Common-sense cuts

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Motor racing’s governing body has come up with some pitiful ideas in recent weeks, most notably the suggestion that a pace car should be used to tighten up F1 fields whenever a Grand Prix leader opened up an advantage of 12 seconds. And some Europeans scornfully dismiss the ‘artificiality’ and showbusiness packaging of the sport in the United States. .

Our fears that Formula One was about to be reduced to a laughing stock have receded, however, and we applaud the eventual stance taken by the F1 Commission in outlawing the costly electronic aids that have, in recent years, diminished the racing driver’s art. As meritorious as active suspension and traction control may be as technical achievements, they have done little to enhance the sport’s visual appeal (Which looks faster, a car cornering on rails, with active ride, at 140 mph, or one which is skittering through a bend, suspension askew, rear wheels sliding, at 125?) and the gulf between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ has increased in line with the greater emphasis on research and development.

We can readily sympathise with Williams and McLaren, who are guilty only of having exploited the existing regulations better than anybody else. With their collective expertise, however, it should not be beyond them to remain ultra-competitive in the new low-tech era. After all, both were winning races 10 or 11 years ago, when the majority of the field was running the trusty Cosworth-DFV and, generally speaking, there was greater parity of equipment.

Equally, we can sympathise with those teams who have spent what will now be wasted money in developing systems such as those which proved so effective on the 1992 Williams. It’s a situation they were forced into, and which many of them could ill-afford.

The recent loss of F1 teams such as Fondmetal and Brabham, and the difficulties encountered by intended newcomers such as Pacific, which has postponed its F1 entry until 1994, is proof enough that Grand Prix racing is not inflation-proof.

The measures taken by the F1 Commission (which were announced after this month’s Delirium Tremens had gone to press, hence some of the observations in that column have been overtaken by subsequent events) will make the sport less expensive and place a greater premium on driver skill. Such things, obviously, are to be applauded.

Similarly, we are happy to give the sport’s governing body a slap on the back for the dignified manner in which it announced the impending changes. Of late, endless squabbles and petty recriminations have clouded the air. In taking a firm, and clear stance, FISA has told the teams exactly where they stand, and has swept aside ridiculous side-issues such as the dispute over the Williams team’s late entry.

It’s now up to the same teams to get on with the business of racing, and to prepare for the dawn of the new regulations.

After a winter of discontent, we look forward to getting back to some sport. It may sometimes be hard trying to separate sport from politics, but the outcome of the meeting on February 12 suggested that FISA has had a damned good try.

S A

You may also like

Related products