Mike Lawrence says it like it is

[Derek Smith]

Derek Smith said:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...

I don't always agree with Mike Lawrence, PitPass.com feature writer, but what you can't deny is that he is always worth reading. His latest is one of those articles that you read and end up thinking 'That's spot on'.

It's nigh on 2,500 words on what is wrong with the organisation of races in F1. Fair enough he comes over as if the wine hadn't been of the best the night before but he is writing from the heart. He is in despair, he is angry, he is exasperated and he writes in English.

I'd summarise his points but I'd need more than 2,500 words to do so. Got to it. It is well worth reading, but remove any sharp knives from your vicinity.

[btom]

What a cantankerous, finicky old fart.

I agree with him totally.

To be honest though, anyone who can combine a rant against the ruination of F1 AND bankers in general gets my vote.

[hornetrider]

Alas, there will always be troughs, and pigs. Haves and have-nots. For shame, but that's the way it is.

And call me a heretic but I think watching F1 live is overrated. I've only been to one but it's very difficult to follow what's going on in the race - whereas on TV and with live timing you have a perfect picture in your head of what's happening.

[IainT]

Interesting article, hard not to agree. This made me laugh though:

[quote]At the Paddock Club, typical of the malaise. people are served sparkling wine and dead prawns on biscuits and may even meet a racing driver. This is soooo low-rent, but someone else usually pays so that freeloader may mingle with freeloader.
[/quote]

Emphasis mine - would you want to be served live prawns? Some of the article really did come accross as whining and reaching to make a point but the core is very valid.

[profstoff]

I think he diluted his argument with the diatribe about RBS sponsosrhip, I wasn't sure whether I was reading a rant about F1 or financial management ineptitude. But most of what says is good stuff, simply told, and summed up by this classic comment:

Mike Lawrence said:

Sorry, but money does not buy you tradition or, for want of a better word, class, it can only buy you things that are for sale and nothing really worthwhile actually has a price.

[zac510]

This is the kind of stuff that gives Max more ammunition for 'cutting costs', which everybody here except jellison seems to be against.

I fully sympathise with him about the cost of an F1 ticket - I don't go to races for the same reason - but then again some women pay £800 for a brand name hand bag so logic doesn't really come into it.

Edited by zac510 on Monday 27th October 12:05

[stockhatcher]

aaaah, I see. I wondered how long MM would take to appear in this thread. I have in the recent past gone on record to support MM with regards to 'invasion of privacy', and it looks like I might have to do the same here.

MM has proposed a single engine make formula. This, I kid you not, is a good thing. It is a good thing because, FIATFerrari may leave, thus denying the opportunity for stewards and officialdom to interfere in the result of the grand prix because they will no longer have a 'vested interest'.

The article makes a good point about the cost of competing in F1, hundreds of millions of pounds, if you work in the motor industry right now, spending that kind of money against a back drop of world wide recession is just not sustainable. Board members will make decisions, and F1 will be dropped like a hot potato. So then what would we have left? 10 F1 teams with no propulsion, at least two of which will leave in their entirety.

Whilst this news is not brilliant for the employees it sure is for the fan. With no car companies involved, costs will have to come down, and we will start to head toward a late 80's scenario of costs and teams of around 100 employees.... but with todays revenue streams from TV. Ergo you can race with out sponsors and make a profit. More teams will come in, soak up some of the unemployed ex Ferrari men, and we might have 30 cars out for a grand prix. This is a good thing.

I want to see close racing, exciting races, tactical races, races with political intrigue, I don't want to see the processions we generally have now.

Having a single engine formula provides both the means and the impetus for a new vision for formula 1, whilst at the same time stopping it from disappearing into oblivion. Today's F1 impressarios might be tired of only making a few million, but there are several younger motor racing entrepreneurs out there who would love the chance to make a few mill.

Bring it on!

[CommanderJameson]

One of the reasons that F1 costs so much is that some twát keeps moving the bloody technical goalposts and forcing complete redevelopment of this or that.

[Derek Smith]

stockhatcher said:

I want to see close racing, exciting races, tactical races, races with political intrigue, I don't want to see the processions we generally have now.

This season we've had all of this. Indeed too much political intrigue. In every series there have been boring races and these will never be able to be excluded. However, this season has been great apart from the interference from Mosley's man, Allan DonEellike. He'll remain.

If you want Formular Ford then there's a series that fulfills all the requirements. It's called Formula Ford. But Ferrari are right: F1 is the pinnacle. The changes Mosley wants will make it A1GP.

Part of the atrraction of GP racing is the competition between the teams. Indeed for some, like me, that's what it is all about. Drivers come and go and if the money goes elsewhere then so will they. What do you want? Piquet Junior for WDC because no one else turns up?

Whatever the reasons for Mosley's determination to exclude the manufacturers, it has nothing to do with making the sport accessible.

If the money is there then the teams will spend it one way or the other. If it's not there then they'll find some way to compete. It's always been this way. Formula 1 has survived down-turns in the economy before and, without interference, will do so again. But I'm not sure it will survive Mosley's interference.

Far from making things cheaper for F1, mosley has organised massive changes over the last few years which have cost the teams a fortune. How much does it cost to run to a new forumula just for one season? Changes for 2007, changes for 2008, changes for 2009 and a completely new formula for 2010: is this the way to cut costs? I don't think so. Further, how long is the 2010 forumla going to last? Mosley has ignored the concord agreement in the past and I bet will do so again. Indeed, he promised that there would be no development allowed on engines and now has gone back on that. That'll save a lot of bloody money.

I'd like to know the real motivation behind these changes.

So what has the organisers of the Canadian GP got in common with those of the Silverstone circuit? What have the big manufacturers got in common? They have something in common over and above just the fact that they criticised Mosley after the revelations about his enjoyment of beating women.

Apart from beating women, I have no idea what is motivating Mosley, but I doubt very much that he has the interests of the fans at heart.