or part-owned by car manufacturers in 2007. Before the arrival of BMW, Renault, Honda and Toyota as constructors, teams were smaller, and run by people who came mainly from engineering or racing backgrounds. Now F1 has to fit in with major car companies' marketing campaigns. As the World Sportscar Championship and the DTM have demonstrated over the years, if the economy takes a downturn, the parent company is selling fewer cars on the forecourt, or new management brings a change in how the manufacturer is promoted, racing teams are often sacrificed. "Independent" teams do not have to worry about selling road cars, and have stuck with F1 through some tough times. Their loyalty should not be taken for granted by F1 administrators who may be starstruck by the calibre of manufacturer attracted to F1 in the past decade.
Think of Minardi, and before them Tyrrell, Arrows, Ligier/Prost, Lotus and Brabham, and you think of teams with names that really have significance to long-term followers of F1. Some of these names, which all lined up on the grid in 1989, were sold when their owners struggled to raise the necessary finance for them to be competitive. Others from the Class of '89, like Onyx, Osella and Coloni changed hands to people who either lacked the finance, the business nous or the long-term plan to succeed in keeping the team afloat. In a sport where "survival of the fittest" is a necessary policy in order to preserve a meritocracy, there is only so much that can be done to keep teams on the track. But there are things which can be done, cheaply and easily.
The FIA could relax the 12-team "franchise" system, bringing back a grid limited to 26 cars after qualifying. To compensate for the increase in entries, new teams could be vetted for a long-term business plan. As funding would be distributed more fairly between the organisers and the teams, changes in the distribution of F1's profits through the grid would not be an insurmountable difficulty. Manufacturers could sign up to an agreement to supply engines to at least one independent team each. With engine development having been frozen for the 2007 season, this would present fewer cost issues than in the past. The FIA could consult, free-of-charge, with aspiring independent F1 teams such as Carlin Motorsport, ensuring that when someone wishes to enter the World Championship, they do so with the necessary understanding of what it takes to survive economically. Experienced advisors, hand-picked by the FIA, could help new constructors to avoid any expensive mistakes in the first few years. Trevor Carlin, whose team has achieved sustained success in the junior formulae, has a wealth of motorsport experience, passion for racing, and has seen the talent in such drivers as Takuma Sato and Anthony Davidson. Carlin Motorsport and their ilk could be a success in Formula One, with a little understanding and encouragement from on high.
"Nobody loves you," Eric Clapton once sang, "when you're down and out." Whilst F1 seems unlikely to experience economic difficulties any time soon, there still has to be a contingency plan. New teams have to be blooded and encouraged by the FIA. The climate for potential entrants would be far more inviting with rule stability (and well-briefed and thought-out rule-changes, where strictly necessary), a relaxation of the franchise system, and an acknowledgement that the independent operations, along with a little bit of Minardi-cool, have made F1 what it is today.
Stuart Garlick
stuart@pitpass.com
To check out previous features from Stuart, click here