Bitter Formula One wrangle

Press, 10 November 1980, Page 21

Bitter Formula One wrangle

By JOHN BLUNSDEN of “The Times” (through NZPA) London There are 11, or possibly 13 weeks before the first Grant Prix motor race in 1981. It will take place either in the Argentine or in South Africa and it may or may not count as a round of the world championship, a contest which could be spread over anything from 15 to 18 rounds. That is a measure of the confusion which surrounds the future of Formula One racing as a result of the bitter dispute over commercial, technical, and sporting control which has been waged throughout this year by the Federation Internationale du Sport Automobile and the Formula One Constructors Association. The dispute came to a head a few days ago when F.I.S.A.- issued the regulations and calendar for a new F.I.S.A. Formula One world championship and F.O.C.A. distributed a lavish document announcing the creation of the World Federation of Motor Sport as the sanctioning body of a rival new world professional drivers championship. The F.I.S.A. calendar lists 15 races, beginning with the Argentine Grand Prix on January 25. The F.0.C.A.. list

also names 15 races, but! beginning with the South African Grand Prix on Feb-| ruary 7, plus three more i “possibles.” Six of the “con-' firmed’’ F.0.C.A.-backed races also appear on the F.I.S.A. list for the same dates. Such a ludicrous situation, of course, cannot be sustained. Two basic issues are involved. One is the length of notice required for a change in technical regulations. F.O.C.A. maintains that this is at least two years, unless there is agreement between F.I.S.A. and F.O.C.A. to a shorter period: whereas F.I.S.A. says it can make changes without notice if it feels safety is involved. It can be argued that any regulation influencing performance must have a safety element, as it concerns an inherently dangerous sport, and F.O.C.A. thinks that the . F.I.S.A. president, JeanMarie Balestre, is exploiting this loophole to introduce at short notice and without full consultation, regulations that are either ill-timed, irrelevant, or financially intolerable. The proposed F.I.S.A. ban of skirts from 1981 is a case in point. The second issue is Mr Balestre’s publicly voiced determination to transfer effective financial control of Grand Prix racing from

F.O.C.A. (which at present negotiates contracts with individual race organisers on behalf of participating teams) to F.I.S.A. F.O.C.A. sees this as unwarranted commercial interference by F.1.5.A., whose role should, it says, be confined to that of rule maker in consultation with the participants, rather than sole referee and arbiter of the agreed rules.

There does seem to be some common ground between the two factions, namely the need to reduce cornering speeds and lengthen braking distances. But F.O.C.A. rejects a skirt ban as an effective means of achieving this, saying that if skirts were removed three or four alternative (and more expensive) methods remain available for maintaining the partial vacuum beneath the car. F.O.C.A.’s solution, which has been built into the technical rules for the proposed breakaway championship, rests on the premise that downforce achievable with a car is directly proportional to the car’s plan area. From the first 1981 race in Europe, therefore, it is proposed that this will be restricted to 4 sq m, a reduction of 38 per cent from the currently available 6.4 sq m. Regardless of the politics

and finances involved (the W . F . M . S . championship would have a $lO million prize fund with $1 million going to the next world champion), these technical rules would seem to be a genuine and worthy effort to achieve several laudable objectives, namely improved safety, the protection of the investment in existing machinery in order to contain costs, and reasonable equality of performance between rival cars and engines. If team sponsors can also be convinced of their validity, F.I.S.A. must come

e i under great pressure to 31 accept these rules as an n | alternative to the skirt ban. 11 assuming F.O.C.A. continue d’to look after commercial af--11 fairs, they will have no a, cause to go ahead with their o “alternative” theories. e Whether Mr Balestre can d tolerate such a climb down e by F.I.S.A. remains to be - seen, but if it proves too n painful, resignation on a !- point of principle remains niavailable to him as an ulti'mate gesture. Should this a I happen, it must be seen as I-1 an honourable act by even el his most vehement critics.