Rebels challenge FIA - have your say... response.

WilliamsF1 and McLaren announced last Thursday that they will be taking the FIA to arbitration following changes to the regulations on January 15 and following this 'challenge', we at Crash.net wanted to know what you the reader, thought...

Below are your responses, and while there was sympathy, and indeed praise for the action taken against the FIA, some were a lot less positive.

The Crash.net poll also focussed on this issue, asking: "Are WilliamsF1 and McLaren right to take the FIA to arbitration following changes to the regulations on January 15?" 69.5 per cent [673 votes] said "No" disagreeing with their decision, while a minority, [30.5 per cent [295 votes]] felt they were correct.

Here is what those of you who sent us comments had to say...

"The changes themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, however there is a real case to say that by working in a unilateral way the FIA is actually undermining the 'nature' of F1 in a very fundamental way.

"The most frustrating thing is that with three weeks to go, there is not a clear sense of what the rules actually are! With new regulations being proposed on a seemingly 'weekly' basis how can teams, drivers and fans keep up with what is going on? Is it a case of 'too much, too late'? I think so."

Richard Sergeant (28) - Britain.

"I believe McLaren and Williams are correct to challenge the new rules. These changes will make testing less effective leaving more chances for a car to be unable to finish the race resulting in less excitement for the race fans. Monitoring of the cars should be allowed again to try and insure as many cars running at the finish as possible.

"Formula 1 is the absolute pinnacle of racing and as such should be the leader in technology and exotic vehicles. There are plenty of other racing venues with lesser cars - we need one to stand out above all others.

"The team who has the ability to build the best car should win and not be hindered by some rules to try to even out the grid. We have seen certain teams dominate for short periods over the years and these things always change. No one stays on top forever."

Gary Carter (55) - USA.

"I agree with Frank Williams and Ron Dennis. You can not change the rules of a championship every day."

Catalin Petru Hulbocianu (33) - Canada.

"Every true fan of Formula One should find the changes by FIA on January 15th to be unacceptable. They have managed to take Formula One and dilute, and overnight it will turn into an exact duplicate of Formula 3000.

"I hope McLaren and Williams are successful, if not we will soon see the big players jump ship, leaving F1 to the amateurish participants. Will it be detrimental? Yes.

"What about Porsche? Rumours have been flying about their intent to join F1. Over time they will be very competitive, but why would they join now? What benefit will F1 bring to car manufactures? Absolutely none. I'll tell you right now, when GPWC start their racing league - crossing fingers - I, along with the true fans, will no longer need F1. Those of you who disagree with me, go watch F3000."
Richard Henretta (24) - USA.

"I have only been a Formula 1 fan now for just over two years. Coverage was limited in the States, and none of the major media outlets even acknowledged the existence of anything but NASCAR, CART, and sometimes, IRL.

"So when I happened upon a replay of a race on Speedvision back in 2000, I was hooked. Since that time, my infatuation with the sport has only grown. Being an engineering student, I can truly appreciate the design that goes into these machines. The results seem to defy physics.

"As the economy started to slump in the States, I made the connection that there were quite a few sponsors, especially on the Williams, that seemingly had no money to stay in business, let alone sponsor a Formula 1 effort. My fears that a team would enter into severe financial troubles were confirmed when the Prost team ceased to exist. I thought that was the worst of it. As we all know, it was not.

"However, let me start by saying, I am on Williams and Mclaren's side. Yes, I do agree the sport is in peril. The loss of two teams in effectively one season is, with the size of a F1 grid, devastating. However, the strong-handed tactics by the FIA are not the solution.

"What drew me to Formula 1 was it's technical superiority. The major racing series in the States uses carburetion as its core technology. I'm not interested in carburetion in the future. Electromagnetic valve actuation, direct injection, powerful engine management software, these are the things our automotive future consists of. Racing is all about pushing the limits of what is today. It is an unavoidable consequence that pushing those limits will result in new and exciting breakthroughs that, while gaining only a tenth or two on the track, or a few hundred extra revs, will be extraordinarily beneficial to the rest of the automotive world some day. Mr. Mosley, I do care if a car runs 16,000 revs or 19,000. I want to see who wins the race, but I also want to see who can break 20,000 rpm.

"McLaren and Williams are apparently the only teams who have the courage to stand up for this point of view. Where is Ferrari? They are busy designing the World Championship hats Michael [Schumacher] will wear for the next two seasons. Why? Because they have already achieved perfection with today's technology. I can almost certainly guarantee that a Ferrari engine, designed to last two, even six races would be bullet-proof as well as more powerful than anyone could match. It is only competition from BMW, with their extraordinary engine development program, that pushes Ferrari further and further now. It is only competition from McLaren that forces the Ferrari wind tunnel engineers to come up with the odd angles and crevices that adorn the front wings and bargeboards of the F2003-GA. It is only competition that can level the playing field.

"Strong handed and unilateral regulation by the FIA is not the proper course of action to push Formula 1 forward. I will not argue that these new regulations may provide a status quo. However, in the business world, to stay stagnant is to perish. Much has been made comparing Formula 1 to a business. As we have learned in the United States recently, a corporation with a CEO who acts unilaterally without the board's consent is doomed to failure. I think there is enough evidence to agree that these decisions were made far too quickly, by far too few people.

"Changes must be made; to this, there is no argument. McLaren and Williams have made a step in he right direction by taking this action. The solution to Formula 1's problems will lie in economic management, not dramatic rule changes. The idea of providing lower cost, current spec engines to non-works teams is an excellent start. I stand firmly behind the belief that designing an engine to last for a day or two, and then casting enough for an entire season, would either equal in cost, or even be less costly, than developing an engine to last for six weekends and casting only a few. As an engineer, I understand this development cost. I do not believe Mr. Mosley does. The manufacturers would be much less likely to share a current spec, six weekend engine with a customer, for a low price, than they would a current spec, one weekend engine to that same customer.

"Revenue sharing, as also proposed by McLaren and Williams, would also be a positive. I may be committing blasphemy, not coming from the UK, but exactly how did [Bernie] Ecclestone become nearly the wealthiest person in the UK? I'm fairly certain he could fund a small team alone... for quite a few years.

"The Formula 1 audience in the United States is small. But by no means are we complacent. We have fought bitterly simply to keep Formula 1 on the air. I would ask the other teams to follow McLaren's and Williams's example, and fight with the conviction we must to keep Formula 1 on our televisions. While I may not speak for everyone a great deal of the audience in the States do care about seeing 19,000 revs on the BMW. Racing, will still the overall purpose, is not the entirety of Formula 1. It is important the world racing community sees this, as the fresh eyes of the American audience do and as McLaren and Williams do too."

Brian Meredith (21) - USA.

"I am a Ferrari follower, but Williams and McLaren have it right, especially in stating that F1 is being "dumb-ed down".

"The FIA are very wrong in assuming that no followers of the sport are interested in advances in the application of technology and the capabilities of engines and other equipment. I confess to just having printed out and read their full statement for the first time, and am losing interest already. I doubt that I am alone.

"The only thing that needed to be done to bring drivers more into the equation was to scrap attachments to the bodywork intended only to produce downforce.
Alex Dick (75) - Britain.

"What surprises me is, that it took this long for this challenge to show up. I think that they are over reacting a little.

"This letter puts everyone on the defensive and will help nothing. The FIA had to do something because the manufactures didn't come up with any concrete steps to solve the current problems in Formula 1. Instead of crying like babies with their toys taken away, they should be trying to work with some of the other teams (won't happen) and the FIA to remove a couple of the stupid proposals that the FIA came up with - mainly, engines lasting for several races and no radio communication.

"I do think that their ideas for the TV money are very good. The question I have for Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA is why have they been ignoring this?"

Brett VanDyke (34) - USA.

"It's about time the teams stood back and took a look at the big picture. As a racing fan I really couldn't care less how the technology works or how it is applied I just want to see the best drivers racing the best cars.

"That means manual gearboxes, no driver aids and as little outside interference as possible. Better still would be a vast reduction in down force and a return to slick tyres - good mechanical grip low down force - it would allow a car to get near too and god forbid overtake another without the aerodynamic penalties associated with wings, under-trays etc.

"A degree of mechanical sympathy, the ability to make a set of tyres last longer, or work out a race strategy as a race developed used to be an art form long since lost in and era of multiple tyre stops, engine management, auto gearboxes and pit to car radios.

"The next step on the road being taken by F1 is to dispense with the services of a driver (probably not that difficult with the current level of technology) and investing the money saved in a new wind tunnel and a few more computer geeks.

"To the team bosses I say wake up and realise that you are in the entertainment business and Formula One is no longer entertaining. Anything introduced to "roll the dice" has to be good."

Mark Davey (42) - Britain.

"I am of the view that many changes must be made to Formula 1 for it survive the next ten years. I draw attention to one paragraph in particular from the Williams/McLaren letter:

"The second challenge stems from the general economic slowdown in the world economy and the substantial reductions in advertising spending. This has caused the Teams significant short-term problems. Again, however, we see this as a relatively short-term problem. Formula One remains an excellent opportunity for advertisers, offering excellent brand exposure. When advertising spending picks up the Teams' revenues will increase."

"This is very short-sighted. What if advertising revenue doesn't increase for ten years? It's possible and measures should be taken to ensure that F1 can survive. If it does increase and measures have been taken, there will be no problem.

"The current spending levels in F1 are unsustainable and unless changes are made to bring these costs down significantly, teams will disappear and there will never again be any new teams entering F1.

"However, despite the relative urgency required to bring in some changes to the rules, it needs to be well thought out. We've already had the FIA backtrack on some new rules, which weren't well-thought out enough.

"It appears that the engine rules proposed for future seasons will not easily be accepted by the teams, and in my opinion, they do 'dumb-down' F1 to a certain extent. I do not expect these rules to ever be implemented. However, the teams were given the opportunity to bring in their own cost-cutting measures and failed to make any progress, so Max Moseley has been forced to make these changes.

"I can understand the annoyance of Williams and McLaren to see these changes put in at the last moment, but they appear unable to look beyond their own interests. If other teams drop out, McLaren wins won't be an achievement and they will die with the sport. Safeguarding the existing teams will safeguard F1's future so it is in the interest of McLaren and Williams.

"In addition to cost-cutting, the 'show' needs to improve. The majority of people watching F1 do not enjoy processions. Some of the recent rule changes, I believe, are a vast improvement, in particular the one-lap qualifying and the electronic-aid removal proposed for the British GP. One-lap qualifying is perfect for television and the potential to open out the grid a little more, without giving or removing any advantage to a particular driver or team. However, the recent 'no refuelling' rule change is ridiculous. This removes all of the spectacle of the one-lap qualifying since no-one will really know who is quick or not and the achievement of pole position will no longer be worth noting.

"Also during the race the race positions may change frequently as cars on different strategies pit. Exciting? No, just very confusing and unnecessary. When has a pitstop ever been exciting? This is the one rule change I hope is reversed."

Stuart Collin (23) - Britain.

"I don't really think the changes announced on January 15 are going to be detrimental to Formula One because these rules make it much more fun for the fans. I also don't think it is 'dumbing down' F1. Indeed the changes will make it much more difficult for the driver. And the drivers will now know who can cope with the pressure.

"Formula 1 will always be Formula 1 - it is the pinnacle of motorsport. F1 is the queen class and now it is even better with these new rules.

"As for reducing driver safety, the risk to drivers will always be there. The main problem though is that the teams weren't given long enough notice. Most of the cars were already built and designed, so it would have been better if some of the changes had come in, in 2004 not 2003.

"However in my view, they [McLaren and Williams] do seem to be over-reacting. They are just afraid they are going to get their arse kicked again by Ferrari. In my view the FIA had to act."

Erik Gay (21) - Belgium.

Finally Crash.net would like to thank all those people that replied to our "...have your say" story as without them this article would not be possible.
Crash.net would also like to reassure people that those replying to us via our views@crash.net email will NOT have their details passed on to any third party or added to any mailing list.