Paul Stoddart battles to get his cars in qualifying
F1 > Australian GP, 2005-03-04 (Albert Park Circuit): Friday practice 2

F1's voice of reason
2005-07-06
Anne Proffit

In a pack of incessantly howling wolves, Australian Paul Stoddart has become the voice of Formula One reason. The owner of an F1 team resigned to the rear of each F1 grid, Stoddart knows how to do more with less than any other team owner.

Each Sunday on a Grand Prix weekend Stoddart produces "Stoddy's Sunday Sermon," during which he pontificates on any number of interesting subjects having to do with the meeting's activities or news within the world of F1 racing.

During the United States Grand Prix, Stoddart was inclined to talk about the rules proposal publicly released by the FIA and its president Max Mosley two days prior. Some points Stoddart agrees with in principle; others he has no time for. Stoddart believes that slowing the F1 cars dramatically by following the proposed rules to the letter would make them "15 seconds slower than the GP2 cars." That solution doesn't sit well with him.

The idea of slowing cars isn't always workable. The clever minds of F1 engineers normally return the projectiles to ever-quicker laps within a few months. And slowing cars isn't about to result in lower costs, according to the Minardi chief. "Any change in F1 has always cost money," Stoddard reminds everyone. "Max Mosley should ask the people who pay the bills (what to do) before making his assumptions."

The FIA's nine-page document of proposed changes for the 2008 F1 championship (and presumably beyond) looks at all facets of cars and competition. Primarily it addresses the need to cut costs but, according to Stoddart, tackles the dilemma in the least effective manner.

"This was not a necessarily well informed document," he chides. "The entrants with the best budget, the best technology, the best team and drivers will still win," as they have since the start of competition in the 19th century.

In an effort to reach out to the teams, the FIA is proposing changes that focus on "decreasing the rate of car performance relative to protection for the public and all participants", whatever that means; clear rules enforcement "with some degree of flexibility" (a cynic could have a field day with this one); cost containment designed to keep independent teams such as Minardi in the fold -- but how?; getting rid of expensive materials; eliminating driver aids; and limiting downforce.

Stoddard has his own opinions on where this proposal should go. As an avowed opponent to Mosley's continuing reign atop the FIA his comments tend to be vitriolic.

For instance, Stoddart has no support for a common ECU as suggested by the FIA. While a common electronic control unit might be able to police traction control (a "driver aid" the FIA wants to see banned) Stoddart does not believe such a component would lower costs or enhance competition in F1.

"We need to contain costs without destroying the sport," he insists. "Traction control needs to go but I don't think dumbing down technology is the way."

The FIA would like to see a designated supplier of gearboxes as well, but Stoddart doesn't suppose that will relegate added costs to the dustbin. "My gearbox is less than one percent of my annual cost and it need not be targeted," he fumes. Stoddart thinks placing limits on gear ratios would be an obvious opportunity for cost cutting. As for placing the onus for changing gears on a driver's left foot, "pedal operation goes back to the Dark Ages."

On the touchy topic of downforce, Stoddart ruminates that a 30 percent reduction from 2004 levels will work just fine and still keep competition humming. "That is a sensible solution," but one he's sure the FIA will not like.

Like F1 fans Stoddart wants to see close, non-manipulated competition -- and a complete loss of downforce via bodywork adjustments just isn't going to work. "I have little resistance to cleaning up barge boards" and other chassis extremities, he says.

The FIA would like to ban tire warmers, but Stoddart thinks that's not an issue for 2008. "If they want to ban them, that's okay, but they must allow tire and fuel changes during the races again." The differences between the proposal and the current tire rules, which ban slicks but have near-slick grooved tires, are so minimal as to be laughable.

But, yes, Stoddart agrees, let's have a single tire supplier. "That is absolutely essential for cost containment and the single best way to reduce costs," he declares. The ongoing tire war between Bridgestone and Michelin has resulted in added costs and chaos, as witnessed during the USGP less than two weeks ago. "With a single tire maker you can test the limits of the car and that's valid."

Mosley and his cohorts have asked that an FIA-designated supplier produce all brake discs, pads and calipers to an agreed specification beginning in 2008. Stoddart thinks that idea is rubbish: "Brake specification changes put enormous costs to the teams," he counters. The rules Mosley suggests would do nothing to reduce those costs.

Banning expensive materials meets with Stoddart's approval. What is needed, though, is "a list of approved, not banned materials," as the elimination of exotic items like titanium simply opens the door to new, even more bizarre options.

But banning spare cars is a poor idea, because an accident in practice or qualifying can eliminate a team from competition. "It's better to see 20 cars on Sunday afternoon than 16," Stoddart explains, "So we should not ban spare cars. After an accident what do you do?" He feels that F1 definitely needs spare cars to keep competition levels at the agreed-upon mark.

If testing days decrease for the calendar year as proposed, the measure must not only meet with everyone's approval in the paddock but should be balanced by added track time during race weekends, when a test comes to fruition. "I say limit testing and make it (a test session) open to the public so they can get some value from Formula One," Stoddart suggests.

For the most part the Minardi chief is looking to enhance competitiveness and cooperation within the sport, instead of the current level of combativeness. "We need equal rules enforcement; that is what the teams have been crying out for forever and we need rules for unforeseen situations" like the tire debacle at Indianapolis. "We need to contain costs without destroying this sport," Stoddart maintains.

"Formula one doesn't need more problems; it needs solutions. Sensible governance between now and 2008," Stoddart declares, "is the only way this sport can continue."

Before F1 can address rules packages for 2008 and beyond, however, it must first look to solutions to today's problems and the trial of the Michelin Seven. "Criticism is essential to a healthy F1," Paul Stoddart believes.

That is why he is continuing dialog with the Michelin teams -- despite riding on Bridgestone rubber -- and trying to find a way to gain harmony within today's Formula One paddock. Stoddart's intent is pure but he speaks out in F1's wilderness. Paul Stoddart is the voice of reason
 
- posted by Michael P. Whelan @ 4:17 PM