For the drivers, street circuits provide a different challenge to traditional permanent facilities like Monza, with Monaco being not only one of the biggest challenges for a racing driver, but also (and arguably) the sport’s flagship event. However, Valencia hasn’t provided quite the same thrill in terms of racing spectacle and Singapore, while better, really has only one or two things going for it, chiefly the fact it is currently Formula One’s only 100% night race.

Although street circuits offer drivers, teams and fans a different type of grand prix, the traditional venues like Silverstone, Spa Francorchamps (which is now a permanent facility, I believe) and Monza are required to add contrast to the championship calendar. Generally faster with more variety in corners and overtaking possibilities, the old autodromes of Europe are still massively popular and make up the foundations of Formula One’s character.

The deal to keep the Italian Grand Prix at Monza is a wise move from Bernie Ecclestone and although the track may not be able to boast the kind of facilities that Abu Dhabi can, the circuit can easily offer more in terms of character, appeal and racing. Autodromo Nazionale di Monza has hosted the Italian Grand Prix since the championship’s inception in 1950, with the sole exception of 1980 event which was held at nearby Imola.

More information on Autodromo Nazionale di Monza can be found on the Italian Grand Prix page.

Image © HondaF1.

Original article by BlogF1.

Monza Retains Italian Grand Prix Until 2016

The drivers are insisting that they need their physios on the grid with them to ensure they are in perfect physical condition prior to starting the grand prix. In the past, the start/finish line has always been a flurry of people, including those bystanders handing their drivers fluids, towels and other paraphernalia that goes with their jobs.

According to a leading driver who has spoken to Autosport but wishes to remain anonymous, the drivers are angry at not being allowed to have their physios with them and have stated that the protest will continue at the next race in Australia if the passes are not re-issued.

Bernie Ecclestone has retorted by saying that he believes the grid is too busy, filled with too many unnecessary people. Ecclestone has told the drivers that if they want extra people on the grid, they need to organise the passes with their teams. However, with strict controls on how many passes are handed out, they are in very short supply.

Martin Brundle summed it up quite well while commentating his wander through the cars, saying that the grid is usually a hive of activity, with celebrities and stars mixing with drivers and team staff. Alas, the Bahrain grid was just lightly-littered with dignitaries and ex-champions, having just completed their own parade to celebrate 60 years of the World Championship.

Original article by BlogF1.

Drivers Protest Over Grid Access Refusal For Physiotherapists

Construction has begun on the new ~$360m circuit, located in the Greater Noida area, approximately 40km from India’s capital city, New Delhi. Currently named the Jaypee Group Circuit, the track will reside in a larger complex of other leisure amenities, notably a golf course, cricket stadium and sports academy (much like the Yas Island project in Abu Dhabi).

When Ecclestone was asked about a possible return to Indianapolis for the United States Grand Prix, Bernie seemed positive about wanting to make it happen, and said the famous speedway was the best venue to hold the event.

It’s only the fact that it’s all the wrong crowd and the wrong people and they didn’t really… nothing worked there really, we’d have to have a big change round. But we’d like to get back there. Bernie Ecclestone.

Formula One will return to North America this year when the teams arrive in Montreal for the Canadian Grand Prix. However, with such a large automobile market, the USA is an important area that the sport has neglected in recent times.

More information on the Jaypee Group Circuit can be found at BlogF1’s sister site, AerialF1.

Original article by BlogF1.

Bernie Ecclestone Suggests 20-Race Calendar For 2011

Original article by BlogF1.

Caption Contest: #101

However, with a new Concorde Agreement in place, it would appear that an understanding has been met among those signatories that allows teams to miss up to 3 races before being shown the exit of the sport and the entrance of the courtroom. This apparent agreement was presumably made with the new teams in mind, particularly if they cannot build a chassis and pass the relevant crash tests in time for Bahrain in mid-March.

The FIA have published a statement saying that should a team miss a race, it would not go unnoticed and would constitute a breach of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA regulations. This of course implies penalties and more than likely, a forfeit of revenues.

From a sporting and regulatory point of view, each team that has registered for the championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season.

Any failure to take part, even for just one championship event, would constitute an infringement both of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA Regulations. FIA Statement.

Is it acceptable for a team to miss an event, for whatever reason, or should the sport stick to its recent traditions and enforce the participation of every grand prix under penalty of exclusion/courtroom hearings? While it is never nice to hear of teams going into battle with the governing body and/or the commercial rights holder, having every team at every race does mean consistency, competition and at the end of the of the day, sport. Or is the hard-and-fast rule failing to take into account the hardships of recent times and the fact the sport now has more teams competing, and therefore one or two may not necessarily be missed?

Original article by BlogF1.

Daily Debate: Is It Acceptable For Teams To Miss Races?

One of the first areas of interest to be discussed and widely reported in the media is that of the media itself. What made the quotes coming out of Monaco all the more enticing though is that it wasn’t the traditional media in the spotlight, and instead the focus appeared to be more on the Internet and how Formula One is broadcast and viewed around the world.

Many of Formula One’s fans have access to the Internet and although I don’t have an exact number, I’m am certain that it is expected to grow in the next few years. This is also the feeling of many of the sport’s promoters as well as individuals and companies that have an interest in new media. And with an increase in popularity of the Internet, as well as advances continuously being made in how information can be made available and digested via a phone line, much of Formula One currently looks a bit antiquated.

I have long been advocating further use of the Internet by Formula One, and in comparison to other sports and even other disciplines within the field of motor sport, Formula One is only just beginning to catch on. The sport’s former UK broadcaster ITV only started showing live footage online in 2008, and the BBC have continued with this during their first year back in 2009. However, because of the way broadcasting contracts are dealt with, it isn’t necessarily up to Bernie Ecclestone to enforce this to happen.

What this means is that although UK viewers have the luxury of being able to watch the sport via the Internet, including sessions not broadcast via the television (free practices), some countries still do not allow this. It is up to the individual broadcasting company to initiate online viewing, and this is something I feel to be wrong.

Although the idea may not be popular with the traditional broadcasters, it is my belief that all online viewing should be provided and hosted by Formula One itself. FOM should be streaming every session and race from the official site, and this could then be incorporated with the existing Live Timing application. Of course, I say this may not be widely popular because it would detract from the BBC’s effort and others who have already invested considerable sums of money into their own service.

Other issues include commentary and pre/post-race shows. I hasten to add that the only other sport I tend to watch online is surfing, simply because it isn’t available via terrestrial channels in the UK. Yesterday evening I viewed some footage from a contest being held at Waimea Bay in Hawaii, complete with American commentary. Although I am not certain where the onscreen graphics came from, the official site appeared to be the only place on the Internet showing the footage legitimately to an international audience. And if the world of surfing can do this, I’m sure Formula One can.

If bringing the online experience together in one location proves too tricky for Ecclestone to achieve – and there is more on this later – Formula One could do similar to surfing. I mention above that footage from Waimea Bay was broadcast on the official site, but it wasn’t the ASP World Tour site (equivalent to F1.com), but instead the ASP linked out to the event’s official website. Transferring this idea to Formula One, the least Bernie could do is link out to the BBC’s iPlayer and similar from the official site. Or, perhaps finding some middle ground, the Grands Prix websites could host the streaming, perhaps with access to and integration with Formula One’s Live Timing application.

Having said all that though, Bernie Ecclestone will need to given a thorough shake first, and told to get his existing services running properly in the first place. I do watch Formula One online via the BBC’s iPlayer, primarily because I update this site during the sessions. I have the iPlayer and Live Timing on one screen, with BlogF1 and other applications running on another. Believe it or not ladies, male Formula One fans tend to be quite good at multi-tasking.

However, although Live Timing has shown to be a great asset to myself and many, many others, it doesn’t always work. And this is a key issue for me and pushing Bernie to further develop the sport online. I am certain that Live Timing is fairly complex – not the actual gathering of information because that is already there, but instead the broadcasting of that information via the site. I have never sat on the pitwall during a race, but I don’t imagine for a second the teams suffer the same delays, hangs and stalls in the system as we fans do (aside from in Hungary earlier this year). Therefore, I would guess that the problem lies instead with the website, the server/s and the number of people trying to access the information all at the same time.

If and when Bernie Ecclestone can bring himself to part with a little cash to get the Live Timing running reliably, then maybe he should spend some time thinking about how else he can promote the sport that made him the multi-billionaire that I’m sure he is today.

So what was said in Monaco?

One of the key people pushing Formula One to invest further in the online world was the man who is apparently sniffing around Renault at the moment. Aside from hoping to purchase the Renault squad from the French car manufacturer, Gerard Lopez spoke at the forum, suggesting that now is a time for change within the sport. Lopez spoke of encouraging people to invest in the sport and for Formula One to be reaching out to the fans as well as the very people who might want to become involved.

Stuart Codling, a contributor to F1 Racing and Autosport, has recently set up his very own little place on the Internet, and the man is in Monaco right now attending the forum. Stuart has been busy publishing many of the presentations/quotes made along with a few of his own thoughts and insights. I won’t copy down all of the quotes – they run on a fair amount – but instead I encourage you to head over and read everything that was said when you get a spare five minutes. It certainly makes for interesting reading. For now though, here are a few highlights…

The business opportunities in F1 lie very rarely in making money out of your team; they should lie in making money out of the business platform that you have. Gerard Lopez, Mangrove Capital Partners.

The teams can bring the sport closer to the audience. The sport and its environment is going to be forced to change. Gerard Lopez, Mangrove Capital Partners.

Most of the broadcast contracts are based on a way of looking at things from 15, 20, 25 years ago. The fact is that in three or fours years’ time, most people in a lot of countries will be watching it not on TV as we know it today, but over the internet. And that completely redefines how you negotiate contracts and how you distribute content. Gerard Lopez, Mangrove Capital Partners.

We’ve invested heavily in helping media organisations, and especially sports companies who invest vast amounts of money on content rights, to look at different ways of being able to monetise those rights. Primarily that’s through digital media. Neville Wheeler, Cisco Media Solutions Group.

As we all know, motorsport has a global audience, and we’ve got to a point now where you can have any content any time, anywhere in the world on any device. Neville Wheeler, Cisco Media Solutions Group.

Social media is a fantastic way of reaching an audience and keeping them excited on a day-to-day basis. There’s a massive opportunity. But whatever you do, it has to be accessible and reasonably priced. Tony Fernandes, Lotus F1.

I’ll finish up with just one final thought: These people (quoted above) want Formula One to develop into new areas, to be promoted on differing mediums and to be more open and accessible to a wider group of potential fans and investors. They all seem to think it can work, but at the end of the day, the commercial side of the sport is still run by a Mr Bernard Ecclestone. Do you think Formula One and primarily it’s broadcasting and marketing will ever drag itself into the 21st Century? Will Bernie ever learn how to program the VCR…

Original article by BlogF1.

Teaching Ecclestone To Program The VCR

In 2008, Bernie Ecclestone sensationally announced that Donington Park had signed a deal which would see the Leicestershire circuit host the British Grand Prix from 2010. However, funding issues and disputes got in the way and after Ecclestone had extended deadlines various times, the deal was called off. Silverstone then set about negotiating with Ecclestone to reclaim the event, which was finally announced this morning.

The title of Silverstone as home of motorsport has come true. It is a place for all motorsport. Everyone in the BRDC loves motorsport and we are looking forward to the MotoGP as well as the British Grand Prix.

It is not easy to enter into a contract of this magnitude and you have to take on a lot of responsibility, but the BRDC wanted this relationship to continue.

Everyone was well aware that the British GP is not just a sporting event, but it is dynamo of the industry in this country. Losing it would have been damaging and perhaps there would have been no coming back. Damon Hill.

The news means that Formula One will continue to have a British event and will undoubtedly come as good news to British fans. The majority of teams on the grid are based in Britain and the nation has long been involved with the sport, and currently enjoying great success with both Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button.

Although the deal is for 17 years, taking on what had been offered to Donington Park, there is a clause in the contract to break the deal after 10 years, although Silverstone’s managing director Richard Phillips said this is not what he wants to happen. Phillips and Hill also spoke more of the planned schedule of works due to be carried out, starting after Christmas.

Even this year with the new circuit we are trying to get better access for public, changing granstands for better viewing and running our own campsites to be better than the current ones.

We want to increase the entertainment factor. Richard Phillips.

Interestingly, Bernie Ecclestone has changed his tone considerably. Previously, Ecclestone had been quite anti-Silverstone, stating that even if the Donington deal fell through, Formula One would not return to the old airbase. However, this morning Bernie had nothing but good things to say, stating he is pleased Britain will continue to feature in the world championship.

I am pleased that we have reached an agreement with Silverstone for the retention of the British Grand Prix. This will ensure that Great Britain will remain on the Formula 1 calendar for many years to come, which is something I have personally always wanted to see happen.

The team at Silverstone already knows how to organise a good event, so now everyone can look forward to next summer at Silverstone. Bernie Ecclestone.

With Woking-based McLaren fielding both British champions on the 2010 grid, the race should draw huge crowds, although the new facilities and circuit will not be ready until 2011. The circuit will also host a round of the MotoGP championship.

Original article by BlogF1.

British Grand Prix To Remain At Silverstone

What Renault may have done at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix is serious and most certainly not trivial. To plan and ask for a driver to crash in order to benefit the team mate’s chances of victory is simply wrong and should be dealt with a heavy hand. If Pat Symonds and Flavio Briatore did indeed ask Nelson Piquet Jr to slam his R28 into the barrier just after Fernando Alonso’s pitstop last year, then the trio should simply not be allowed to return to motor sport. If what Piquet says is true, the decision is unsporting of the highest order.

Of course, we do not yet know this is the case, as the hearing into Formula One’s latest controversy will not be held until tomorrow. However, the sudden departure of Symonds and Briatore from the Renault team looks from the outside to be an admission of guilt. If the Renault management are innocent, there would be no reason to leave. It is interesting to note though, the FIA have not yet singled out Symonds and Briatore and instead have called the hearing with Renault, implying that the pair’s leaving will not yet change anything.

To also add further to that, it is of course plain and clear that Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds asked Nelson Piquet crash. Bernie Ecclestone has spoken of the sadness of the affair and how Briatore’s career has ended poorly, and the Italian himself has briefly spoken of having to make the moral decision and save the team by standing down. While no official judgment will be made until tomorrow at the earliest, it would appear that Piquet has told the truth.

So why should Briatore, Symonds and Piquet be banned from motor sport should the hearing favour Nelson’s statement? Or perhaps more to the point, can they be banned? In 2008, Nigel Stepney went before the FIA to defend himself against allegations of sabotage and espionage. As it turns out, the FIA said they could not prevent Stepney from seeking employment in Formula One because he is not a licensee of the governing body. Instead, the FIA sent out a strong warning to its licensees telling them to be very careful and to use due diligence should they be looking to hire the ex-Ferrari employee.

Therefore, if Stepney was not a licensee of the FIA, one can only presume Flavio Briatore, Pat Symonds and Nelson Piquet Jr are not either. Perhaps even more so now that all three are not working within the sport. It would also be a great shame if Renault are punished severely too (assuming the decision was only between the three currently implicated), particularly if that led to the withdrawal of the team. Of all the recent squads in the sport, Honda and BMW included, Renault seemed to have the most flakey outlook with regards to continued participation. And while team bosses do not wish to discuss the team’s future involvement in Formula One at the moment, questions are being asked. If a race ban gets handed down to Renault, even if it’s just until the end of the year, I can see the squad packing up and selling on. Hopefully, the evidence will only concern the management and their resignations will be taken into account.

And why, you may be asking, am I throwing Piquet in with Briatore and Symonds, especially as the Brazilian has been given immunity by the FIA for making a statement? Well, because in my view Piquet is just as guilty as the instigators. If a boxer is approached by someone with a suitcase full of cash and told to go down in the third round, and consequently does go down, both people are guilty of match fixing. And more often than not, it is the boxer who everybody remembers and receives the most damage to the reputation.

Although there was probably no suitcase of cash, Piquet states clearly that he felt complying to the demands of Briatore and Symonds would ensure him a better position to get his contract renewed for 2009. Just because the cash is electronically transferred from one account to the other in the form of a salary does not make it any less shady when it results from doing something wrong and damaging to the sport.

And so I think that is just about all I want to write on the recent Renault scandal. BlogF1 has been quiet these past few days simply because I am sick to the core of the controversies that seem to embroil the sport every six months or so. Many of us felt that when Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlin were caught sharing information, the sport would be rocked. Quite simply, it was. Although Formula One recovered, the time spent dealing with the issue filled me with a sadness I had hoped would not return.

Of course, this wasn’t the first big moment to affect the sport, but it is the one I remember the most in my time of watching Formula One and the one I consider the first for me. Since then, it seems the sport has been put through the blender several times, with notable thanks to Max Mosley, Lewis Hamilton and Dave Ryan, the stupid budget cap idea and resulting breakaway threats (that one is Max again) and many, many more. The controversies seem to be never-ending in a sport that is actually about going around a race track as quickly as possible.

Controversial moments are inevitable, as I have already mentioned, and you cannot really prevent them from happening. A driver will cut across a chicane and not receive punishment, or will receive a punishment that is perhaps unjust. A team will design a radical new part that fits the rules as they are written and the other teams will throw their toys out of the pram. These aren’t a big deal in the long term. Unsporting behaviour from some the sport’s most respected managers and engineers is, and although Ecclestone may revel in the headlines his commercial asset is generating, we really only want to watch the racing.

People say its been a torrid year but it always is in F1. There’s always something going on. It’s never peaceful. Bernie Ecclestone.

Original article by BlogF1.

There’s Always Something Going On, It’s Never Peaceful

Original article by BlogF1.

Caption Contest: #99

We are delighted that the Suzuka Circuit will now safeguard one of our most important national sporting events by playing host to the Japanese Grand Prix for the next three years. Hiroshi Oshima.

Suzuka will host the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix as planned in early-October, and then continue to do so in 2010 and 2011. The figure-of-eight track has created some great racing moments over the years, the circuit having hosted the first Japanese Grand Prix in the sport’s history, back in 1963. Although the event was not part of the official championship, it was Formula One cars that were thundering around the corners.

The event was finally integrated into the championship in 1976, but it was Fuji that got the nod. After a couple of years, the race disappeared from the calendar for a decade, but returned in 1986, this time at Suzuka. The Japanese Grand Prix remained at Suzuka and usually placed at or near the end of the year. In 2006 a deal was struck with Fuji for the speedway to take over the reigns of the event and Suzuka received some investment and updates in it facilities. Desperate to return to the calendar, another deal was struck whereby the venues would alternate the grand prix, but in July 2009, Fuji announced it had to relinquish the race in order to survive.

More information on Suzuka and the Japanese Grand Prix can be found on BlogF1’s (developing) sister site, Google Circuits.

Original article by BlogF1.

Suzuka Extends Deal To Host Japanese Grand Prix For Two More Years

The Concorde Agreement sets out how the sport is run, its commercial income and how it is divided up among the competing teams and also what became a real sticking point up until very recently, the rules and how they will change in the coming years.

Following approval by the World Motor Sport Council, late last night FIA President Max Mosley signed the 2009 Concorde Agreement, heralding a renewed period of stability for the FIA Formula One World Championship.

The Concorde Agreement – a contract between the FIA, F1’s Commercial Rights-Holder and the participating Teams – sets out the basis on which the Teams participate in the Championship and share in its commercial success.

The WMSC has also approved a slightly revised set of stable Sporting and Technical Regulations (to apply from the 2010 Championship onwards), which have been agreed by the FIA and the Teams and which will be published shortly on the FIA’s website.

The new Concorde Agreement, which runs until 31 December 2012, provides for a continuation of the procedures in the 1998 Concorde Agreement, with decisions taken by working groups and commissions, upon which all teams have voting rights, before going to the WMSC for ratification.

In addition, as agreed in Paris on 24 June 2009, the Teams have entered into a resource restriction agreement, which aims to return expenditure to the levels that prevailed in the early 1990s.

With the 2009 Concorde Agreement and the resource restriction agreement in place, the FIA looks forward to a period of stability and prosperity in the FIA Formula One World Championship. FIA Statement.

All teams have agreed to the terms of the new Concorde Agreement with the exception of BMW who withdrew from the 2010 championship earlier in the week. However, should the German motor manufacturer wish to sell the team on to another company, they will need to sign the agreement, and the FIA have apparently set a deadline of August 5th for this to happen.

The new Concorde Agreement appears to be a continuation of the already-in-place measures contained in the previous 1998 Agreement, but with an added section pertaining to the need to reduce costs back down to those levels seen in the early ’90s. According to the FIA, the rules for the 2010 championship have been altered slightly, and these will be published to the FIA website sometime soon.

Original article by BlogF1.

New Concorde Agreement Signed

Well according to Bernie Ecclestone, it apparently does. When USF1 were first rumoured, this was the name that was associated with them, and to be perfectly fair, it makes an awful lot of sense. Anderson and Windsor wanted the operation to be centred around American industries, with American drivers and cars designed and built in the United States.

A Formula One team from North America? USF1 sounds about right to me, and also to the rest of the world.

The new team quickly set about claiming a domain on the Internet for their project and put up a simple logo. However, it wasn’t long before the USF1.com website was pulled (and it now redirects to a different domain). At the same time, a rumour started to do the rounds suggesting that Ecclestone had requested USF1 to change their name, the term F1 not being allowed to be used by anyone other than Bernie himself.

This issue of the term F1 goes back a few years, and Ecclestone has apparently insisted he holds the trademark for it. Among the journalists reporting on Formula One, much mockery was made of having to put the symbol ™ after each instance of the letter ‘F’ and the number ‘1′ in close proximity. You can only imagine the ridiculousness of this when scrolling through even BlogF1. Sorry, BlogF1™.

And while USF1 were laying claim to USGPE.com as a new home for their online activities, current team Force India were told to adjust their logo, the suggestion being the initials of the team, FI, looked very similar to F1 in their stylised lettering. The logo was changed to include a lowercase ‘i’ instead. The 2008 original logo can be seen in the photograph at the top of the page.

So United States Formula One became United States Grand Prix Engineering, or USGPE, and further mocking of Ecclestone’s stance on the letter-and-number ensued. However, a recent interview with USF1’s Ken Anderson suggests another possible reason for the change in name. Speaking to Autosport in May, Anderson was asked the following:

What is the latest situation regarding the team name, because there were some reports that it had changed?

To which Anderson responded with:

Well, the name didn’t change because “USF1″ was the project name, and it leaked out like that. The thing is, we are not approved to use the term “F1″ until we are in, so it is almost a Catch 22 situation. We can talk about it, but we can’t use it until we are in – so we just took it off the website and had another domain registered – USGPE.

When further pressed by Autosport with the question:

So the team will remain USF1, if you get an entry?

Anderson clarified with the following answer:

Yes. If you look around at other teams, if you use the “F1″ in your name you have to use the word team as well. So we will be Team USF1.

And as the entry list confirmed when it was published in June, it had “Team USF1″ listed among the current and new teams.

So it would seem that the ruling regarding the use of the term ‘F1′, it is allowed providing the name also includes the word ‘Team’. Which strikes me as odd. Very odd, in fact. I can understand that the use of the term ‘F1′ may only be used in certain circumstances (and even then, that is highly arguable and I personally will argue it), allowing the term providing it is accompanied with the word ‘team’ makes little sense other than to differentiate between something that is officially F1 and something that is not. But then, Formula One is officially known as ‘Formula 1′. The logo makes use of the initials, but who would want to use that dated old thing anyway…?

Of course, USF1 are not owned by a company directly related to the company of Formula One – one of Ecclestone’s FOM companies – but interestingly, Formula One Management is not Formula 1 Management. And to open the floodgates even further, Williams are officially known as and have been for many years as WilliamsF1…

To be perfectly frank, Formula One teams, in my humble opinion, should be forced to include the term ‘F1′ in their names. Red Bull race and sponsor many categories, Renault have a Formula One team, but also put their name to other motor sport series as well as a giant automobile manufacturing business. While those in the know are aware that Red Bull Racing is the Formula One team, others may not and think it is some junior formulae outfit, or a spin-off PR company, or…

By including the term F1, people know exactly what you are talking about. Of course, common sense isn’t always that common, even in the wiser folk who run the sport known as Team F1™.

Original article by BlogF1.

QIF1: What’s In A Name?

Wheatcroft & Sons, the family owned company that owns Donington Park, lease the track to Donington Ventures Leisure Limited, who run motor sporting events as well as music festivals on the land. However, DVLL owe £2.47m in rent to WSL, and this is why legal proceedings have commenced. If DVLL have their contract revoked, then the British Grand Prix is in serious trouble.

Bernie Ecclestone has insisted that Silverstone will not hold the British Grand Prix again, despite the circuit investing a lot of money in redevelopments of the old airfield. Such is Ecclestone’s disgruntlement towards Silverstone’s owners, the BRDC, that Ecclestone would rather drop the race from the calendar or postpone it until Donington can get its act together.

If the work at Donington is not finished in time, we would be happy to skip a year. I don’t want to lose the British Grand Prix, that’s the last thing we want to do, but we aren’t going to Silverstone for sure. Bernie Ecclestone, speaking to The Times.

One has to question why Ecclestone has allowed this to happen, and the bad press this saga is generating for Formula One in the UK. While Bernie may not get along with the BRDC, surely the billionaire businessman can see how this is reflecting on the sport in the UK, a nation that contributes an awful lot to the global motor sporting industry.

Original article by BlogF1.

British Grand Prix Could Be Postponed Until 2011

It has been announced that Bernie Ecclestone will provide $10m of assistance to each new entrant in their first year of competition. This is a fairly substantial amount of money and should a new team take up the recently revised budget cap, it will enable the new team to enter the sport and if it all works, be able to compete with the long-standing establishments that have been around for many decades.

Furthermore, Bernie Ecclestone will allow the transportation of 2 chassis and another 10,000kg of freight to each race under his current scheme, usually only available to teams who have competed for more than three seasons. And as an almost silly aside given the grand scheme of things, Ecclestone will also provide 20 economy class air tickets to each non-European race per new team.

The FIA announced that applications for the 2010 season will be opened for a week, starting on May 22nd, whereupon it is expected that the current 10 squads will submit as well as the new USGPE (formerly USF1) and possibly Lola and Prodrive among others.

It is expected for the FIA to publish the list of entrants on June 12th this year, and new teams will be selected to a maximum of 13 (26 cars) and will be judged on their ability to secure finances for the longterm as well as also having access to facilities and to be able to compete as a constructor, much like the current crop of squads.

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Adjust 2010 Decisions: Financial Help For New Teams

Currently, the circuit is owned by the Wheatcroft family and Donington Ventures Leisure Limited lease the track for motor sporting activities as well as music festivals and other outdoor events. The Wheatcroft’s, who own and operate the company Wheatcroft & Sons Ltd, have commenced legal proceedings against Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd because of arrears in rent, reportedly amounting to £2.47m. If DVLL cannot afford the rent, WSL may evict the resident company whom the contract for the 2010 British Grand Prix is with.

Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd owe us nearly £2.5m in rent dating back to September 2008. Despite receiving numerous reassurances over a number of months they have consistently failed to meet their financial obligations under the terms of the lease.

We have held off taking legal action for as long as possible but have been left with no choice but to commence proceedings to recover the outstanding rent and forfeit the lease. Kevin Wheatcroft.

At the 2008 British Grand Prix, held at Northamptonshire’s Silverstone circuit, Bernie Ecclestone allowed the FIA to announce the change in venue from 2010 onwards, the Donington Park track having been awarded a ten year deal to host motor racing event. At the time, Ecclestone made it clear that Formula One would not return to Silverstone, owned by the BRDC, an organisation Bernie doesn’t get on too well with. If Donington failed to complete their redevelopment works on time, there would be no British Grand Prix. Ecclestone reiterated this while visiting the Bahrain Grand Prix.

If Donington can’t put on the British Grand Prix then that’s it. We will be leaving Britain. There is no question of us going back to Silverstone. They have had enough chances and have not delivered what they promised. Bernie Ecclestone.

It is at this point that the British Government were asked to step in and help, the campaign being voiced by Formula One commercial rights owner Bernie Ecclestone. Having completed deals all over the world for the sport, Bernie has seen what can be done with government funding, the race in Bahrain this weekend being a great example of top-notch facilities all funded by the country itself. Abu Dhabi, which looks to be an absolutely stunning arena for motor sport and business, is also funded by the government, and Ecclestone believes the United Kingdom should follow suit.

It’s a disgrace that the British government don’t step in to help. They are throwing billions at the London Olympics. They could do what is needed to save the race by putting in a fraction of it – 0.002 per cent. Bernie Ecclestone.

Damon Hill, the 1996 Formula One World Champion and now president of Silverstone’s owning organisation the BRDC, has tried to keep the door open to Ecclestone and Formula One, and has apparently maintained communication with the Macronym title=”Formula One Management”>FOM director. Hill would obviously want the race to return to Silverstone, and speaking live on the BBC during today’s qualifying session, Eddie Jordan believes Ecclestone’s firm stance on the issue of not returning is actually his way of saying it will happen.

Confused yet? Well, Jordan believes that Bernie’s negotiation tactic is hard and almost reverse of he publicly says. But on the face of it at the moment, the fate of the British Grand Prix doesn’t look healthy. The House of Lords debated the issue yesterday and Labour deputy chief whip Lord Davies stated that their would be no direct financial hand-outs. Lord Davies emphasised that the government would do what it could, but there would not be any financial aid.

We do not want a state-sponsored motor industry, but the government can give necessary assistance and support in judicious ways, particularly by emphasising how important the industry is to the development of our society and economy.

The government will continue to give the support that we have done in the past. We see our role as facilitating and encouraging the Motor Sports Association and the owners of Donington to be proactive about attracting money from various funding arrangements to guarantee the finances they need.

However, should anything go wrong on that front, it is important that Silverstone is available to resume its position, because the essential thing is that we must not lose a British Grand Prix. Lord Davies.

Lord Davies may want to run that last sentence by Ecclestone before believing his own words.

It would be a tremendous shame for Britain to lose the British Grand Prix, and drivers up and down the Bahrain pitlane today have expressed a desire for the event to remain. Even non-British drivers like Rubens Barrichello who essentially cut his teeth in lower formulae around many of the UK’s racing tracks spoke of a desire for the race to remain.

It is also a great shame that the country is willing to pour so much many into hosting the Olympic Games, but is unwilling to spend (by comparison) a little amount on ensuring the UK remains on the Formula One calendar.

Perhaps using tax payers money on sporting events is incorrect, to which you would have to include the Olympic Games, but surely in a crisis, the government should be there to prop up the affected industry/business/event and offer a helping hand.

Of course, life and politics doesn’t work like that and the UK will applaud the efforts of the government at funding the organisations that will bring the Olympic Games to London in 2012, over budget and probably behind schedule. The British Grand Prix, by then, could be but a distant memory. Just as long as Team Great Britain can host the Games then all is okay with this county’s involvement in international sporting events.

Original article by BlogF1.

2010 British Grand Prix Facing Fresh Threats

The one-sided war of words between Flavio Briatore and the Brawn team has been comical to say the least. While it is good to voice concerns and raise issues, Briatore’s approach to the situation that sees his tightly budgeted team now having to spend more money on developing a ‘double-diffuser’ was strikingly poor. Instead of simply announcing a meeting between the members of FOTA to discuss his concerns with those involved – which Briatore, in an attempt to gain support, believes is all teams – the Italian team boss has instead allowed a slew of laughable comments to be released in Italy’s popular sport’s newspaper, Gazzetta dello Sport.

The drivers in our teams have been and are world champions, while the championship is now fought between a driver who was almost retired and another one who is a good guy but a paracarro [Italian concrete mile-marker]. Flavio Briatore.

To suggest fellow competitors as almost retired and as a concrete post is perhaps not the wisest of moves, especially as Jenson Button politely pointed out in response, Briatore attempted to hire him while the Honda-situation was still up in the air over the past winter.

He also needs to remember that he tried to employ me for this year, so…

He is obviously a very angry man after the diffuser issues and he is obviously very disappointed that they haven’t produced a car that is as competitive as ours. We have produced a very competitive car because of the work force we have back at Brackley and you cannot take it away from them – it is very unfair to say that. Jenson Button.

When asked about the general response from the Brawn team to Flavio’s comments, Button simply added: “Laughing, basically.”

The media have generally lambasted Briatore, saying that the former Benetton-franchisee is showing all the signs of a bad loser. It isn’t just the British press either that are siding with Ross Brawn on this matter, and it is somewhat confusing as to why the former Honda team has been singled out over Williams and Toyota, who had also developed the controversial ‘double-diffuser’.

However, despite the general failure to get the press on his side, Briatore remains resolute to his cause, and has now suggested that Brawn’s entitlement to benefits should be ceased, and money owed to the team from TV rights be shared equally among the others.

Mr. Briatore seems to be forgetting that FOTA, the association made up all the competing Formula One teams, supported the takeover of Honda by Ross Brawn et al. McLaren and Mercedes helped the squad tremendously by offering engine units, for which the FIA gave permission for as it does break the rules. The teams agreed that in this case, the ruling should be ignored for the sake of having ten squads on the grid this season. Also required to give consent was Vijay Mallya of Force India; the team who had just received a substantial technical backer in McLaren and Mercedes.

Flavio does have merit in his argument; the teams who have not developed a ‘double-diffuser’ will now have to spend a reported approximation of $25m per car to redesign and implement the parts required to integrate a different diffuser. At a time when the sport is desperate to cut costs, the extra expense is certainly not welcome. And that must be made worse for Renault as they have always ran a very tight budget. Combined with the fact that the squad are due to lose their title sponsor at the end of this year and are already struggling with pace, one can understand why Flavio is upset.

Despite some being against it, [Luca di] Montezemolo kept the FOTA united in supporting Brawn GP, and so did McLaren, in supplying engines.

But since [Ross] Brawn was our technical delegate, and he forces me to spend money I don’t have in my budget, and since Honda’s money have luckily not been shared yet, we’ll have a meeting.

My proposal will be as follows. Brawn is richer than anyone else, because he’s had his team paid for in full by Honda, plus he’s had 130 millions given to him [by Honda]: he’s certainly richer than I am.

I don’t want to be a Robin Hood, but when there’s a situation where everyone is transparent then it’s fine.

At this moment my position is, since I need to find the money in the budget somewhere and the season can’t end up with [everyone] being one second behind the Brawn cars, then the money share will have to be reviewed in full. I think it’s around €30 million. Flavio Briatore.

Also troubling Briatore is the fact that Brawn are receiving transport help along with the other teams. Flavio’s point is that the FIA have stated that Brawn is a new team, hence why they are at the end of the pitlane and have been issued with the bottom set of numbers, despite finishing ahead of Force India in 2008 when they were known as Honda. The FIA did waive the ‘new team entry fee’ though, showing that they understood the situation and circumstances. However, Bernie Ecclestone has treated Brawn as an existing team, which is shown by the fact they are receiving transport help which is only usually given to established squads.

As FOTA commercial chairman I’ll propose that we follow the FIA’s indications that it’s a new team and for three years it has no rights with regards to transportation, nothing. Flavio Briatore.

When Briatore was questioned about the FOTA agreeing in late December to support Ross Brawn’s endeavours and to ensure the team was given all that was owed, Briatore simply replied with with an almost nonsensical answer…

That was at Christmas, though. Now that Christmas has gone, we’ll talk about it again next Christmas.

Since it’s a new team, it has to follow all the regulations we followed when we entered with new teams. I will propose that to FOTA, then we’ll see. Flavio Briatore.

It seems to me that Briatore could have handled this a whole lot better, and the man has been laughed at from several quarters. While it is far from great that six companies are now going to have to develop new parts for fourteen cars at a huge expense of time, resources and money, that is Formula One, and that is what these people let themselves in for when they sign on the dotted line in Bernie Ecclestone’s office.

When Red Bull Technologies put a giant shark fin on the engine cover of last years RB4, Renault were among the first to develop a similar part. While a shark fin almost certainly costs considerably less to design and build, and a much more simple piece to integrate into the car, it is an example of one team pushing the envelope, and the others copying. One is almost tempted to bring up the J-Damper saga from a few years back…

Perhaps instead of whining and complaining, Flavio should turn his charismatically creative mind to that of finding and wooing potential sponsors for his team. Oh, and a graphic designer to redo that livery.

Original article by BlogF1.

Whining Flavio Briatore Won’t Drop The Diffuser Issue

Bernie Ecclestone believes Formula One is an entertainment business, and this concept, named F1 Rocks, therefore falls into line with this. To be organising concerts for the fans of the sport as well as locals who get invaded by the sport each year is great news. It will add to the weekend for those present and will provide further entertainment away from the track.

I’m very much looking forward to working with Bernie. He had the imagination to see the potential in F1 Rocks from the very beginning, and we want to make it a huge success on a global scale. Lucien Grainge, Universal.

However, the cynic in me also says that this is a further way of Ecclestone to gain control of everything that happens at a grand prix. Currently there are many things that happen around a Formula One race and concerts already take place, perhaps the most famous in recent times is at the British Grand Prix where the likes of Damon Hill and Eddie Jordan have played for the crowds. But by having the deal in place with Universal to stage these shows, FOM now has a little bit more control. Perhaps even, a little more cash.

I just hope Ecclestone doesn’t stick his nose in and insist on artists from his generation. While some of the greatest popular music was written in the sixties and seventies, I think the youngsters these days are more in to those artists who are somewhat younger themselves.

Original article by BlogF1.

F1 Rocks With Universal Deal

To explain my perhaps very bizarre opening paragraph: Ecclestone has pushed back the start time of the Australian Grand Prix (time and date). For a start, I disagree with this. I have fond memories of waking up at some ungodly hour of the morning (something like 4am), dragging my duvet downstairs and curling up with the dog to watch Formula One while the rest of the family slept. At the time, I was of course much younger.

My father would leave me some doughnuts to munch on and the dog was just excited to be woken up at some silly hour only to find it being wrapped in it’s favourite bedding – my duvet. Needless to say, staying awake or arising early holds special memories for me, and it is something I cherish from my youth. I will admit, now being at a grand age of nearly 28 I find the process a little more arduous, mostly thanks to a demanding career and the fact that I can no longer fall asleep after the race. Quite the contrary, I have to stay awake and write. This though, is just as much a pleasure. Although I hope you will forgive me if I seem grumpy on Monday morning!

However, to get back to the point, Bernie has been pressuring races in Asia and Australia to start later in order to capture as many Europeans as possible. With scant regard to the races themselves, Melbourne will be pushing on dusk by the time the winner crosses the line. What Bernie didn’t realise though, one can only presume, is that this weekend is when the clocks change in the UK. We lose an hour’s sleep as time magically moves forward by sixty minutes. I will admit to having my own grievances about changing the clocks, but here is not the place – I’ll leave that to the personal site on Monday morning.

So Ecclestone feels he has achieved something by pushing Australia back this year. I hope he feels just as satisfied when he realises that many Britons will oversleep and miss the first hour of the race. Not that we are stupid and will forget (mostly) but because we value sleep, just as everyone else does. And teenagers, a market Formula One should be clammering after, will have a hard enough time waking up for the pre-clock change time.

The time changes are worked out years in advance, and this season is the latest starting that I can remember in many years. I will be up, confusion aside of course, but I cannot help but feel Pike Bernie has been, well, a bit of a stupid boy.

Original article by BlogF1.

Bernie, You Stupid Boy

Perhaps the most controversial change is the way the championship will be decided. From this season onwards – which starts in less than two weeks – the driver who scores the most wins will be awarded the coveted World Driver’s Championship. This idea was put forward by Bernie Ecclestone late last year, and although it appeared up until yesterday that the FIA and FOTA weren’t overly keen on it, the system has been incorporated into the 2009 scoring process.

Points will remain in both championships, but instead of the world champion being decided purely on the points system of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, the winner will be the driver who accrues the most victories in the season. Should two drivers tie on wins after the final round of the championship, then the points earned will be considered. All other positions in the championship will be decided by the points earned, and the constructor’s title remains unchanged.

FOTA had proposed a slight alteration to the points system recently at their meeting in Geneva, changing it to 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1. However, the WMSC rejected this idea in favour of the medals-type idea, and Ecclestone believes will encourage drivers to overtake for the win rather than settle for second place as some have in the past.

It should be noted however, that what isn’t necessarily broken really needn’t be fixed. And certainly not in the fairly radical way that the WMSC has done. Last year we all witnessed a fantastic climax to the championship, with the whole year coming down to the penultimate corner of the last lap of the very last race. Fans the world over were on the edge of their seats. Indeed, I’m sure Felipe Massa and Lewis Hamilton were too while driving their cars.

We saw plenty of overtaking during 2008, and although some of the moves were later tarnished by stewarding decisions, the title race went down in my book as “vintage”, something I have remarked upon many times during and since. It is however, typical of the governing body to make big changes at once in an effort to shake-up or hopefully improve the sport. Qualifying is something that has undergone so many changes in recent seasons, which only adds to the confusion for the fans, as well as the teams themselves. Radical changes have been made to the qualifying process that have then been altered once again – some mid-season – when it is realised that it doesn’t work. While it is appreciated that the previous 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system may be wasn’t perfect, it did generate some great championships.

What do you think? Do you like the idea of a medals-esque system, or would you prefer the existing or the FOTA proposed system?

Original article by BlogF1.

The Future Of Formula One – Points & Victories

After discussions between the ten principals, the following proposals have been made in order to sustain Formula One into the future, to make the sport in to more of a spectacle, and to appease those who insist on reducing costs and increasing competition. The results of FOTA’s global market research has helped the organisation put together their ideas, taking into account what we, the fans, would like to see happen to Formula One.

FOTA’s chairman, Luca di Montezemolo had the following say to the media at the press conference in Geneva.

This is an unprecedented moment in Formula One history. Above all else, for the first time the teams are unified and steadfast – with a clear, collective vision. Thanks to this unity, all the teams have already managed to make a significant reduction to their costs for 2009.

And, while we will continue to compete vigorously on track, we all share one common goal: to work together to improve Formula One by ensuring its stability, sustainability, substance and show for the benefit of our most important stakeholder, namely the consumer. It is with this mindset that we now intend to work hard, with our partners at the FIA and FOM, our shared goal being to optimise the future of Formula One. Luca di Montezemolo.

The proposals are split into three main groups; Technical, Sporting and Commercial, neatly summing up the three main areas of the sport. Much has been said about the technical side of the Formula One, with one of the sport’s most radical technical regulation shake ups in years being implemented for 2009. The sporting regulations have also been tweaked for this upcoming season, but fans clearly want to see more made of these to ensure a better race. And of course, the commercial side of Formula One has come under scrutiny recently, and this is something the team chiefs are keen to work on.

Technical Proposals

For 2009

• More than 100% increase in mileage per engine (eight engines per driver per season)
• Reduction in wind tunnel and CFD usage
• Engine available at €8 million per team per season

For 2010

• Engine available at €5 million per team per season
• Gearbox available at €1.5 million per team per season
• Standardised KERS (put out to tender, with a target price of €1-2 million per team per season)
• Target a further 50% reduction of the 2009 aerodynamic development spend
• Specified number of chassis, bodywork and aerodynamic development iterations (homologations) during the season
• Prohibition of a wide range of exotic, metallic and composite materials
• Standardised telemetry and radio systems

Sporting Proposals

For 2009

• Testing reduction (50%)
• New points-scoring system (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1), to give greater differentiation/reward to grand prix winners
• Race starting fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public

For 2010

• Commitment to recommend new qualifying format
• Radical new points-scoring opportunities (eg, one constructors’ championship point to be awarded for the fastest race pit stop)
• Further testing reductions (four four-day single-car pre-season tests plus one single-car pre-season shakedown)
• Reduction of grand prix duration (250km or a maximum of one hour 40 minutes) pending the approval of the commercial rights holder

Commercial Proposals

• Increased data provision for media
• Explore means by which the presentation of Formula One action can be more informatively and dynamically presented, common to other sports such as tennis and cricket, to dramatically improve engagement with the public
• Nominated senior team spokesman available for TV during grand prix
• Commitment to enhance consumer experience via team and FOTA websites
• Mandatory driver autograph sessions during grand prix weekends

For 2010

• Commitment to enhance consumer experience via TV coverage

So What Does All That Mean

FOTA would like the engines last a lot longer and be available for less money. Already for 2009 this has been partly achieved, but in order to help reduce costs even further, it is proposed that engines be available for €5m per team per season. And along with the engine, it is suggested other components be standardised and/or subsidised. There has been a fair amount of talk regarding the KERS unit, and FOTA are also throwing gear boxes into the equation as well. A standardised telemetry and radio system has also been mooted, and previously there had been talk of opening up all radio communication to be broadcast.

Also proposed is a limit on development work being made to the cars, which would obviously save a lot of money. This would coincide with a reduction in physical testing as well, something that has already been banned during the racing season this year. With more standardised parts, this could be easier to achieve, but then we get into the standardisation argument which has divided fans, although my personal impression is that it is generally seen as bad, or not wanted, for the sport.

In terms of the actual event of racing and the championship, the points structure has come under question. Before 2003, the points awarded to the finishing drivers (or those classified as finishing) was 10-6-4-3-2-1, obviously going to the top-six. This was changed in 2003 to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, the awards going to the top-eight.

Recently, Bernie Ecclestone opened his mouth and suggested a fairly radical change towards medals. Ecclestone wanted the constructors title to remain on a points basis, but in order to promote overtaking in the minds of the drivers, Bernie suggested the top-three be awarded medals. There has been a lively debate on this ever since, and again, my impression is that it is generally considered unnecessary. Particularly having two systems within one sport, albeit for different titles.

Notably, the FIA have said little on this other than to put off making a decision, citing the wait for market research to be compiled. FOTA have also chosen not to mention this in their proposals. Although it was probably discussed, it is thought the team chiefs are against the idea, despite Ecclestone suggesting the opposite a couple of months back.

FOTA are suggesting what many of you have said (or close to at any rate); to increase the gap between the first and second placed driver (to add emphasis to the win), but to keep it as a points system and to also keep the top-eight as scorers. Well done BlogF1 readers, common sense prevails. FOTA have suggested the following: 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1. Personally speaking, I dislike odd numbers, but it is in my opinion, a lot better than medals.

For 2009, FOTA would like race fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public. Currently, it is an unknown at the start of the race exactly who is on what fuel load, and therefore what strategy they are running which ultimately means that new fans are left a little confused. By announcing this information, it would be easier to assess the qualifying efforts of the drivers as well make following the race a little easier, particularly for newer fans.

However, this too divides the sport’s followers, and former ITV commentator and now blogger James Allen has voiced his enjoyment of not knowing exactly who is doing what at the start of the race. I can see both sides of the story and appreciate the differing opinions on this. Although I feel that a return to qualifying of ye olde combined with fewer restrictions on tyre usage might help reduce some of the complications. Again though, and like Allen’s, it’s just another opinion.

For 2010, FOTA would indeed like to see commitment to sorting out qualifying. I’d put it higher up the list, but then I would say that! The association would also like to see new points added to the grand prix weekend, with perhaps a point being awarded to the fastest pitstop, this being added to the constructors championship. From this we could also suggest a point for the fastest lap. I would imagine the FIA might be keen on this as it may help Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen towards the championship, the Finn taking the majority of fastest laps last year.

FOTA have also suggested that testing be reduced again, and also that the race length be reduced. Currently, the maximum time allowed for a grand prix is 2 hours. Races only ever have to be stopped due to this ruling in seriously adverse situations. Only once can I remember a race being cut short because of time, but FOTA have suggested a maximum of 1 hour 40 minutes. This would mean presumably that races get reduced in proportion to the maximum time. Currently, a grand prix lasts for about 200 minutes or so, and I cannot see what is wrong with leaving it like that.

In terms of the commercial side of the sport and making the spectacle more fan-friendly, FOTA would like to see a nominated spokesperson for each squad, available throughout the weekend to talk to the media. They would also like to see more information being made available, for better engagement with viewers, more to be done with the online side of the sport as well as mandatory autograph sessions at races.

Sum Up

All in all, FOTA’s recommendations aren’t too far away from what I as a fan feel the general consensus is. We would all like more information to be made available, many of us feel the points system could do with a little tinker, but nothing too radical, and we would all like the sport to be a little more open and friendly to those who keep it going.

Regarding the technical side, perhaps it is leaning towards standardisation, but it should be noted that only KERS was really mentioned. It is a feeling I have that Max Mosley may get his way on certain things, particularly if he is re-elected as FIA president in November. However, credit where it is due, FOTA have only presented KERS as being a potentially-standardised part. All other components were just mentioned in a cost anaysis perspective. FOTA’s unified presence may help dissuade any future FIA shake ups without first assessing them properly as well.

So this is what has been presented, and I’ve included a few of my own thoughts, feeling and opinions on various matters. Now it’s over to you. What do you think of all this? Agree, disagree? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, or more still needs to be done? Unlike many other websites out there, BlogF1’s comments are open, so please have your say…

Image © HondaF1.

Original article by BlogF1.

FOTA Announce Proposals For Formula One’s Future

The USA have endured a rocky relationship with Formula One in recent years; the farcical 2005 grand prix and the race’s ultimate demise, Scott Speed unceremoniously leaving the sport to return to home, the loss of Montreal from the calendar… it has all painted a bad picture of Formula One on the other side of the Atlantic. From a fan’s perspective, it is surprising the sport is still watched in America. But watched it is, and although Formula One and the global economy have enjoyed better times, America appears to still want to be a part of Max and Bernie’s game.

Of course, Bernie Ecclestone would do very well to welcome the involvement of a tenth/eleventh team to the grid, bringing the number of competing drivers back up and reinstating his position as someone who can push the sport forward into the future, rather than kicking it when it is down. The logistics of setting up an F1 team are immense though, as are the still extortionate costs. With Max Mosley continually attempting to drive the financial burden down though, the mooted 2010 entry season for USF1 could be a good year for a team to enter.

The USF1 project appears to have been born from the mind of former Ligier and Onyx technical director Ken Anderson. After his stint in Formula One, Anderson returned to America and found much more success with the Chip Ganassi Racing and AJ Foyt Racing teams. Anderson went on to design chassis for the American open-wheel sport before turning his attention to the ever popular NASCAR series.

Also mooted to be involved with the team is Peter Windsor, a name more familiar with European fans due to his presence at grands prix and his reports in F1 Racing magazine. Windsor has been involved with Formula One for a long time, starting out initially as a journalist before working with Williams and Ferrari. Ultimately though, writing appears to be Windsor’s true passion and the Australian-raised Briton continues to write while carrying out duties for SPEED TVs coverage at the races. Peter is often seen on the grid and also conducts the driver’s post-qualifying and race press conferences.

So it would appear the people behind USF1 are of motor sporting pedigree. But despite this, many questions immediately come to the fore, primarily related to funding. With current teams strapped for cash and seeing some of their sponsors walk out the door, one has to ask where the initially injection of finances will come from to create the team, and after that, where the running budget will be sought?

The current trend of private Formula One teams would suggest a wealthy backer to inject a large lump sum into the squad to get things moving. Following this, sponsors would be needed to keep the finances required for the running of the team fluid. Being an American team, they may prove quite lucrative to the many internationally recognised companies based over the pond. Coca Cola and McDonalds are just two that immediately spring to mind, but would these behemoths be willing to part with the amounts of money USF1 would need to be competitive in a primarily European-based sport? Would the extra brand placement be enough to justify the costs?

Also of question is the team’s location. As mentioned, Formula One is more of a European racing series, with drivers often citing their route to the sport via other Europe-based formulae. There almost appears to be an invisible divide running down the Atlantic Ocean, with Formula One on the East and IndyCar and NASCAR on the West. IndyCar and NASCAR usually stay in America, only venturing North to Canada or over to Japan a handful of times a year. Formula One isn’t heading to America any time soon, but the emergence of USF1 could bring America to Europe.

The position of the team could prove problematic though. The current teams already pay quite a lot to travel around Europe and Asia, and despite receiving help with this (the team’s are awarded transport fee reductions for scoring points), the cost of transporting the team around the world is still substantial. And this is for a team based in the UK. For a squad having to cross the Atlantic for each event is borderline ridiculous. Of course, USF1 could lease a smaller factory in Europe to use as an in-season base, but this will only add to the budget.

Despite all the doom and gloom though, the thought of an American team entering the sport, even if just a little pipedreamish at the moment, is very exciting. It could help reinvigorate the sport around the world, improve competition and possibly even help Ecclestone along the way with returning the sport to North America for a race or two.

And so I am just left with one question which has already been very well pointed out grandprix.com… Why haven’t USF1 already purchased Honda?

Original article by BlogF1.

No Driver, No Race, But Could America Be Building A Team?

Ecclestone felt sure his idea would encourage overtaking as the world champion would be decided by the driver with the most gold medals (or in other words, the most wins). This, according to Bernie, means that drivers would be more willing to overtake as the difference between first and second place would be that little bit more crucial.

However, Mosley wasn’t so keen on the idea and after a little bit of debate where Ecclestone didn’t get his way, it was decided to defer any decision until after some market research had been completed. And this is where it does get a little confusing.

Almost immediately after Ecclestone failed to get his idea passed through the FIA’s approval process, the sport’s commercial rights holder put an article up on the official Formula One website (which Bernie controls) outlining the idea behind medals. Included at the bottom of the post was a voting poll, very similar to those you occasionally see here on BlogF1. It wasn’t labeled as official market research or anything similar, but at the time caused some furrowed brows while some us attempted to work out exactly where Bernie’s voting thingy fell in the grand scheme of things.

Little more happened over the holiday period and to be honest, most of us had hoped that the idea had been forgotten about. Alas, we are not quite that lucky and today the FIA has published some analysis. What is fantastic about what the FIA have published is that we can clearly see who would have won a championship with medals in comparison to who did win it with points. We can also see if a new driver would have been world champion or even different multiples of world champion had they raced under the medal system.

What it isn’t though is market research. And that is what I really want to read. It is all well and good getting an intern to sit down at a computer and run through all the championships applying Bernie’s scheme, but that doesn’t tell us what you, I or indeed the FIA want. For the record though, the statistics tell us that:

• Stirling Moss would have taken Mike Hawthorn’s title in 1958
• Jim Clark would have taken the ‘64 and ‘67 titles from John Surtees and Denny Hulme respectively
• Mario Andretti would have won the 1977 championship instead of Niki Lauda
• Alan Jones would have beaten Jody Scheckter in 1979
• Nelson Piquet would have lost all three of his titles, once to Nigel Mansell and twice to Alain Prost
• Didier Pironi would have been the 1982 champion and not Keke Rosberg
• Nigel Mansell would have been a triple world champion, winning Alain Prost second title in 1986 (before taking Piquet’s and his own)
• Ayrton Senna would have also stolen a title from his nemesis, Alain Prost
• And of course, Felipe Massa would have won in 2008, beating Lewis Hamilton

• Michael Schumacher would still be on 7 titles
• Juan Manuel Fangio would still be on 5 titles
• Alain Prost would have equaled Fangio’s record though
• Jim Clark and Ayrton Senna would each win 4 titles, two and one more than in reality
• Jack Brabham, Jackie Stewart and Nigel Mansell would each have won 3 titles

Also of note, 14 championship battles would have been shorter with medals, the eventual world champion having wrapped up the title sooner than they actually did under the points. 8 championships would have been longer and we would have lost 5 final race showdowns had the medal system been in place since 1950.

The full results can be downloaded from the FIA website, and while they do make for interesting reading to someone who enjoys statistics, I’m still eagerly awaiting the market research to see what you all think. Or at least, those who were asked. Presuming of course, some of you were asked…

Further Reading…

• FIA Press Release: Formula One Medals
• F1.com Article & Vote On Medals
• BlogF1 Championship Almanac
• So About These Medals…
• Are The FIA Seeing Sense Over The Medals?
• Public To Decide On Bernie’s Medal Idea?

Original article by BlogF1.

Is This Market Research Into Bernie’s Medal Idea?

The era of big change is now essential because the sport has grown larger than either the governors or the commercial-rights holders. And that’s just a fact. It has taken too long to achieve the things it should have achieved years ago and that other sports have long ago matured to, and other sports have prepared themselves more fully for the opportunities that have come their way. Jackie Stewart.

Jackie Stewart clearly believes that all the changes the FIA are now rushing through in an act of almost desperation should have been in place years ago, making a smoother and better planned journey into the future. The Scottish champion also believes that Bernie Ecclestone controls too much power over the sport.

Bernie has such power and influence that he could suffocate almost any performer who would dare to suggest that there must be change.

He [Ecclestone] has been so used to total control that if you look at his structure you have to ask yourself ‘is there a successor?’ and you would say ‘no’. That is wrong. The commercial reality has to be recognised… and there has be continuity that the aging process makes necessary. Jackie Stewart.

Ecclestone is now 78 years of age, and Jackie Stewart is right to ask about the future of the sport and it’s commercial aspects. While Max Mosley has hinted that he will not run for president again when his current term expires in 2009, there is no obvious structure to Ecclestone’s side of the sport. What would happen if Ecclestone could no longer function in his current role? Presumably CVC would appoint someone, but is that the best thing for Formula One?

Last month Ferrari president Luca Di Montezemolo attacked Ecclestone saying that the way the revenues are distributed needs looking at again, which in turn caused Bernie to fire back and admit that Ferrari get more than the other teams when they win the titles. Now, following on from this, Stewart has decided to back Di Montezemolo and ask for change.

The financial distribution of Formula One appears to have been sorted out by two people who have directed it in whichever way they have seen fit. Although this has been a significant benefit in some ways, it has also hurt the sport because the balance of contribution within Formula One is absolutely untenable. Jackie Stewart.

Stewart went on to also mention the fact that the circuits see little to nothing of the revenues, and all they have to re-invest with are the sales of tickets. It is no wonder that many tracks are struggling in the current economic climate.

The interview conducted by The Times is likely something Stewart has wanted for a while. The Times don’t often back Formula One chiefs, certainly not after Mosley tried to take Martin Brundle to court of the use of the word “witch-hunt” in an article of his. But what Stewart speaks of is certainly true, if perhaps not the best way to put your views forward.

Ecclestone will undoubtedly have to respond to Stewart, and it will be interesting if anything else comes of the cupboard, as did last time when Bernie rebutted Di Montezemolo. However, with Stewart being only indirectly involved with Formula One now, it is hard to see how his voice can be silenced.

Original article by BlogF1.

Jackie Stewart Slams Bernie Ecclestone

This particular slanging match started after Ferrari president and FOTA chairman Luca di Montezemolo called on Ecclestone to re-evaluae the share of revenue among the teams and asked for more say in how the sport is run. In the current climate of economic instability, the squads are looking at increasing their income while trying their best to reduce their outgoings. In the wake of the Honda departure, this is something that is very real and has to be achieved if lesser teams are to survive. However, increasing the income is nigh on impossible through traditional means, so the grid, via FOTA, have asked for more share from the commercial rights holder.

We want to know the revenues better so we can decrease the cost of the tickets. Then we have the matter of traditional tracks rather than exotic tracks just because they have a nice skyline. We have to discuss the show. How to promote. I’m not prepared any more to have all this dictated to us by outside without any control. Luca di Montezemolo.

The response from Ecclestone was nothing short of interesting.

The only thing he has not mentioned is the extra money Ferrari get above all the other teams and all the extra things Ferrari have had for years – the ‘general help’ they are considered to have had in Formula One.

Ferrari get so much more money than everyone else. They know exactly what they get; they are not that stupid, although they are not that bright, either. They get about $80 million more. When they win the constructors’ championship, which they did this year, they got $80 million more than if McLaren had won it. Bernie Ecclestone

So aside from the “general help”, Ferrari make a lot more money from winning than any other team would. And $80m is a lot, even to Ferrari. Renault famously won the 2005 and 2006 titles with a budget considered to be substantially less than their rivals at the time, Ferrari and McLaren. Had the Anglo-French squad received an extra $80m, I’m sure they wouldn’t have looked so painfully off-pace in the past one and a half years.

There is a ‘reason’ why Ferrari get this though, as Ecclestone went on to explain…

They were the only team that broke ranks with the other manufacturers – why did they break ranks? That’s where the $80 million comes in. We ‘bought’ Ferrari. We ‘bought’ Ferrari’s loyalty. Our deal with Ferrari was that we ‘bought’ them so they would not go to the others. Bernie Ecclestone.

Back in 2003, there was serious talk of the manufacturers starting a breakaway series to directly compete with Formula One. Which of course is a power the teams have over Ecclestone. Should even a small number of squads desert Formula One, the series would suffer immeasurably, meaning a breakaway series would hit the ground running. Despite this though, they wouldn’t have the network and experience of Bernie, and they wouldn’t have the tradition. Although Ferrari are in all intents and purposes a manufacturer, they are also the oldest team on the grid, the most successful and bring the sport its lion share of fans and ticket-buyers. Whoever got Ferrari would get the upper hand.

Ecclestone went on to say that Luca di Montezemolo had every right to visit CVC (Formula One’s principal owners) and go through the books. A clause in the Concord Agreement allows this, but Bernie stated that nobody from Ferrari had ever exercised this right, including di Montezemolo.

Ecclestone’s statements lead me to believe that di Montezemolo is right; the revenue needs to be better divided among the competing teams. Is this extra $80m a time-sensitive deal that will expire in a few years, or was it left open, meaning Ferrari will continue to earn more than anyone else would have done providing they keep on winning? This sort of deal only adds insult to the other teams. While I’m sure Frank Williams is pleased Ferrari remained in Formula One, I suspect he isn’t entirely happy at the costs involved.

However, if the other teams are happy for Ferrari to receive this extra income, then Bernie Ecclestone has weakened his position. FOTA are meant to be united, and if they currently are, Ecclestone may have played an important card too early in the game. Furthermore, the hints at “general help” will lead to a backlash from the sport’s traditional fans. How many times did Ferrari International Assistance come to the fore in 2008? Too many times if you ask me, and Bernie’s remarks have only added more fuel to the already burning fire.

I try to not get too political on BlogF1, preferring to quietly watch from the sidelines and then sum up the events and the consequences after the dust has settled. But what was said yesterday and will undoubtedly be said in the coming week is fast becoming a serious game of poker between some of the world’s greatest players. FOTA have become an interesting body, and after they were mocked for raising issues previously that were perhaps pointless and menial, are now attempting to take the bull by the horns. It’s going to be a very interesting off-season.

Original article by BlogF1.

Ecclestone Conceeds: Ferrari Get More Money & General Help

It is understood that Bernie Ecclestone requires there to be ten teams and twenty drivers in each grand prix – this is apparently the minimum requirement set in place by presumably the man himself. However, should Honda fail to find a buyer before March 2009, the grid could see only nine teams, thus breaking Bernie’s golden rule.

In this case, it has been rumoured that some teams may be required to field three cars, and in this particular case, two teams would have to run an extra driver to make up the loss of the two drivers from Honda. How it is decided who gets to run a third car is unknown to me, and their status in the driver’s championship and their contribution to the constructor’s championship are also unknown to me and many others. However, it is likely the teams with the most comfortable financial position and with the appropriate levels of staff would have to prepare and race a third chassis. So Ferrari and McLaren, then. Possibly Red Bull if Dietrich Mateschitz was feeling generous.

The loss of a Japanese team could also be disastrous for the Japanese Grand Prix. Although Honda have only been competing again since 2006 (they competed in the 1960’s previously), they have become synonymous with Formula One through their success as an engine supplier to McLaren and Williams during many spectacular campaigns. Japan has a strong fanbase, but they also have/had two teams (Toyota being the second) and for a little while in 2008, Japan also fielded two drivers; Takuma Sato in the junior Honda, Super Aguri, and Kazuki Nakajima for the Williams-Toyota team.

Takuma Sato is oddly enough on the verge of a third comeback (this time potentially with Scuderia Toro Rosso), and Kazuki Nakajima has already signed another year onto his Williams contract. But losing Honda will be a bitter pill for the fans to swallow. The team is much loved despite their less-than-spectacular results, and Jenson Button is adored the world over as the handsome British gentleman that I’m sure he is. Although Honda are based in Britain and have employed two British drivers in their history – Anthony Davidson as a long term test driver and Super Aguri pilot – the Japanese fans seem to love this aspect of the team culture. Losing Honda may lose the faith of a lot of fans.

What about Honda’s chief rival, Toyota? Earlier in the year the team was almost given its marching orders, the automotive giant instead deciding to offer an ultimatum of sorts; buck up and get results, or the plug is pulled. Thankfully for the Cologne-based team, Jarno Trulli and Timo Glock did quite well with the TF108 and improved their position in the standings from 2007. However, Honda left American racing when they could no longer race against Toyota – the rivalry and competition is just as important to the overall brand image than the actual participation. Without Honda, will Toyota decide it is time to start saving a few coins?

And lastly, there are serious repercussions on those people who are possibly, if not already, facing redundancy. Three weeks prior to Christmas for many of the team’s employees and their families, and instead of kicking back with a beer, they are mailing out CVs to other Formula One teams. Possibly upheaving their entire lives just to remain a part of what should be a glorious celebration of skill, bravery, craftsmanship and honour. For those at Brackley I feel.

I said in the comments on the previous post that Bernie Ecclestone should be kicking himself right now, and I stand by those words. For too long the sport has relied on manufacturers to make up the numbers, provide some vitality to the sport and keep the money rolling. But of course, the narrow-mindedness of those who are apparently in control have allowed the sport to potentially initiate a self-destruct sequence.

When I first mentioned those two words, self destruct, back in April, some thought I was being too pessimistic. And although the situation was different (it related to customer chassis), the over-riding feeling was that of the governance of the sport not being shrewd enough to look beyond the end of their nose, let alone a few months into the future.

I sincerely hope Honda can find a way out of this. I sincerely hope this is not the beginning of a snowball. But I feel it should be repeated…

…Formula One’s self destruct sequence has may have been initiated.

Image Copyright © HondaF1.

Original article by BlogF1.

The Possible Repercussions Of Honda’s Total Withdrawal From Formula One

The FIA must approve the new idea before it can be implemented, but Ecclestone yesterday said that the teams are happy for this change and that he expects everything to go well when he presents to the members of the FIA World Motorsport Council in December. The reasoning behind Bernie’s desire to change the structure of the championship is to encourage overtaking. Ecclestone stated he became fed up with complaints about the lack of passing in recent years and feels that if the championship was decided by the number of wins, then a driver would be more likely to make a pass on another.

Despite the fact that nearly all Formula One fans who read my previous article on this and left comments were not happy (which from my impression, is indicative of the general feeling), Ecclestone is adamant it is the way forward for the sport. However, he needs the FIA on his side for it to all go through. And although The Times newspaper are often seen to be out-of-sorts with the FIA – The Times is a sister paper to The News Of The World – they are happily reporting that “he [Ecclestone] is not expected to get it [endorsement from the FIA].”

I mentioned yesterday that Bernie’s statement of the teams being on-board for this seemed very strange. I’m yet to see a quote from any of the ten squads and they all appear to be very quiet at the moment. I wonder if Bernie is negotiating something at the moment, and this is what he gets from table, or if he really has lost the plot? As Eddie Jordan has exclaimed, “he’s tinkering with something that in my opinion he has lost the understanding of.”

Original article by BlogF1.

Are The FIA Seeing Sense Over The Medals?

Bucking the trend of the last 59 seasons, Ecclestone is fully intent on introducing a medal system, much like how the Olympics are played out. The country with the most gold medals after two weeks of competing in the Games essentially wins the competition, and should it be tied between two nations, the the amount of silver medals is considered, then bronze. And having visited the Beijing Games earlier in the year, Bernie is convinced this is the way forward for Formula One.

Under Ecclestone’s proposal, the winner of the race will receive a shiny gold medal. The driver with the most at the end of the season is declared the world champion. However, Formula One is currently made up of two championships; the drivers and the constructors. But Ecclestone feels that the constructors championship should remain as it is, with 10 points being awarded to the winning team, 8 points for second, 6 for third, 5 for fourth and so on down to 1 point for the eighth-placed team.

Currently, I do not understand what happens to the fourth, fifth, sixth (seventh and eighth) placed drivers under Bernie’s new scheme – years ago the top six finishers received points, and this was changed in 2003 to close up the championship and hopefully help end the dominance of Ferrari which at the time, was putting many people off watching. Assuming it is only the top three drivers who would be now be involved in the awarding of medals, Ecclestone believes the necessity to overtake will be increased, thus improving the spectacle for the fans.

In 2005, Fernando Alonso took his first world championship after a season-long battle with Michael Schumacher and Kimi Raikkonen. The championship was a good one, although Alonso was clever enough to realise that once he got the lead of the title, the need to push for wins wasn’t always appropriate. If Alonso was running in second place in a race behind Raikkonen, he would only lose two points – a margin which is easily recoverable when luck switched allegiance. And this is how Alonso played his championship campaign which resulted in much success as Fernando took the title with two races still to run. Alonso ultimately ended the year 21 points clear of Kimi Raikkonen, and more than double that of Michael Schumacher.

Under the medal scheme though, Alonso would still have been world champion, but it would have been much closer. Raikkonen and Alonso both won seven times, which would have resulted in seven gold medals each. However, Alonso brought his Renault home in second place a total of five times, Raikkonen only managing three runner-up spots. Of course, if it were medals they were going for, then maybe Alonso would have pushed harder in some races. And maybe the US Grand Prix would have gone ahead with a full field of drivers.

I disagree with having two different points systems as I feel it adds unnecessary confusion for new fans. If medals is the way to go, then it should be a blanket change across both championships. Similarly, if Bernie wants points, or to award farmyard animals to the podium-placed drivers, then the same should be applied to the constructors. I also disagree with Bernie that Formula One isn’t exciting enough. This year we saw plenty of overtaking; Nick Heidfeld passed two cars in one corner during the rain-soaked finale in Spa Francorchamps, Lewis Hamilton had more goes up the inside than you can shake a stick at and Felipe Massa also tried many times.

If there was any one race where overtaking wasn’t as regular than normal when it should have been plentiful (Valencia aside), then it would have to be Monza. Many drivers thought about it, but then decided to play it safe, considering the trouble Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa found themselves in the week previous. So perhaps the FIA need to ensure that if a driver does have a go at a pass, he isn’t then penalised two hours later*. That alone would encourage overtaking more than anything else. Improve the strength of the cars so they don’t fall apart at the merest suggestion of contact with another and you find yourself with a winning formula, do you not?

Ecclestone will put his idea to the FIA World Motorsport Council meeting in December, where he is confident it will pass judgment.

It’s going to happen. All the teams are happy. The whole reason for this was that I was fed up with people talking about no overtaking. The reason there’s no overtaking is nothing to do with the circuit or the people involved, it’s to do with the drivers not needing to overtake.

If you are in the lead and I’m second, I’m not going to take a chance and risk falling off the road or doing something silly to get two more points. If I need to do it to win a gold medal, because the most medals win the world championship, I’m going to do that. I will overtake you. Bernie Ecclestone.

Is Bernie playing the Mosley-game when he says “all the teams are happy”? I’m yet to read a quote from any of the teams about this proposed change, much like how the mysterious letters of support Max received during his saga in April never saw the light of day. One person who is happy to go on record though is future BBC pundit Eddie Jordan, and he isn’t entirely convinced it is a good idea…

I think it’s nonsense. The focus of everyone in Formula One at the moment must be on the current situation with costs and cost cutting, and nothing else. The rest is just dressing it up.

He’s tinkering with something that in my opinion he has lost the understanding of. He thinks people are only interested in winning the races. I’m sorry, but there’s just not enough thought put into this. It should be put to one side and discussed by him and Max Mosley, and for Bernie Ecclestone to say it’s coming with the full approval of all the teams, I simply don’t believe it. Eddie Jordan.

So what do you think about Bernie’s new idea – the beginning of a new era where drivers will really attack each other for wins? Or the heralding of another era where two teams win everything and the backmarkers come-and-go like the wind?

*Unless of course, it is absolutely and unequivocally necessary and obvious.

Original article by BlogF1.

So About These Medals…

According to Ecclestone, the Canadian Grand Prix have defaulted on payments to host the race and this has led to the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve being axed. However, after a quick rebuttal from the track authorities, the Quebec government offered to step in and help, stating that the race is important not just for the teams, but also for the economy in Montreal. Sadly, a statement yesterday said race was unlikely to return due to high demands placed on them by Ecclestone.

We were constantly guided in our negotiations by principles of responsible management. However, despite our endeavours and those of the business community, the unreasonable demands of Formula One exceeded the taxpayer’s ability to pay.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the federal and provincial governments and members of the business community who joined forces in an attempt to save the grand prix.

Their concerted efforts attest to Montreal’s vitality and could prove an opportunity for creating a development fund for new events of all kinds that would stimulate the economy, tourism and employment. Gerald Tremblay, Mayor of Montreal.

We worked very hard over the past few weeks to ensure there would be a grand prix in Montreal, while staying fiscally responsible. We cannot meet Mr. Ecclestone’s unworkable demands.

Unless he eases his requirements and adopts a different approach, there will be no grand prix in Montreal in 2009. Raymond Bachand, Minister of Tourism.

It is suggested on Autosport that the fees Ecclestone demanded were in the region of $26m for 2009, increasing by 5% per subsequent year after that. Ecclestone demanded a guarantee from either the government or a bank for $143m for the next five years, but this was too much for the city and the circuit to take on.

So it seems that Formula One will not race on the North American continent in 2009, the US Grand Prix having failed to re-materialise and no other venue stepping forward with a solid plan to host a race. This only adds to the anguish for the car manufacturers involved in the sport, having enjoyed some great advertising in previous years to customers residing in one of the biggest automotive markets on the planet.

Recommended Reading

Au Revoir, Montreal
• A Taste Of Their Own Medicine
• The Canadian Grand Prix Is Not Completely Dead Yet

Original article by BlogF1.

The Final Au Revoir To Montreal?

Since its inception in 2004, Shanghai has had a late spot on the calendar, usually following the Japanese Grand Prix in late-September or early-October. However, it has been decided to bring the event forward for 2009, meaning the race will now be held in mid-April. Sandwiched between Malaysia and Bahrain as the third round of the championship, travelling expenses have been kept to a minimum – the distance from Malaysia to China isn’t too great of a journey. This adjustment allows the season to finish a little earlier than had been previously mooted, and it brings the Brazilian and Abu Dhabi races forward by two weeks.

In 2003, it was decided to run the Brazilian Grand Prix in the first half of the season as opposed to its usual final-round status. This meant the event was held under a torrential downpour of rain and the race was red flagged after Fernando Alonso suffered an almighty accident on the run up the hill onto the start/finish straight. Ecclestone also decided once to bring the British Grand Prix forward, which also resulted in heavy rain falling throughout the weekend, turning the car park in to a mud bath.

However, Japan and China regularly see heavy rain during the latter part of the year, so by bringing the Chinese Grand Prix forward we might see improved weather. Also of note with this updated calendar is the lack of a Canadian Grand Prix. It had been stricken off with the previous schedule, prompting an outcry from the fans and the teams. It would mean North America not having any part in the Formula One World Championship, the US Grand Prix failing to return after its 2007 event. Talks were being held between the government and Bernie Ecclestone, but it would seem little progress has been made. Although, despite my upbeat post about improved transparency, we are in the dark as to any potential developments or possibilities of reinstatement.

The French Grand Prix has also been omitted now, and the team’s have been given their wish of a summer break, a month being freed up between the Hungarian round in late July and the European round (held at Valencia) in late August. Having said all this though, the calendar is still provisional and judging how many schedules we’ve had this year, I won’t be booking anything just yet!

2009 Formula One World Championship Calendar
It’s still provisional though…

Australian Grand Prix Albert Park	March 29th, 2009
Malaysian Grand Prix Sepang	April 5th, 2009
Chinese Grand Prix Shanghai	April 19th, 2009
Bahrain Grand Prix Sakhir	April 26th, 2009
Spanish Grand Prix Circuit de Catalunya	May 10th, 2009
Monaco Grand Prix Monte Carlo	May 24th, 2009
Turkish Grand Prix Istanbul Park	June 7th, 2009
British Grand Prix Silverstone	June 21st, 2009
German Grand Prix Nurburgring	July 12th, 2009
Hungarian Grand Prix Hungaroring	July 26th, 2009
European Grand Prix Valencia	August 23rd, 2009
Belgian Grand Prix Spa Francorchamps	August 30th, 2009
Italian Grand Prix Monza	September 13th, 2009
Singapore Grand Prix Singapore	September 27th, 2009
Japanese Grand Prix Suzuka	October 11th, 2009
Brazilian Grand Prix Interlagos	October 18th, 2009
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Marina Bay	November 1st, 2009

Original article by BlogF1.

Another Provisional Calendar Has Been Released

The circuit, one of the older venues on the Formula One calendar, has hosted the Brazilian Grand Prix since 1990, although the track also hosted the race between 1973 and 1977 as well as the ‘79 and ‘80 events. The track is actually called Autódromo José Carlos Pace, but is commonly called Interlagos due to it’s location between two reservoirs – Interlagos means between lakes.

Interlagos, although slightly narrower than some of the more modern tracks, has hosted some great races and is often used as the final race of the season. From 2009 onwards though, Abu Dhabi appears to have been given the season finale. In 2003, Interlagos was brought forward on the calendar and hosted the race in early April. It was generally considered a disaster as the race was run in very wet conditions. The result also caused a little controversy when Kimi Raikkonen was initially awarded the win, but after looking at the video evidence, Giancarlo Fisichella was actually the winner. An accident involving Fernando Alonso bought the race to an early end, and after counting back two laps – as per the rules – Fisichella was actually in P1. The McLaren and Jordan drivers swapped trophies later in the week.

Photo licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License.

Original article by BlogF1.

Interlagos Gets Contract Extension To 2014