FIA Formula One World Championship

Following recent reports on the interpretation of clauses in the Concorde Agreement concerning the concept of a Team’s ‘participation’ in the FIA Formula One World Championship, the FIA wishes to make the following clarification:

From a sporting and regulatory point of view, each Team that has registered for the Championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season. Any failure to take part, even for just one Championship event, would constitute an infringement both of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA Regulations.

FIA – Court Announces New System for F1 Appeals

The Congress of the FIA International Court of Appeal (ICA), made up of independent elected judges from 18 countries, met in Monaco on 11 December to discuss and adopt a new system for nominating judges for appeal hearings in the FIA Formula One World Championship.

From the start of the 2010 Formula One season, in agreement with the FIA and the teams, it has been decided to ‘co-opt’ judges proposed by F1 teams to rule upon hearings relating to F1.

These appeals will be heard by a panel comprised of the ICA’s existing elected membership plus these ‘co-opted’ judges. Elected ICA Judges will form a majority of any panel.

The ICA has taken this step to add to the existing reserve of knowledge and expertise, to allow for broader participation in the workings of the ICA, and to further enhance transparency and public confidence in the workings of the ICA.

All elected ICA judges are bound by formal undertakings to remain absolutely independent and impartial (from teams, from National Sporting Authorities, from the FIA itself, and from any other party). The new ‘co-opted’ judges will adhere to identical standards of independence and impartiality.

The applicable rule is set out in Article 5 of the ICA’s Rules of Procedure and provide as follows:

Article 5 – Independence of the ICA

Members must undertake to act with full independence and objectivity, to respect the application of these Rules and of all the FIA’s Regulations, and to preserve the independence of the ICA. Each Member must be and remain independent of the parties. All Members are obliged to reveal immediately any circumstance likely to compromise their independence in respect of one or more of the parties. A Member shall spontaneously disqualify himself/herself from participating in a hearing which involves, as one of the parties or counsel to a party, a structure to which he/she belongs or takes part in its working in any capacity whatsoever. Members and Deputy Members shall sign a formal undertaking to respect the integrity and independence of the ICA both during and after their respective terms of office.

Members and Deputy Members are bound by a confidentiality obligation with regard to the deliberations of the ICA.

On every panel all judges will work together and perform all of the same functions, having the same status and being bound by the same rules.

FOTA – Press Release

Representatives of all FOTA teams attended a meeting of the Sporting Working Group at the Nürburgring today.

During the course of this meeting, the team managers were informed by Mr Charlie Whiting of the FIA that, contrary to previous agreements, the eight FOTA teams are not currently entered into the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship and have no voting rights in relation to the technical and sporting regulations thereof.

It will be remembered that all eight active FOTA members were included on the “accepted” entry list as endorsed by the FIA World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) and communicated by FIA press statement on June 24.

In light of these claims, the FOTA representatives requested a postponement of today’s meetings. This was rejected on the grounds that no new Concorde Agreement would be permitted before a unanimous approval of the 2010 regulations was achieved.

However, it is clear to the FOTA teams that the basis of the 2010 technical and sporting regulations was already established in Paris.

As endorsed by the WMSC and clearly stated in the FIA press statement of 24 June “the rules for 2010 onwards will be the 2009 regulations as well as further regulations agreed prior to 29 April 2009”. At no point in the Paris discussions was any requirement for unanimous agreement on regulations change expressed. To subsequently go against the will of the WMSC and the detail of the Paris agreement puts the future of Formula 1 in jeopardy.

As a result of these statements, the FOTA representatives at the subsequent Technical Working Group were not able to exercise their rights and therefore had no option other than to terminate their participation.

The FOTA members undertook the Paris agreement and the subsequent discussions in good faith and with a desire to engage with all new and existing teams on the future of Formula One.

Turning to 2010

Ferrari have hinted they may be switching their attention to the 2010 season after conceding that some grey areas in this year’s regulations, plus the lack of in season testing, has seriously hampered their chances at defending their title.

BMW Motorsport Director Mario Theissen on the current situation in Formula One.

“The FOTA teams endeavoured to the very end to reach an agreement, but regrettably the FIA refused to back down from its rigid position, insisting that the teams must first sign up before there could be any negotiations on the rules. This was unacceptable to us.

FOTA therefore has no choice but to press ahead with preparations for an alternative championship. In the series organised by FOTA, the best drivers and the best teams will compete against each other. This will take place within a stable set of regulations and a transparent management structure. We will also take into account the wishes of the fans, who have lent us a great deal of support particularly in recent weeks.

Since its founding in September of last year, FOTA has been committed to cutting costs in Formula One, enhancing its appeal and supporting independent teams. During this short period of time, more has been achieved than ever before in the history of Formula One.

We will not be making any further statements on the matter during this weekend. We want to concentrate fully on the race and provide the fans with the spectacle they deserve.”

FIA – The FIA and FOTA

The FIA’s lawyers have now examined the FOTA threat to begin a breakaway series. The actions of FOTA as a whole, and Ferrari in particular, amount to serious violations of law including wilful interference with contractual relations, direct breaches of Ferrari’s legal obligations and a grave violation of competition law. The FIA will be issuing legal proceedings without delay.

Preparations for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship continue but publication of the final 2010 entry list will be put on hold while the FIA asserts its legal rights.

The FIA and FOTA

What is this dispute really all about? Is it about an attempt by some teams to take over the commercial rights to Formula One? Or to take the regulatory function away from the FIA? Or even just a clash of personalities? It has elements of all of these, but the real issue is philosophical; it goes to the fundamentals of Formula One. It is about technical freedom. It is recognition by the FIA and several teams that you can have technical freedom – the freedom to innovate – or you can have freedom to spend without limit. But you cannot sustain both.

The lesson which emerged from five years of attempts to contain engine costs was that real savings could only be achieved by the removal of technical freedom: the engine freeze. All attempts to limit expenditure by ever-tighter technical restrictions failed. This is why we currently have a frozen engine, which will soon have to be replaced. The consensus is that the replacement will have to have a budget – a limit on what can be spent on development and a limit on unit cost, just like the engines being developed for road cars. The alternative would be to go back to unlimited expenditure on racing engines by the major car companies. This was never a rational approach, but would be insane in the current climate.

If we apply these lessons to the rest of a Formula One car, we can see that attempts to rein in expenditure with detailed rules will not work. They did not work on the engine and they will not work on the chassis. Detailed rules stifle inventiveness and innovation. But, worse, they do not significantly reduce costs. As with the frozen engine, real savings could only be made with a frozen chassis, an obvious absurdity.

If we wish to see innovative technology in Formula One, the only way is to limit expenditure and allow the engineers freedom to do their best within a fixed budget. This is exactly what happens in the real world and it is the only way forward for Formula One. Without technical innovation, Formula One will wither and die.  Without real cost constraints, Formula One will lose its teams. This is why the FIA is insisting on cost restraint as part of the Formula One regulations.

The final and overwhelming advantage of a cost constraint regulation is that it will provide technical freedom on a level playing field. With a limit on expenditure, the cleverest and most innovative engineering team will win. It will no longer be possible to substitute a massive budget for intellectual ability. In a technological sporting contest this must surely be the right way.

Setting the record straight

The FIA and FOM have together spent decades building the FIA Formula One World Championship into the most watched motor sport competition in history.

In light of the success of the FIA’s Championship, FOTA – made up of participants who come and go as it suits them – has set itself two clear objectives: to take over the regulation of Formula One from the FIA and to expropriate the commercial rights for itself. These are not objectives which the FIA can accept.

Background

When Honda announced their withdrawal from Formula One in December 2008, they had already entered the 2009 Championship and were contractually bound to compete. Two things were then clear to the FIA. First, any of the manufacturers could stop at any moment. The FIA would have no recourse against the main company, only against the team which would have no assets in excess of its debts. Secondly, it was quite possible that other manufacturers would stop before 2010.

Renault was dependent on the French government. It seemed doubtful that taxpayers’ money would continue to be used to contribute to this team’s high levels of spending.  Toyota’s car manufacturing operations were facing their first loss in modern times and might not wish to continue to pour hundreds of millions into a race team while BMW, who were making sacrifices in their core business in order to cut costs, might not want to continue to spend heavily on their team.

Faced with the prospect of only 18 cars in Melbourne 2009 and the possibility of worse to come in 2010, the FIA had to act. There were two obvious steps. First, approach Mr. di Montezemolo to see if the car manufacturers would guarantee the presence of their teams in 2010 so that we would not have a repeat of the Honda situation. Secondly, begin talks with FOTA about reducing costs to the point where the manufacturers would be less likely to stop, the independent teams would be viable and perhaps some new teams would enter to fill the empty spaces.

Mr. di Montezemolo promised to secure the necessary guarantees from the main car manufacturing companies (not to be confused with guarantees from the teams).  He continued to promise this all through the winter, most recently at a meeting he had with the FIA’s President on 23 February 2009.  Not one such letter has been forthcoming – not even from Mr. di Montezemolo’s own company FIAT.

At the same time FOTA and Mr. di Montezemolo rebuffed all attempts to hold meetings to discuss cost reduction. There was no need, the FIA were told. FOTA’s own measures were adequate and they would make up for the shortage of cars by each running a third car. By March it was clear that FOTA had no intention of facilitating the entry of new teams, indeed were opposed.

It was also clear that if the FIA wanted new teams in 2010, it had to publish regulations, otherwise it would be too late for a new team to build a car. The FIA also had to consider what level of expenditure would work for a new team and how to ensure that a new team with relatively limited resources would not be dangerously slow.

This led to the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) decision of 17 March which introduced a voluntary financial regulation and technical freedoms for the capped teams to enable their cars to achieve Formula One levels of performance. Ferrari voted against the financial regulation at that meeting but not against special technical freedoms for the new teams (i.e. Ferrari did not vote against the “two-tier” system).

Even after this vote, FOTA were not prepared to talk. Neither was Mr. di Montezemolo, even privately. In the absence of any negotiation or any sign that the promised guarantees of participation from the car companies would be forthcoming, it was essential to publish detailed regulations and invite entries from new teams. Otherwise there was a real risk that there would not be enough cars for Melbourne in 2010.

The detailed regulations were discussed and voted on at the WMSC meeting of 29 April. The new Ferrari representative on the WMSC was Mr. di Montezemolo, replacing Jean Todt whose Ferrari contract finished on 31 March. Mr. di Montezemolo chose not to attend but gave a proxy to Mr. Macaluso, the Italian president of Karting, who also did not attend but joined the meeting by video link.  His was one of two votes against the new rules but no reasons or alternative were offered.

An exchange of letters then began with Ferrari’s lawyer and a meeting was arranged between all the FOTA teams and the president of the FIA on 15 May.  John Howett as vice-chairman  of FOTA led their delegation in the absence of Mr. di Montezemolo.  As soon as the FIA raised the question of the financial regulation, Mr. Howett tried to lead a walk-out of the teams.  This did not succeed but during the meeting it became known that Ferrari had begun emergency proceedings in the French courts seeking to prevent the introduction of the 2010 rules. It was clear that FOTA had no intention of negotiating anything but simply expected the FIA to agree to all its demands.

A further meeting was held on 22 May, this time with Mr. di Montezemolo present. FOTA explained that they had three major reservations. Rule stability, governance and the 2010 regulations, in particular the “two-tier” system.  It was explained that it had already been agreed to substitute technical help from established teams for the two-tier system at the Heathrow meeting, so this was no longer an issue. This was pointed out to Mr di Montezemolo at least five times during the meeting but he and FOTA are still talking about it today.

The FIA also offered to extend the 1998 Concorde Agreement, which would take care of stability and governance at least to a degree that had satisfied all the teams for 10 years up to 2008. The FIA was asked to postpone its entry date. It was explained that the Sporting Code did not provide for such a suspension and that, in any event, potential new entrants needed to know urgently if they had a place in the Championship.

On 29 May, the eight remaining FOTA teams submitted conditional entries. Among the conditions were a requirement that the FIA forthwith sign FOTA’s new Concorde Agreement (which diluted the Sporting Code, made an outside body, the CAS, the ultimate appeal court, allowed any team to veto rule changes and removed the FIA’s right to insist on changes if the cars became dangerously fast). FOTA also crossed out references to the International Sporting Code on their entry forms and wanted the 2010 Rules rescinded notwithstanding that a number of new teams had already submitted entries.

A further meeting was held on 11 June at which FOTA were represented by Ross Brawn (Brawn), Stefano Domenicali (Ferrari), Christian Horner (Red Bull) and John Howett (Toyota). After nearly five hours of talks, it was agreed that the FOTA and FIA cost-reduction objectives were very close if not identical and that the financial experts from both side should meet without delay to seek a common position on detail. Also, the FIA’s proposal to extend the 1998 Concorde Agreement in order to avoid interminable negotiations was well received. Agreement was also reached on some minor modifications and clarifications to the 2010 rules.

No sooner had all this been agreed than FOTA put out a statement saying no progress had been made in the meeting. This blatant falsehood demonstrates once again that elements in FOTA simply do not want agreement.

On 15 June, the meeting of the financial experts took place. However, the FOTA representatives had been forbidden to discuss the FIA’s financial regulations, thus rendering it impossible to seek a common position. The meeting did examine FOTA’s ideas on cost reduction, but, as presented, these amounted only to a voluntary system which would be incapable of preventing a wealthy team from outspending its competitors and triggering another financial arms race.

Governance

FOTA says, “the sport needs better governance.”  The FIA and Ferrari extended the 1998 Concorde Agreement back in 2005 and the FIA is prepared to do the same with all the teams that enter.  Once that is in place the FIA and the teams can look at updating it to a 2009 version.  But this is not the point.  Formula One needs a strong and impartial regulator because of the nature of the sport, the high stakes and the competitors – people who want to win (literally) at any cost.  There are several well-known examples of this – involving at least four FOTA members – over the past few years.

Good governance does not mean that Ferrari should govern. Ferrari now claim that the procedures followed by the FIA are contrary to their agreement with the FIA, but in reality they never objected to these procedures (indeed they voted for them) until they were not happy with the decisions themselves.  Ferrari has been officially (as well as unofficially) represented on the WMSC since 1981 and never objected to the process or decisions until April and May this year.

Technology

FOTA says, “The new rules dumb down the sport”.  Not so, the 2009 regulations introduced greater technical freedom in several areas. The 2010 Regulations will allow even greater freedom.  Compare this with the FOTA proposals: almost no testing, no KERS, homologated gearbox, homologated bodywork, limitations on factory activities, enforced shutdowns and so on.  Instead of finding economic ways to do innovative things (which is the spirit of Formula One and also the challenge for the automotive industry) the FOTA proposals would impose restrictions on activities and minimise the technical challenge.  When Brawn and others came up with the idea of the double diffuser, the other teams attacked them in the media, challenged them in front of the stewards at two race meetings and then took them to court.  The FIA will ensure that Formula One is the most technologically challenging motor sport – and it will be financial restrictions that make this possible.

Two sets of rules

FOTA says, “Two sets of rules will ruin the sport.”  The 2010 regulations were structured so as to allow new entrants some technical advantages in order to enable them to get to the back of the grid.  The original intention was not to have the 2009 teams race under those rules.  What is interesting is that for several of the existing teams, the idea of greater technical freedom with financial constraints was very attractive. Left to their own devices, at least half the existing teams would have adopted those rules.  In any event, it was agreed as far back as the Heathrow meeting that there would only be one set of rules and this was re-affirmed in Monaco and again last Thursday.  Now that the new entrants are in place, one set of rules can be agreed.

Intrusiveness

FOTA says, “The FIA will be able to intrude on our businesses”, referring to the FIA’s proposal to regulate the amount of money spent. If there is no intention to cheat, regulation should not present a threat. The FIA already regulates every aspect of technical performance and deals with vast amounts of confidential proprietary technical information without partiality or ‘interference’.  In any case, the FIA has already agreed that the financial regulations will be managed primarily by self-verification by the team’s auditors and directors.

DNA of Formula One

FOTA says “A budget cap will damage the DNA of Formula One.”  Setting a limit on expenditure on certain aspects of competing in Formula One evens the playing field.  Isn’t Formula One above all about competition?  It also allows new teams to come in – the only new team into Formula One in the last several years was Super Aguri which could not survive even with manufacturer backing.  But when you analyse the total cost for a manufacturer it will still be uncomfortably high, even with a €50 million cost cap.  Take Ferrari: with €50 million on the chassis and racing, add the same again for drivers, about €80 million for engines and another €20 million for marketing and you have a total spend of €200 million.  Perhaps that is less that the €400 to €500 million their lawyer said a top team is spending now, but surely it is enough for a team to spend on entering two cars in 20 races a year?

And finally

The FIA remains committed to finding solutions for Formula One and has always been ready to accept reasonable compromise whilst retaining the overall principle that it will continue to lead and regulate the sport for the benefit of all stakeholders. Formula One will have a full grid in 2010 with a single set of regulations. It is essential that these include clear and precise financial regulations.

FIA – FOTA Meeting

As agreed at the meeting of 11 June, FIA financial experts met yesterday with financial experts from FOTA.

Unfortunately, the FOTA representatives announced that they had no mandate to discuss the FIA’s 2010 financial regulations. Indeed, they were not prepared to discuss regulation at all.

As a result, the meeting could not achieve its purpose of comparing the FIA’s rules with the FOTA proposals with a view to finding a common position.

In default of a proper dialogue, the FOTA financial proposals were discussed but it became clear that these would not be capable of limiting the expenditure of a team which had the resources to outspend its competitors. Another financial arms race would then be inevitable.

The FIA Financial Regulations therefore remain as published.

Quotes Roundup – Week Ending 3rd May

The very best from the mouths of those in the know.

McLaren Hearing

The FIA appreciate a change in the team…

• “We have been incredibly open and frank with the FIA. They have been helpful, and I hope we have a basis upon which we can have a strong relationship.” Martin Whitmarsh
  
• “Having regard to the open and honest way in which McLaren Team Principal, Mr Martin Whitmarsh, addressed the WMSC and the change in culture which he made clear has taken place in his organisation, the WMSC decided to suspend the application of the penalty it deems appropriate.” FIA Statement
  
• “We think it’s entirely fair. They’ve demonstrated there’s a complete culture change and under those circumstances it’s better to put the whole thing behind us. Unless they do something similar, that’s the end of the matter.” Max Mosley
  

The Budget Cap

A two-tier system might emerge next year…

• “We would like to see all the teams operating to one set of regulations and under a budget cap in 2010 and that is the position we will be advocating within FOTA when we meet next week.” Frank Williams
  
• “In principle Force India welcomes all cost cutting initiatives and budget caps, but we must fully investigate and understand the implications of the current measures proposed by both the FIA and FOTA.” Vijay Mallya
  
• “…as you know I have always been concerned about the introduction, mainly because I consider that there are serious technical difficulties in making sure that any cap can be realistically monitored.” Luca di Montezemolo
  

Upcoming Upgrades

Back to Europe, development can begin…

• “As the rate of development slows, KERS will take on a greater significance. We’re working flat-out to get it onto the FW31 as soon as possible, but I can’t say when that will be at this stage. As soon as it’s ready, it’ll be on the car.” Sam Michael
  
• “We have got a long way to go in the championship – 13 more races. This is a great start, but all we can do is push very hard for upgrades and improvements. You’ve seen the progress of some of the other teams, so we have to starting hitting our slopes of progress again.” Ross Brawn
  
• “We decided before the start of the season to combine a bigger development package for Barcelona and I can only hope that this will pay off. Today, it looks like we are behind but if the package is good the picture can change within two weeks.” Mario Theissen
  

FOTA’s Roadmap for the Future of Formula One

The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) today outlined its roadmap for Formula 1 at a press conference at which senior management figures from all 10 current Formula One teams shared the stage together.

Setting out its proposed agenda for the evolution of the sport, FOTA unveiled a dynamic package of unanimously agreed proposals which, pending the approval of the FIA, will take effect in 2009 and/or 2010.

These proposals are aimed at increasing the stability, sustainability, substance and show of Formula 1, and have all been developed as a result of rigorous interrogation of a FOTA global audience survey carried out in 17 countries earlier this year. The study canvassed views of existing fans but also, for the first time, drew on insights from a cross-section of general and infrequent followers of the sport, in line with FOTA’s stated ambition to broaden as well as to deepen the appeal of Formula 1.

The proposals can be classified under three headings – technical, sporting and commercial – in line with the three working groups inaugurated when FOTA was formed in September 2008. These proposals will ensure the retention of Formula One’s unique and essential sporting ‘DNA’, improve the show for all audiences, reduce costs, and increase the value proposition to the major stakeholders.

KEY PROPOSALS

Technical

2009:

• More than 100% increase in mileage per engine (eight engines per driver per season)
• Reduction in wind tunnel and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) usage
• Engine available at €8 million per team per season

2010:

• Engine available at €5 million per team per season
• Gearbox available at €1.5 million per team per season
• Standardised KERS (put out to tender, with a target price of €1-2 million per team per season)
• Target a further 50% reduction of the 2009 aerodynamic development spend
• Specified number of chassis, bodywork and aerodynamic development iterations (homologations) during the season
• Prohibition of a wide range of exotic, metallic and composite materials
• Standardised telemetry and radio systems

Sporting

2009:

• Testing reduction (50%)
• New points-scoring system (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1), to give greater differentiation/reward to grand prix winners
• Race starting fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public

2010:

• Commitment to recommend new qualifying format
• Radical new points-scoring opportunities (eg, one constructors’ championship point to be awarded for the fastest race pit stop)
• Further testing reductions (four four-day single-car pre-season tests plus one single-car pre-season shakedown)
• Reduction of grand prix duration (250km or a maximum of one hour 40 minutes) pending the approval of the commercial rights holder

Commercial

2009:

• Increased data provision for media
• Explore means by which the presentation of Formula One action can be more informatively and dynamically presented, common to other sports such as tennis and cricket, to dramatically improve engagement with the public
• Nominated senior team spokesman available for TV during grand prix
• Commitment to enhance consumer experience via team and FOTA websites
• Mandatory driver autograph sessions during grand prix weekends

2010:

• Commitment to enhance consumer experience via TV coverage

KEY DEMOGRAPHICS OF GLOBAL AUDIENCE SURVEY
- 17 countries surveyed
- First ever poll of Formula 1 devotees alongside non-Formula One devotees (ie, marginal and/or low interest fans)
- Responses were weighted according to the size of viewing market in each country (to avoid small markets skewing the results)
- Results were segmented by interest level in Formula One, demographic profiles (age and gender), country and region
- Total audience is comprised of:
- Regular fans (25% by volume, predominantly male, cross section of ages)
- Moderate fans (44% by volume, female and male, cross section of ages)
- Infrequent fans (31% by volume, unlikely to watch grands prix, predominantly female, cross section of ages)

KEY FINDINGS OF GLOBAL AUDIENCE SURVEY

1. F1 isn’t broken, so beware ‘over-fixing’ it
The current race format is not viewed as fundamentally broken (across all levels of Formula One interest) and therefore doesn’t require radical alteration. There is a strong desire for Formula One to remain meritocratic, while consumer interest is driven most by appreciation of driver skill, overtaking and technology.

Implication: there is no evidence to suggest that grand prix formats need ‘tricking up’ via, for example, handicapping, sprint races, reversed grids or one-on-one pursuit races. Formula One audiences appreciate the traditional gladiatorial, high-tech nature of the sport and would not respond favourably to a perceived ‘dumbing down’ of the current format.

2. F1 needs to be more consumer-friendly
An individual’s view or understanding of Formula One is framed almost entirely by their local broadcaster. Unlike most global sports, the vast majority of ‘consumption’ of Formula One is via race-day TV coverage, supplemented in part by traditional, non-specialist newspaper coverage. Formula One fans are also mature consumers of new media channels (eg, on-line, mobile) and other touch points (eg, gaming, merchandise).

The global nature of Formula One, although an attractive characteristic in itself, impedes the uniformity of race schedules, and often results in consumption of a race being limited to locally broadcast TV highlights programmes. Only devotees (25% of the total potential viewing audience) are likely to watch a race live if it occurs outside peak viewing times.

Implication: significant opportunities exist to build audience via other channels such as internet and mobile.

3. Major changes to qualifying format are not urgent
When asked to consider alternative qualifying formats, all fan types expressed a modest preference for a meritocratically determined starting grid. There was some degree of interest in allowing luck to play a part in shaping the starting order, but the general sentiment was that the fastest driver should always start from pole.

Implication: there may be justification for minor modifications to the current qualifying format, following further trials; however, a major change to the format will not result in a significant increase in audience.

4. Revisions to the points-scoring system
As with qualifying, all audiences want a meritocratic points-scoring system. This means that they want winning grands prix to count for more than it does currently. There is an indication that all audiences would like to see a greater points reward for winning grands prix.

Implication: a minor adjustment to the existing points system is justified

5. Evolution of pit stops and refuelling
All audiences view pit stops as integral to their enjoyment of grand prix coverage; however, they rank the most important and compelling aspect of pit stops as tyre changing rather than refuelling. Race strategies were not highly ranked as a determinant of interest in Formula One.

Implication: audiences are unlikely to diminish if refuelling is discontinued. Tyre changing is an important driver of audience interest (in pit stops) and should not be further automated.

Next Page »