Full Throttle

The 19 being the scheduled races now on the Formula One ‘05 calender. Via Crash Net: “A Bridge to Far for F1.”

News last week that Formula One will have a record total of 19 races in 2005, has been met with mixed applause, and while extra races may be good for the fans, is this now a case of not so much ‘a bridge too far’ but a ‘race too far for F1?’.

Formula One until recent years, had just 16 events in a season, but over the last few years this has crept up to 17, then 18 and now 19. Where will it stop? And can you have too much of a good thing?

With Michael Schumacher and Ferrari currently dominating the sport, some say that F1 is now ‘dull, dull, dull’- and as such is there really demand for that one extra race?

At a time meanwhile when the sport is seeking to cut costs too, it seems strange to add yet another grand prix. And while granted, it is good the sport has become more of a ‘world’ championship in the last few years, with the addition of Malaysia, Bahrain and China, and now in 2005, Turkey, is it necessary to still have two races in Germany and Italy?

Yes, you may argue if the teams test less, then they can save money here, and thus afford extra races, but how likely is that?

What too of the teams’ workforces, who now face nine fly-away events? Granted some teams maybe able to alternate between two groups of mechanics, but where is the sense in this when the consensus is F1 needs to cut costs.

Also what of the smaller teams? It is hardly practical for them to opt for such a measure.

“Some of our guys are already saying, ‘Where does this leave us?’” McLaren technical director, Adrian Newey, told The Guardian. “People have got wives and children. If you look at the calendar, it’s more than just [a matter] of the extra races. Quite a few of them are back-to-back and for the mechanics that means weeks away from home.”

With South Africa, Mexico and Russia vying for future inclusion the matter is certainly not going to go away. Indeed it may get worse…

Is F1 in danger of reaching saturation point, like many argue is now the case with other sports, such as Football?

Has it already reached it?

Or it is a case of the more races the better?

And before you answer those last three questions, think about these Max Mosley comments given during an announcement on more cost cutting in F1.

“This sport desperately needs new blood. We need to attract new teams. We have attended to safety as much as we can for next year. Now we must urgently look at costs.

“This business could be profitable, with teams queuing up to take part. Yet what we have is millions spent on silly things that people in the grandstands neither see nor care about.

“Why do teams need 100 people working on electronics? It takes 1,000 people to put two cars on the grid. If anyone thinks that does not need sorting out they don’t know what they are talking about.”

Mosley is due to set up in-depth study shortly to look out how the regulations for 2008 can make F1 significantly cheaper. The report is due at the end of 2005.

Isn’t that nice, just like governmental politicians, Max wants a “study.” Just what F1 needs, more worthless paperwork. What I find of interest his premise that F1 “could be profitable.” It surely is for himself and Bernie, and many of the advertisers that amass considerable profits from the world wide exposure they gain.

Frankly who is he kidding? The number of racing teams in all classifications that turn a profit must languish around the 10% figure. But his remarks gives a little insight into what has plagued all sports recently , PROFIT. When profit and sport become synonymous everyone losses.