It is pure PR.
Many people see F1 as hugely expensive and irrelevant to life and that money spent on this form of sport is inconsistent with the credit crunch.
Many others see the huge expense enforced by Bernie etc to preserve the 'gloss' on F1 and keep the TV fees up as being unsupportable. (it is, hence the demise of the 'little' teams and the rise of the 'sibling' teams).
So one presents a discussion to 'lower' the costs. One hopes that the rejection of such a discussion by the majority of focus groups (manufacturers, commentators, media outlets, fans) will allow one to announce to that disapproving group that one has tried democratically to reduce costs, reduce glamour etc but 'our participants have rejected it'.
At the back of it all is the undeniable fact that F1 has reached its sell-by date. Without altering the sport beyond all recognition, the technology has gone beyond the environment available. We have seen the rise of MotoGP as the alternative, where the primary element of competition, overtaking, is still possible but only because the bikes are so much narrower than F1 cars,the energies involved so much less and the human element so much more obvious. F1 is trying to re-create those elements while retaining the reputation of being the 'fastest possible cars on a track'. (We all know that they aren't, they are now the fastest reasonably priced cars on the track, the technology exists to make them much faster).
And if it comes about, then watch for F1 to be packaged like Champ cars or Nascar, with an all course yellow every 20 minutes to permit 'this message from our sponsors'.
|
|