Latest News From The Frontlines

In the battle for the future of grand prix racing, peace seems such an overused word. Seen it too many times in the past so naturally, I'll take the latest peace declaration with a large grain of salt. Having come to terms with commercial arrangements, the GPMA have finally (or so it seems) kissed and made up with the FIA and Max Mosley. In a meeting in Munich which up until now had been kept under wraps, some significant details emerged.

Social relevance, green technologies, road car relevance were all hailed as the major objectives for the future. All very nice but significantly, the governance of the sport and decisions over the rules will be made by the FIA and the manufacturers, which indeed bypasses the teams. Of course, many teams now are owned by the manufacturers but this really puts folks like Frank Williams in a spot.

Of course they FIA and the manufacturers say they will make decisions in consultation with the teams. But then Max Mosley has rammed down things people's throats in the past in direct contradiction to clauses in the Concorde, so I doubt if teams like Williams will take it too kindly. And really, for a person who supposedly was championing the cause of the independent teams, this latest development seems like a big discrepancy. From this article in ITV-F1 :

"In future individual teams’ management will relinquish their involvement and instead be represented by the manufacturers themselves, who will discuss prospective rules with the FIA at main board level."

Though the teams may hate this but they brought it upon themselves by not uniting strongly against Bernie, Max and indeed, even the manufacturers. Though indeed many team bosses have already cashed out and made lots of money in the process. And it seems increasingly likely that Ron Dennis will be making even more money than all of them when he and Ojjeh finally sells out to Mercedes.

But there are some good points about this latest development. One of Max Mosley's plans was to see a return to the old fuel consumption formula of the eighties but with a significant twist. Consumption of fuel would be defined in terms of energy content rather than volume of a specific fuel type. Instead of limiting fuel to say 150 litres of pump petrol for the duration of a race, it would be defined as limited to say xxx Kilojoules of energy for the race. This is significant for it means that alternative fuels could be used.

Also, the engine type and configuration would be free. And this means the possibility of vastly different types of engines and of course technical innovation and most of all, variety. There would no longer be just V8s or V10s in the field. There could be a methane powered turbocharged V16 and it wouldn't matter. But of course, in focusing on energy consumption, it is the manufacturers who have the advantage. They have been researching these technologies for decades now. At the beginning, I foresee many technologies introduced will not be new ones but simply redeveloped and redeployed for racing purposes. And in the broader scheme of things, as marketing tools.

There are many factors involved with Cosworth's departure from grand prix racing but I wonder if this new future is not one of them. Though they have built alternative fuel powerplants in the shape of methanol Indy race engines, I wonder how their comparatively meager budget could cope with the full weight of different technologies from manufacturer labs, already in advanced state of development. The effort required by the likes of Cosworth to catch up would I think be too much for them.

Change can create new opportunities. There are literally dozens of small, highly innovative companies out there whose main purpose is to develop alternative powerplants. Perhaps from these companies will emerge the new Cosworths and Ilmors of the future. Personally I feel that they should simply specify a simple hydrogen internal combustion (IC) engine formula. It is far easier to adapt your road car to burn hydrogen than it is to say, methanol. In fact, BMW themselves have made significant research into this and if I'm not mistaken, some buses in Los Angeles already use hydrogen IC. Fuel cell technology is expensive so why not use a cheaper, proven technology instead? Hydrogen combustion is clean and the technology is already in use everyday by you and me. This would have been better for it meant that companies like Cosworth could still be relevant to grand prix racing.

So much for Cosworth but what of Ferrari? I mean, they are a manufacturer of road cars as well to be sure. But theirs are high performance road cars. I mean, I love Ferrari road cars (in stark contrast to the racing team) but try defining the social relevance of a Ferrari 599 GTB. Ferrari are in many ways are in the same boat as Cosworth. Though their business be highly profitable and thus affords them a larger R & D budget but how will they steal an edge over the manufacturers who, as I said, already have alternative technologies long in development. That will be interesting. And as far as governance in the sport is concerned, it will be interesting to see how they plan to get their way what with the GPMA scoring such a significant victory by being at the "board level" in future decision making.

It seems slightly sinister then that the sport will effectively become a manufacturer testing facility. What started as a championship to find the world's best driver and racing team have now been infused with new objectives of road, social and industry relevance. In the past, I have condemned this as an unnecessary corruption of what is racing's pinnacle. But I am in the minority I know. Predicting the future one way or another is often foolish, so I'll just hope that at least the (new) Establishment will form detailed regulations that bring about more spectator excitement, such as measures to improve overtaking.

Living Fast

Strange to hear drivers talk these days. Take Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen. Fernando recently claimed that three world titles would be enough for him before retiring from the sport. And in this story on ITV-F1, Kimi says that his three year contract with Ferrari may be his last. One could contrast this with Senna and Schumacher. Both loved racing and in particular, winning. During their time in Formula 1, both frequently made statements that they would continue doing so until the day came when they were no longer quick enough. Who knows how long Senna would have lasted had he not had that fatal accident? And of course, Michael as everyone knows lasted a mammoth 15 full seasons in Formula 1.

One would think that Kimi at 27 and Fernando at 25 years of age, still have the best part of at least 8 - 10 years left in the sport. But it seems that it is not in their plans to remain that long. Although it must be said that at the end of Kimi's Ferrari contract, he would have competed in 9 full seasons. In Fernando's case and the way he is going right now, he should not have to wait that long for a third world title. Although if one remembers correctly, it took a while before Michael won his third. Say that Fernando does take at a least 3 seasons to win his next (assuming McLaren doesn't recover its form), he would have only done 8 seasons.

Perhaps its not just the age that matters. In 2009 Fernando and Kimi would be 28 and 30 years old respectively. Relative toddlers compared to Coulthard and de la Rosa today. I'm sure they would still have the speed and if we remember Michael, would still be at the top of their game. Perhaps the constant pressure to perform on and off the track are the major factors. Michael made his name and came to prominence at a time when commercial pressures were not quite what it is today. Kimi and Alonso on the other hand have had to deal with it throughout their careers.

One could argue that had Ferrari not enjoyed their superiority in the new millenium, Michael would probably have retired a lot earlier than he did. I don't believe him for one moment that he had Massa's career in mind when he took the decision to retire. I believe the 2005 season did have an effect on him. As Giorgio Ascanelli once said of Senna, a world champion doesn't fight for fourth place. And in 2006, I'm sure the effort it took to try and catch Alonso (which ended in failure) also must have weighed deeply in his mind. Never mind the Spaniard, there were days when even Filipe Massa could easily match and beat him. As was for Senna, I firmly believe that winning was Michael's narcotic. If the events of the past couple of years had happened sooner, I think 2003 or 2004 would have been his last year.

Michael had felt the pressure from younger rivals and I'm sure both Kimi and Fernando are aware of the new breed of drivers coming in. This year itself has seen Nico Rosberg and Robert Kubica make an immediate impact. Next year, we'll probably have Lewis Hamilton and sooner or later Sebastien Vettel will surely replace Heidfeld just as Nelson Piquet Jr. seems destined to take a Renault seat once Enstone has had enough of Fisichella. All these new drivers are terribly quick and will exert even more pressure on both Kimi and Fernando. Sentiments? Bah. It all flies out the window these days (and in the pinnacle of sport, why shouldn't it?). I think Michael (but only through his speed and greatness) could command sentiment from the likes of Ferrari and he will be the last. With more young pups so eager to break in to the sport and prepared to do anything to please (and in the case of Hamilton, with the full support of the media), its only a matter of time before an increasingly critical eye is cast on the likes of Kimi and Fernando.

Hopefully, McLaren and Ferrari can both give proper machinery to Fernando and Kimi for it would be a shame to lose either of them to retirement so soon. If despite being in the position they are in, both are already thinking ahead to retirement, I wonder how a certain Jenson Button must feel? I'm quite certain with all the trouble he has caused with contractual obligations etc and with the relative lack of results, the pressure must mount on him as well.

Sanctions and Licenses

Interesting story on GrandPrix.com caught my eye today. To summarize, the Toro Rosso drivers Vitantonio Liuzzi and Scott Speed have been prohibited from taking part in the forthcoming Supernationals X kart race in Las Vegas. The organisers of the race Superkarts USA have been advised by the FIA that both Liuzzi and Speed would stand to lose their superlicenses if they proceed with participation.

Wow. The similarities between the FIA and their worldwide affiliates, specifically their Malaysian ASN, are indeed striking. Allow me to elaborate further. You see, Superkarts USA are not affiliated with the FIA. This means that races organised by Superkarts USA are not sanctioned by the FIA. And the FIA it would seem frowns upon drivers competing in these non-sanctioned events. In this case, both Liuzzi and Speed who do hold FIA licenses have been told that their licenses would be docked if they did.

The question is, why should the FIA prohibit drivers from other motorsports competition? Even ones that do not fall under their jurisdiction. In Malaysia, we have had extensive experience of this type of phenomenon. The local ASN in Malaysia is the Automobile Association of Malaysia (AAM). Competitors (both the rich and well connected and the poor and anonymous), race organisers and though they would surely deny it, even the Sepang International Circuit (SIC) management are united in their hatred for the AAM. Just like its international parent, this is a very closed, autocratic and very domineering organisation run by the very egotistical. Curiously, their tagline is "Your No. 1 Motoring Friend in Malaysia." Uhuh.

But unlike the FIA, the AAM have been accused of doing very little to champion the cause of motorsports in the country. But if you run any motoring event, then they love to make it their business to take part in it, under the guise of safety (but in actual fact contributing very little to this). Oh and of course, not forgetting charging exorbitant sanction fees which they insist on doing whether you like it or not. Many a race organiser have felt their heavy handedness. And that ladies and gents, includes the SIC. Heh heh.

Even when a race organiser has obtained proper permits from local authorities and in some cases, even encouraged to do so by the local authorities, the AAM insist on stepping in. In some cases, they have even attempted to totally stop the event from taking place. AAM officials have been known to attend these events and attempted to lay down the law and in the most overbearing manner you could think of. I think that that is a little more than arrogant on their part. But thankfully, most events do manage to happen despite their best efforts to put an end to it.

On the flip side, drivers who do hold AAM (FIA) competition licenses are afraid of competing in these non-sanctioned events. The AAM, just like the FIA, have been known to issue threats to these drivers. Compete and you will stand to lose your licenses. And this happens to the dismay of many competitors. Racers being racers, any form of motorsport competition is good. Even drag and drift events. No harm in participating and its all good fun. The effect of these prohibitions are that most of these smaller events are missing the top drivers.

I say "smaller" because of the size and budgets of the organisers. But in actual fact, attendances at these local events far outstrip any AAM sanctioned race bar the Malaysian Grand Prix and the Cub Prix. Just check out the Saturday night drift events at the Elite Karting circuit and you'll know why. The MME organisers would kill for crowds like that.

The big question is why? Why should the FIA and its affiliates stop licensed competitors from competing in non-sanctioned events? Of course, they have the power to do so and its within their rights as license issuers. But is it fair? Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to their reasons. The official line from the AAM is on the grounds of safety. The AAM ensures the proper safety of competitors and spectators. Hmmm..... I should like to ask Eric Yeo (a local racer) whether he thought the Jugra event at Shah Alam was... "safe" what with that misplaced pole lying about on the circuit making a hole on his windscreen and poking right through the passenger side?

I should think the average drift or drag event is no more dangerous than say rallying, which is sanctioned. So why the big fuss? We could test it on the assumption of legal liability. The FIA and affiliates are recognised as the authorities on motorsports and motoring in general. One could, not unreasonably then, that legal indemnity and insurance is easier to obtain should a race be sanctioned by them. However, any event organiser worth his two cents would remember to paste disclaimers on tickets and signboards. And so far, no local race organiser I know of has failed to obtain insurance cover for their events, whether these be sanctioned or not. Especially since all organisers obtain permits from the police and local councils and have firemen and ambulances on standby.

Whilst insurance and indemnities do cover financial liability, there is also the question of possible criminal liability due to negligence. There really hasn't been a case as yet in Malaysia and none that I can think of world wide but to cover such cases, it is perhaps wiser for organisers to have their events sanctioned and then if anything went wrong, the FIA can and must step in for it would be their responsibility already. But surely an organisation such as Superkarts USA would already have thought about this. And surely any number of insurance companies who have provided cover for non-sanctioned events are also aware of these risks.

As for the driver's safety... well, motorsport in any form and in any event is inherently a dangerous activity. Any competitors knows this and deals with it appropriately. But really, even the London Marathon has been know to suffer fatalities.

At the end of the day, I know Max Mosley is incredibly obsessed with safety and that is a good thing. I'm not sure if the FIA affiliates are quite so passionate. To the cynics, affiliates such the AAM are only interested in the enormous sanctioning fees. You may ask, why not simply pay them? Well, with the prices they charge most organisers simply could not afford it, particularly since these organisers charge very little entrance fees. Such fees would then need to be covered by higher entrance charges that in the end keep the crowds away.

In the case of Superkarts USA, they did attempt to make their Las Vegas event sanctioned by the CIK but this, for whatever reason, simply did not happen. And as such the two Toro Rosso drivers have been forced to exclude themselves. But this is a pity for fans in the USA. And I'm sure Liuzzi and Speed would have welcomed the opportunity for a little bit of fun.