Before I get started on this, let me just offer congratulations to the British driver who has at last achieved what he set out to do six years ago: Anthony Davidson has secured the second seat in the Super Aguri race team for 2007. May success meet his efforts after so long a period of waiting. Autosport magazine has an excellent article on him and other British drivers. Looking further ahead than next season, however, there is news that should concern every F1 fan.

Fittingly enough in a new century, Formula One is currently at a hinge point between the past and the future. We are about to see changes that will force the evolution of the sport into an entirely different animal from the one we know and love so well. This is made very clear by a question and answer session with Max Mosley (FIA) and Burkhard Goeschel (GPMA) reported by Autosport.

This is a comprehensive overview of the coming directions in F1, an extremely long session in which the combined vision of the FIA and GPMA becomes clear. There is much food for thought in what Max and Burkhard say and anyone passionate about F1 should read it. This is where the sport is going, whether we like it or not (and regardless of any fan surveys conducted by the FIA).

I am not going to jump in and comment extensively on the session. So much is made clear in it that time is needed for us to absorb the implications of the changes that will be made; indeed, there is enough here to keep discussion going for the entire off season. No doubt I will return to consider points made as the weeks and months drag on towards the first race of 2007.

Notice, however, how the multitude of conflicting influences and interests involved in F1 have forced the FIA to make such fundamental changes. Their job is not easy, particularly as they are entrusted with the survival and prosperity of a sport that involves the passions of millions. If I criticize the governing body or the manufacturers, it is only because I care about what will happen to F1 in the brave new world of tomorrow.

Of course I don’t like some of the directions taken by the FIA and GPMA – I have already admitted to being a dinosaur. But F1 is nothing without its history and that should always be taken into account when thinking of its future. We watch because F1 unites two of the strongest impulses in mankind: the drive towards being the fastest human on the planet and our fascination with improvements in technology. Lose either of these and F1 will sink without trace.

It seems to me that F1 is about to metamorphose into something entirely different. If that is true, it remains to be seen whether it can keep its appeal to the huge audience it holds at present. At this stage, I would give just one warning to the FIA: consider the States and the rise of NASCAR, with the corresponding decrease in interest in the open wheel formulae of Champ Cars and Indy Racing (inevitable once you divide your fan base into two). NASCAR uses cars that at least look like Joe Soap’s saloon sitting in his driveway – he can fondly imagine that there is some relationship between his chosen model and the cars on the racetrack. And this, surely, is the type of racing where advances in technology can be relevant to the cars we drive every day.

Formula One is something different; it has never pretended to be about developing road technology – it is about going faster than anyone else. There have been side effects upon the design of road cars in the past but these are incidental and irrelevant to the sport. To make F1 relevant to modern car design is to alter radically the whole point of the sport; we make such changes at the peril of its survival.

David Coulthard has been talking about the unreasonable attitude of the FIA towards F1 drivers’ opinions, although he specifically identifies Max Mosley as the main culprit. He refers to the Monza circuit where the GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers Association) expressed their concerns over safety at the track.

“Instead of real answers we got a letter from Max saying we were speaking out of turn and that the terms of our superlicenses include a clause that says we aren’t allowed to speak out of turn or against the governing body, etc,” he said.

As I pointed out in my post, Formula One Shows the Way, the FIA seem to be deliberately ignoring any input from the drivers and have even referred to them as “self-appointed experts”. I cannot think of any other sport that is governed in as high-handed a manner as the FIA run F1.

Years ago, in the midst of the fuss over whether rugby should become a professional sport, I recall the then England rugby captain, Will Carling, getting into trouble for referring to the sport’s governing body as a bunch of old farts. But that is slightly different – as an old fart myself, I have no objection to others pointing out the fact but I do understand that some might feel their dignity deflated by such a term. The GPDA have hurled no insults and merely want their views to be known. When the FIA react by making it a part of the regulations that the drivers have no say in safety matters, I have to think that something is wrong.

Either the “old farts” running F1 have become so obsessed with their own importance that they cannot bear to hear any disagreement with their decisions or there is much more at stake than either we or the drivers understand. And, knowing how the FIA decide these things, I would have to guess that the second option means money. It might be interesting to find out just who will be making the wonderful new barriers touted by the FIA as such a significant breakthrough in safety.

So I sympathize with Coulthard’s mystification at the FIA’s attitude. As he says, it seems to go directly against all their claims to openness:

“The FIA recently commissioned a survey to find out what F1 fans think of the sport – and rightly so.

“I’m all for the fans expressing their views; I’m all for everyone involved in the sport expressing their views; why, then, must we drivers not express ours?”

But not that anything will be done, of course. Just as Will Carling was forced to eat humble pie all those years ago, so will David and the rest of the drivers be told to “Shut up and prepare for blast off.”

Yes, I’m nearly as sick of the subject as you are but some things need to be pointed out since nobody else seems to be mentioning them. Hopefully, this will be my last post on the matter.

It seems that the FIA is moving to clarify the rules regarding blocking in qualifying. SPEEDtv.com reports that the FIA released this statement yesterday:

“Complaints that a driver has been impeded during qualifying will no longer be referred to the stewards of the meeting. Only in cases where it appears to race control that there has been a clear and deliberate attempt to impede another driver will the stewards be asked to intervene.

“We now feel it is pointless for the stewards to engage in long and painstaking enquiries if competitors ignore clear scientific evidence and instead abuse the regulator.”

The first paragraph looks like an admission that the rule was incorrectly applied against Alonso. If the stewards did not make a glaring error, why is it necessary to clarify the rule at all? In effect, the FIA is admitting that the whole thing was absurd and that something needs to be done about rules that are open to abuse.

To then turn on Renault in a pointed remark about competitors ignoring “clear scientific evidence” is mere bad temper. Renault had every right to protest against such an awful decision and to make their views known. Had they kept quiet, as the FIA is clearly suggesting, nothing would have been done to alter the rule; the FIA can’t have it both ways.

FIA President, Max Mosley has attempted to justify the actions of the stewards by saying that “blocking in fact did take place as the Ferrari driver lost time through the long right-handed Parabolica turn” (F1 Racing-live.com). This is the biggest load of baloney I’ve heard in a long time. So Massa lost some time in the Parabolica? Where is the proof that this was caused by Alonso, who was over a hundred yards ahead of him at the time? For all we know, Massa may have slowed for other reasons entirely.

Presumably, Mosley means that the Ferrari’s aerodynamics were affected by the turbulent air created by the Renault – but welcome to F1 qualifying, Max; this happens time and again to every driver and they accept that it’s part of sharing the track with other cars. Plenty of drivers were much closer to the car ahead on their hot lap than Massa ever was but they didn’t see a need to complain to the stewards.

The plain fact is that the Monza stewards made a decision grounded entirely upon their favoring of Ferrari and we all know it. The FIA is engaged in a rearguard action to save its reputation but, let’s face it, that reputation was blown long ago and this latest incident merely serves to confirm what we have suspected for years.

Okay, I’ll shut up now.

The storm regarding the FIA’s insistence on homologation of engines from 2008 continues. Everyone is still waiting for the promised unanimous agreement by the constructors that the new rules be relaxed a bit, and Max Mosley, President of the FIA, now wants the the big companies involved to contribute to a fund that supports independent engine manufacturers like Cosworth.

At first sight, I thought this was another instance of the FIA creating unnecessary and impractical rules. Surely a freeze on engine development goes completely against the ethos of F1? Technological excellence is one of F1′s main selling points and to prevent advances in this area would ensure that the most powerful engine stays that way.

But the FIA have a good point when they cite the huge sums spent by the major manufacturers on obtaining just a little more horsepower. Present costs of development cannot continue increasing for long before driving manufacturers out of the sport. And we want them to continue, don’t we? Umm, yes, I suppose so.

It is natural that most of the manufacturers are against a freeze; each wants to continue development in the hope of getting a lead on the others. But Max counters this by pointing out that the others are not going to stand still meanwhile.

It’s a perplexing problem. Costs need to be brought under control but, equally, F1 needs to be seen as an important arena for leading-edge technological advance. There are no easy solutions, I think.

Perhaps Mr Mosley’s idea of a fighting fund for the smaller engine builders contains the germ of a compromise to suit everyone. Would it not be possible to limit the amount an engine supplier can spend on development each year? It would be hard to police but, especially if the amount chosen were small in comparison to present costs, it would ensure that the most efficient outfit wins. Much would depend on the large manufacturers agreeing to such a limitation – the temptation to cheat would be greater if they did not believe in the measure in the first place.

Whatever happens, F1 is entering a time of change more radical than ever before. Following on from the engine freeze will come the FIA rules to enforce development in the area of fuel efficiency. It sounds like anathema to any diehard F1 fan, bringing memories of the weird fuel efficiency formula once present in the Le Mans 24-hour race. That led to some of the strangest cars ever raced, long teardrop-shaped oddities with tiny engines. But it seems to be the way the world is going and F1 cannot ignore it.

Sometimes I fear for the future of the sport. It may be that I’m just an old dinosaur living on dreams of the past but the creature that now slouches its way towards Bethlehem to be born looks very unlike F1 to me.