Dear Mr Ecclestone
This morning I got up at 6:30 to watch the Chinese Grand Prix and now regret this decision. You have commented recently that F1 is dying, I can't help but agree with your comments but the only people who can resolve the current nadir F1 finds itself in are the FIA and FOM.
One important point I should start with, the volume coming out of the exhaust pipe of an F1 car has no effect, either way, on my enjoyment of motor racing. The main problem, as I see it, is the prescriptive nature of the F1 engine requirements. Why do they have to have 6 cylinders and certain energy recovery systems? If an engine manufacturer believes they can compete with a 4 cylinder engine, a V3, an all electric system driven by a generator or a diesel engine why aren't these allowed?
DRS is a complete nonsense. Today a Honda powered car, reputedly with 150 less horse power than most other cars in the race, overtook a Force India using the engine widely acknowledge to be the most powerful in F1. DRS was introduced as a result, as far as I can work out, because of the F duct McLaren designed and the fact that Fernando Alonso got stuck behind Vitaly Petrov at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in 2010. One car breezing past another on the straight is not overtaking. An overtaking manoeuver should be something a driver has to work for not something which is just a gimme. The F duct was a clever engineering development which many teams copied but implemented in a dangerous and haphazard way. This was not a reason to ban it, what should have been banned was a system which required a driver to remove their hand from the steering wheel whilst going through a corner (for instance).
F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport but it now falls far short. The design regulations stifle engineering to such an extent that we now have cars which can only be differentiated by the colour scheme. Paint them all the same colour and I suspect most people wouldn't be able to tell one car from another. Previously one team would develop a competitive advantage which the other teams would then copy and test and catch them up. With only limited in season this isn't possible. If the testing restrictions are designed to help the lower order teams by reducing costs it isn't working. The rich teams simply throw more money at CFD and wind tunnel testing which is even more expensive than putting a car on to a track for a few days. Most teams now use these test sessions as money generators by putting pay drivers in to the cars so get no benefit anyway.
Just on testing, if the problem is the cost of the circuit I believe you own a couple of F1 grade race tracks in Europe, why can't these be made available to the bottom half of the grid at a nominal cost or paid for by FOM. The top teams can afford to hire a track, some even have test tracks of their own.
Tyres! Why can't more than one supplier be allowed to provide tyres on the grid? If this is simply to increase the advertising revenue on track side bill boards then you are missing a great opportunity. Imagine the revenue you could generate if you auctioned the advertising hoardings to Michelin, Yokohama, Dunlop, Hankook or Goodyear. Insisting on cars having to use various compounds or varying durability is a nonsense. If a team could run a whole race on a single set of tyres then let them. If another team thinks that two or three pit stops for new rubber makes them faster then let them try that strategy.
Some of my concerns may seem a bit contradictory. Allowing more open designs or different tyre suppliers might end up with one team dominating but it might also lead to closing racing. More open testing would at least allow teams to catch up with the leaders which simply doesn't happen at the moment.
If F1 is making older fans such as me consider whether I want to watch the races what effect is this going to have on the next generation of fans? Hiding the races behind a pay wall is going to kill the sport outright. Satellite and cable companies may well be able to pay much higher amounts than terrestrial TV stations but I believe you should consider very carefully how this will affect F1 even in the short term. Seeing the cars on TV made me want to go and see the races live, if youngsters don't have this experience they won't go to the races.
I also believe you should think even more carefully about where the races are run. The Arab states may well be able to pay huge amounts of money to hold a Grand Prix but if the circuits aren't accessible to the core fans they will turn off. Yes its a World Championship but the core of your viewers and sponsors are in Europe and you alienate these at your peril.
I'm now going to watch the 6 hour WEC race from Silverstone which is available, free to air, on terrestrial TV . This form of motor sport, I'm afraid to tell you you, is now the pinnacle of motor sport. Watch and learn - Audi, Porsche, Toyota, Nissan. Front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive. Diesel hybrid, petrol hybrid, turbo charged petrol engines, electric hybrids. The most technologically advanced form of motor sport with close, dynamic racing.
What hope do you have of attracting these companies to F1 if a company like Honda can't create a competitive engine, with all the money and resources they have, and then you tie their hands behind their back by only allowing them four engines for a 18/19 race season?
Yours sincerely
FB
This morning I got up at 6:30 to watch the Chinese Grand Prix and now regret this decision. You have commented recently that F1 is dying, I can't help but agree with your comments but the only people who can resolve the current nadir F1 finds itself in are the FIA and FOM.
One important point I should start with, the volume coming out of the exhaust pipe of an F1 car has no effect, either way, on my enjoyment of motor racing. The main problem, as I see it, is the prescriptive nature of the F1 engine requirements. Why do they have to have 6 cylinders and certain energy recovery systems? If an engine manufacturer believes they can compete with a 4 cylinder engine, a V3, an all electric system driven by a generator or a diesel engine why aren't these allowed?
DRS is a complete nonsense. Today a Honda powered car, reputedly with 150 less horse power than most other cars in the race, overtook a Force India using the engine widely acknowledge to be the most powerful in F1. DRS was introduced as a result, as far as I can work out, because of the F duct McLaren designed and the fact that Fernando Alonso got stuck behind Vitaly Petrov at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in 2010. One car breezing past another on the straight is not overtaking. An overtaking manoeuver should be something a driver has to work for not something which is just a gimme. The F duct was a clever engineering development which many teams copied but implemented in a dangerous and haphazard way. This was not a reason to ban it, what should have been banned was a system which required a driver to remove their hand from the steering wheel whilst going through a corner (for instance).
F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport but it now falls far short. The design regulations stifle engineering to such an extent that we now have cars which can only be differentiated by the colour scheme. Paint them all the same colour and I suspect most people wouldn't be able to tell one car from another. Previously one team would develop a competitive advantage which the other teams would then copy and test and catch them up. With only limited in season this isn't possible. If the testing restrictions are designed to help the lower order teams by reducing costs it isn't working. The rich teams simply throw more money at CFD and wind tunnel testing which is even more expensive than putting a car on to a track for a few days. Most teams now use these test sessions as money generators by putting pay drivers in to the cars so get no benefit anyway.
Just on testing, if the problem is the cost of the circuit I believe you own a couple of F1 grade race tracks in Europe, why can't these be made available to the bottom half of the grid at a nominal cost or paid for by FOM. The top teams can afford to hire a track, some even have test tracks of their own.
Tyres! Why can't more than one supplier be allowed to provide tyres on the grid? If this is simply to increase the advertising revenue on track side bill boards then you are missing a great opportunity. Imagine the revenue you could generate if you auctioned the advertising hoardings to Michelin, Yokohama, Dunlop, Hankook or Goodyear. Insisting on cars having to use various compounds or varying durability is a nonsense. If a team could run a whole race on a single set of tyres then let them. If another team thinks that two or three pit stops for new rubber makes them faster then let them try that strategy.
Some of my concerns may seem a bit contradictory. Allowing more open designs or different tyre suppliers might end up with one team dominating but it might also lead to closing racing. More open testing would at least allow teams to catch up with the leaders which simply doesn't happen at the moment.
If F1 is making older fans such as me consider whether I want to watch the races what effect is this going to have on the next generation of fans? Hiding the races behind a pay wall is going to kill the sport outright. Satellite and cable companies may well be able to pay much higher amounts than terrestrial TV stations but I believe you should consider very carefully how this will affect F1 even in the short term. Seeing the cars on TV made me want to go and see the races live, if youngsters don't have this experience they won't go to the races.
I also believe you should think even more carefully about where the races are run. The Arab states may well be able to pay huge amounts of money to hold a Grand Prix but if the circuits aren't accessible to the core fans they will turn off. Yes its a World Championship but the core of your viewers and sponsors are in Europe and you alienate these at your peril.
I'm now going to watch the 6 hour WEC race from Silverstone which is available, free to air, on terrestrial TV . This form of motor sport, I'm afraid to tell you you, is now the pinnacle of motor sport. Watch and learn - Audi, Porsche, Toyota, Nissan. Front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive. Diesel hybrid, petrol hybrid, turbo charged petrol engines, electric hybrids. The most technologically advanced form of motor sport with close, dynamic racing.
What hope do you have of attracting these companies to F1 if a company like Honda can't create a competitive engine, with all the money and resources they have, and then you tie their hands behind their back by only allowing them four engines for a 18/19 race season?
Yours sincerely
FB