Ross Brawn, Mercedes, Monza, 2013

Brawn wants more F1 teams and cheaper engines

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Ross Brawn’s appointment as F1’s new managing director for motor sports has been warmly received. But what plans does he have for grand prix racing?

Four years have passed since Brawn bowed out of the sport as Mercedes’ team principal. Prior to that he won world championships with Williams, Benetton, Ferrari and finally his own team Brawn GP, formed following Honda’s hasty departure from F1 at the end of 2008.

Total Competition - Ross Brawn and Adam Parr
Brawn described his F1 plans in “Total Competition”
Like Ecclestone before him, one of Brawn’s strengths is he knows the rule book because he’s spent so long testing it to the limit. From ‘option 13′ at Benetton to Mercedes’ secret tyre test two decades later it often seemed Brawn had an answer for anything the FIA could throw at one of his teams.

But Brawn differs sharply from Ecclestone on crucial areas. In particular, Brawn is keen for Formula One’s under-capacity grids to become a thing of the past.

“What I think Formula One always has to achieve is to be accessible to the largest number of teams as possible,” said Brawn in his book Total Competition, published last year. “That’s what I feel is a big challenge and where Formula One fails.”

“Wouldn’t it be great if we had 13 strong teams, with the franchise of a Formula One team being extremely valuable, and a queue of people who want to come into the sport because they can be profitable and successful?”

Brawn also suggested the current engine regulations need revising in order to give teams access to less expensive customer engines. He criticised the process which led to the current V6 hybrid turbo formula for not including any constraint on costs.

“If you were doing it again you would make sure that process was more robust,” he said.

“You would start with the objectives of that new engine, including cost and supply – it has to be viable for an independent engine-maker (like Cosworth) to be a supplier – and make sure the process was robust enough to achieve those objectives.”

Ecclestone “one of the worst” at planning

Bernie Ecclestone, Donald Mackenzie, Monza, 2016
F1 has suffered a lack of “long-term vision”
Formula One has habitually introduced new regulations at short notice only to drop them again: such as the one-off double points finale and last year’s elimination qualifying plan, which lasted just two races. He gives short shrift to radical ideas such as rotating drivers between teams – an old favourite idea of former FIA president Max Mosley.

Instead Brawn wants F1 to adopt a more considered, long-term approach to rule making. “It’s frustrating that even pretty senior individuals in Formula One will not have a long-term vision and plan,” he said. “And Bernie’s one of the worst.”

“If I was treating Formula One like an engineering project, I would say, ‘we’ve got to improve the product over the next three years’. You would do your analysis, make your plan and implement it,” he added.

“Getting any form of agreement in Formula One to carry out a proper process is almost impossible. I think the players don’t want it and clearly Bernie doesn’t. So, fixing the regulatory and rule-changing process and achieving a fair and economic supply position would be my priority.”

Brawn’s ideas may chime in with what a lot of fans want to see. But it’s also clear they may have to wait a few years before they are realised.

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2017 F1 season, Ross Brawn

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 59 comments on “Brawn wants more F1 teams and cheaper engines”

    1. WeatherManNX01
      24th January 2017, 15:34

      Complain about engines. Complain about Mercedes. Complain about the rulebook. Complain about whatever you like, but Ross Brawn hit the nail on the head.

      Falling attendances and TV audiences aren’t because of any one thing. It’s because of everything together. The sport has been its own worst enemy; the inmates were running the asylum.

      Brawn can’t fix everything overnight, nor will he try to (lest he become like his predecessor in implementing double points and elimination qualifying on a whim), but I think he’s the right man to put things back on track in an calm, controlled, and sensible manner, and his comments so far back up that assertion.

      1. Falling attendances and TV audiences aren’t because of any one thing.
        The numbers says it really is about the move to pay-TV.

        1. @balue a lot of people would pay if the product was more exciting. It’s just one of the reasons.

          1. But it also needs to be affordable. My mother loves the f1 and has been to a few races, but she can’t afford the $600+ cost of cable + sports to watch, and since the move to pay tv, she has been reduced to keeping track of the times via the app and watching the few races still on free to air. It’s insane. It should be on both. If you want to pay for practice, qualy and ad free races, there’s that option, which most die hards with money will go for, while the rest can watch on free to air with the ads, which means more viewers and a different revenue stream. Let pay TV pay less for the rights so they can be shared and not hide the sport behind a pay wall. It also does heavy, heavy damage to any future fan base. I’m not going to invest all that money to watch a sport to see if I might like it.

        2. @balue
          With you there

          Cost of access is a major factor.
          I have the old pay for sky hd get F1 package and have kept it precisely as it’s cheaper than paying for sky ports.
          F1 in 4K may get me to upgrade to sky q, which means a new family uhd (has to be Panasonic oled) tv and upgraded sky package, just to watch F1. The last (2007 plasma) and current viera (2013 plasma) are still showing exceptionally.

          That’s ~£360 extra for sky per year then a uhd vierra tele.

        3. WeatherManNX01
          25th January 2017, 0:04

          The numbers say people have stopped attending races in person because of pay TV? That seems odd. Perhaps it’s because of rising ticket prices because of the fees Bernie charges the races.

          Thus we’re back to my original statement that it’s a combination of things. You can throw pay TV and ticket prices into that bucket, if you like.

          1. Many races are near sellouts or have very high attendance. Australia, Canada, US, Mexico, Belgium, Hungary, UK, Italy. It needs to be run well, promoted well, and actually have a fan base nearby. I’ve been to Melbourne 5 years in a row and every year it’s packed with a huge crowd and great festival atmosphere, despite not being able to see much of the race because of the track design. You only get to see one corner. But yes, ticket prices for general admin and basic grandstands should be cheaper. But even in Melbourne, most of the $550 grandstands are sold out every year, and they’ve added more.

          2. The numbers say people have stopped attending races in person because of pay TV? That seems odd. Perhaps it’s because of rising ticket prices because of the fees Bernie charges the races.

            I think rising cost of access in general is the biggest problem, but pay TV is a huge issue in itself.

            Why would you go to an F1 race if you can’t follow the season? What if you could previously afford to attend a race, but can’t now because you’ve spent all your money on Sky? What about all the people who don’t get introduced to F1 because it’s no longer on FTA, so don’t become fans and buy tickets?

            You are right that there are a combination of factors, but cost of access is the main one (IMHO), and pay TV is one of the biggest parts of that.

      2. That Brawn is the right man for the job assigned there is no doubt.
        That Brawn is saying a lot, and the lot he is saying are the right things to say there is no doubt.
        That Brawn’s problem’s (most of what he wishes to do) will depend mostly on others willingness to play ball is not so far being talked about.

      3. Change never comes overnight and a good New Broom never sweeps cleanly the first time round. I think Ross brawn will probably use the first half of this season as an assesment period and probably a lot of discussion after with one or two slight tweeks in the second half. its a case of wait and see but i think he’s the right maan for the job.

    2. I am fascinated to see what Ross will bring to the sport. Bernie to go over F1 it needed a dictator to bring it together and forge it into what it became. Sadly at some point the money became more important than the fans, and the result is what we have today. Hopefully we don’t now get a committee pulling the sport in different directions and unable to make a decision. I believe if anybody can fix this it has to be Ross Brawn.

      1. I have no doubt that after all that is being said by those concerned the number one objective of LM will still be to milk F1 at least as good if not better than CVC had done.

        1. Indeed. Anything less would have the shareholders scuttling away. So they have to increase the milk production of the F1 cow and their plan seems to be to have more races and some kind of paying net service and I am sure they have several other cunning plans up their sleeve. They’ll need them.
          In the end it will be the fans and the advertisers/sponsors who will be expected to cough up and they need to increase the numbers of both as the existing ones have been tapped to the limit.
          LM think they can do it and maybe they can. One thing for sure – F1 will look very different in 5 years time, if it gets that far.

    3. The King is dead, long live the King!

      1. When Brawn speaks on any subject associated with F1 you get the
        sense that you’d want this man on your side in any argument.

        Straight as a die.

        When his predecessor spoke on any subject connected with F1
        you could usually find at least seven ways to interpret what he
        really meant, and even then you’d usually be wrong.

        A man who created a completely new definition of deviousness.

        Formula One now has a chance to hold up it’s head and look
        the world straight in the eye. A very novel experience indeed !

    4. I think these are the most refreshing and encouraging quotes I’ve read from someone involved in the sport’s management for a very long time.

      1. second that Will. heres a man with a passion and undertanding of the sport and it structures (without mentioning the finacial side to heavily) on and off field and what makes F1 actractive. an on top of this hes a level head but a force to be recond with.
        another thing that shows in his comments is that hes a fan. lets hope the money doesnt drown that love of the sport.

        #gobrawn

      2. Indeed @willwood, certainly a good base one to go forward from. I also saw his opinion in the Round-up that he would like to have a look at whether F1 needs DRS.

        So far, we finally have a positive outlook at what the future development of the sport is looking like. As long as we have great drivers giving us their all in racing, I am sure we can be patient enough to give them the time to make a plan and execute it.

    5. I think this new arrangement, with Chase taking care of the business and political side (which Brawn has previously said he’s not interested in), and Brawn taking care of the technical side, is a fantastic way to do it, and I’m actually excited for the future of F1.

      1. Brawn can’t take care of the technical side with the way the technical rules making regulations are presently set up. The teams and the FIA have that control. That control just can’t be taken from them. They have to give that control up. The top teams that have that control are making money and employ thousands of people currently. Brawn has to come up with rock solid reasoning and proof that a different way is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, talk about what he would like to see the cars become is just talk and will never happen.

        1. That’s where Chase needs to do his job, find a way to rip up the ridiculous current contracts and rewrite them with a) a *significantly* higher proportion of the cash going to teams, and b) no more favoritism — with the exception of rewards for placing well in races and championships, no team should earn more money than any other. In the short term, we need to be willing to get rid of any team that won’t play ball, as well — and that includes Ferrari. More money and sporting fairness is the carrot to get teams to sign away their control over the rules; potentially dropping teams is the stick to warn them with one last time if they refuse to go for the carrot.

          1. There does need to be a better distribution of money as all teams need to be able to benefit from the revenue that is paid to F1 to air the races. Where this gets complicated is making the grid larger. MotoGp has the so called “satelite” teams that buy all equipment and tools form the manufacturer and then go racing. If you had this in play within F1 theoretically a new team can come straight in, buy a car go racing and then take a chunk of cash that comes equal with other teams and then vanish having made money for whoever owns them. I don’t think the fans are going to warm to a constant merry-go-round of teams coming and going. The current teams on the grid have shown that they have the ability to in the main to balance their finances like any good business. The reason for the current crop of problems is the fall in advertising revenues and the massively expensive new engines. There’s nothing wrong with making F1 even more relevant to the more modern road cars but the new engines were always going to be pricey and that has pushed too hard on the teams to balance their finances. Given time they will be able to cope and “normal service” will be resumed. A slight tweek to how the payments to teams are made would have forestalled this and led to teams being able to pay the bills for the engines in the short term with then once the costs come down able to start to find ways to close up to the big boys. But we have already seen that the likes of Manor despite all of this really have closed up to the back of the grid and have been far closer this year than in previous years. The whole point of F1 is demonstrating the technical ability of engineering coupled with the best drivers, its been said before if you want an entire series of copy cat cars and rules look elsewhere, part of what drives this sport is the lake of uniformity and unwillingness to compromise on what is its core belief.

            1. The problem of pay-to-play satellite teams should, theoretically, be dealt with by the requirement that each team design its own car. Unfortunately, that requirement has increasingly been relaxed and/or ignored entirely, with the likes of Red Bull and Toro Rosso for example openly cooperating with each other, and Haas essentially buying Ferrari blueprints and then having a third-party combine them into a functioning car for them. With even revenue distribution across all teams (other than a relatively more minor sum which can be earned from championship points and race positions), there’s no reason not to return to requiring the teams to build most everything except the engine and gearbox completely by themselves, resolving this issue.

              As for F1’s relevance to road cars, that has been a myth for decades and continues to be so. Sure, we pretended that was the reason for the new engine formula, but it wasn’t and never will be. The real reason was simply to try and end Red Bull’s dominance by forcing a major change through, just as we’re about to force another major change through to try and end Mercedes’ dominance, and how we forced multiple major changes through in the past to try and end the dominance of Ferrari and others before them. I defy you to find a single part in your road car which was even modestly influenced by a part created for F1 within the last three decades, though. They simply don’t exist.

              As for Manor having “really … closed up to the back of the grid”, well let’s just agree to disagree. I wouldn’t say they’ve closed up significantly, to be honest. They’re languishing just as badly as they ever did.

            2. Ed, with respect, I think your viewpoint illustrates everything that is wrong with F1.

              The better distribution of money would be welcome but it wouldn’t really address the issue of a limited amount of teams spending their way to success. Customer cars and satellite teams play a large part in the rich history of F1. They were occasionally pretty competitive which was exciting.

              As for your assertion that

              The whole point of F1 is demonstrating the technical ability of engineering

              , well where do I start! That simply can’t be true. F1 is a RACING series for the fasted cars and hopefully therefore the best drivers. The rules are framed as such. Nowhere in the rules does it encourage technical engineering, in fact many of the rules seek to inhibit it for cost, safety and competition reasons.

              If the technology gets in the way of good racing the rules should be reviewed. If we want the fastest cars racing wheel to wheel in a true sport then this is the only way. If you want super technology go and watch it unfettered on the Discovery channel when they build supersonic planes.

              My Apologies if this offends but motor racing has been my pastime and passion since the 1970’s and I’ve had plenty of time to recognise bad rule making when I see it. Ross has it bang on.

          2. Does all this mean Manor will be saved?

            1. I think people mis-understand what they are watching. In the early days of F1 the only rules that got changed with any frequency were the engine rules to level up the differences between turbo and NA engines. As aero technology came along the rules makers have always been at least a step behind. If you limit what the teams spend money on they will find other areas to spend it on. A few examples; banning double deck diffusers led to blown diffusers. banning FRIC has led to suspension rocker covers, and you only need to look at the suspension geometry to see that these have long since gone beyond attaching the wheels to the car, even the brake ducts have been utilised for aero gain. What Brawn will bring to the table is a sense of knowing what sort of things engineers will think up in order to compensate for the restrictions placed on them. In the shrt term the impact wont be much, but long term it might allow the rule makers to get a set of rules in place that are ahead of the engineers and therefore be able to lead the teams down a route rather than reacting to them. As has been mentioned by Sean above even a redistribution wouldn’t solve the big teams spending their way to success.

              One final note, over the last 30 years F1 has brought into modern cars a wealth of tech. ABS, traction control, computer controlled adjustable suspension, ceramic brake discs, all of this has come from F1. The fact that the teams are banned from using vented brake discs because the stopping power is so great the G forces caused by them cause black outs are why they aren’t in F1 otherwise these too will be on your road car. Do you really think that the manufacturers that come into F1 don’t use what they learn to build road cars? Of course they do otherwise why do you think its well known that cost capping Ferrari won’t work cos the cost of research will be hidden in house in Fiat. The point of F1 IS for manufacturers to demonstrate what they can do to increase road sales, not all tech in F1 will get to a road car but some most certainly does.

            2. Ed I don’t think people mis-understand what they are watching but they do have different view points and expectations. That’s a good thing.

              Sure, manufacturers come into the sport for publicity and the engineering challenge and reward. I’m not convinced all of the the wonderful technical innovations would not have arrived anyway, by other routes, but there you go.

              However, regarding your assertion that:

              The point of F1 IS for manufacturers to demonstrate what they can do to increase road sales

              , hmm. This is still not quite right. Shouldn’t it be: The point of F1 FOR the manufacturers is to demonstrate what they can do and increase road sales? This is a by-product of F1 and not the reason it takes place.

              The whole point of F1 from many people’s viewpoint is to take part in or watch some fast, close, exhilarating RACING. Sure the technology is all part of it but F1 has reached a tipping point where road car technology is moving away from the requirements of F1. Is hybrid technology and its inherent cost really needed in F1 or can we have fast, close wheel to wheel racing without it? The future is electric driver-less cars. Will the technology of those be relevant to F1?

              Technology and high costs have to take a back seat in the F1 car for now. Entertainment from good clean close racing is now the highest priority to save the sport.

        2. I’m sure he’ll talk to the FIA when technical changes are happening to ensure that they will abide with Liberty’s views for the sport

        3. Worst case, he waits 3 years until the current Concorde expires.

          Best case, he sits down with the team principals, and a lot of booze, and explains how the F1 train wreck is going to proceed for the next three years, and that it will take at least 3 years for any changes to show a definite benefit, and that as the sport stands, within 6 years, there may only be 3 teams on the grid– and that’s assuming Mercedes won’t pull out when the grid drops below 6 teams.

          Or, Liberty can generate new revenue streams (digital streaming), and explain that since they weren’t covered under the existing agreement, the only way the teams can gain access to THAT revenue is by tearing up the old contracts and signing new ones.

          The one thing that the FIA and FOM have consistently overlooked in the past 10 years, is that there’s only one priority that the team principals are willing to recognize: Self interest.

          Convince the teams that it’s worthwhile to tear up the existing agreements, and write new ones, and you’ll be able to get everyone but Ferrari on board, and while Luca de Montezemolo might have been able (and willing) to go it alone, I don’t think the current Ferrari management would try.

          1. Do you think the teams would have signed agreements that precluded them from sharing in new distribution platforms for F1 content? I don’t think so.

    6. In my opinion rules should be:
      Principles F1 should follow: 1. safety 2. close racing 3. world’s fastest cars 4. efficiency 5. optimizing 1-4 points.The most fans want to see close racing among the best drivers in the fastest cars. How can we solve it? This is, decision makers and engineers should work for.

    7. There is a lot of work to do. I’m glad they’ve got someone like Ross involved, he certainly knows the ropes.

    8. So now Toto Wolf & Niki Lauda will have to deal with their ex-partner in Mercedes on the other side of the table.

      Brawn knows them very well and he knows how the succes has come to Mercedes and he knows why he left Mercedes.

      Fishing is paying

    9. Simpler rules, ‘rules more simple’, so the fans can understand them, more simple rules. I’m sick of it really. Is the average fan such a simple man he cannot understand simple things like when DRS is allowed, or when an overtake is done or how one can defend. I think not, sure not everyone understand how a hybrid engine is working but is that the essence of enjoying Formula One?

      I did not start loving F1 because I wanted to know how a V10 worked,…? It’s because I fell in love I wanted to know. From my point of view there’s nothing wrong with the amount or complexity of the rules, and whenever a driver or team member uses the ‘for the fans’ line he’s only thinking about himself or his team and hardly about us. That content of some rules however are what I would review. Neither will change fan interaction though I believe, that is unless they result in more wheel to wheel racing.

      1. Yes I’m also sick of the “simpler for the fans” line.
        Personally I think much of it is miss interpreted. It’s not the fans not understanding the rules. It’s the fans not liking the rules

    10. Wanting “cheaper engines” and expecting more competition…..ROFLMAO.

      1. The current generation of IndyCar engines are 2.2L V6 twin turbo, around 700bhp on full boost, run about $700k per car per season, and are good for about 2500 miles, and rev to 12,000 RPM on E85 fuel.

        The current generation of F1 engines are 1.6L V6 single Turbo / hybrid, around 900 bhp on full), rev to 10,500 (can rev to 15,000, but max on fuel flow @ 10,500, so no point in going higher except on overrun), run on unobtanium fuel, and are good for about 2,000 miles (total guesstimate– 4 engines for 20 races is 937 race miles, and guessing another 900-ish to include Practice and Qualifying)– and they cost around $5 million per car per season.

        Build a twin-turbo 1.6L V6 with a mild hybrid system (think KERS with no limits on usage), raise the useful RPM’s to 15k, reintroduce refuelling (with a freakin’ clutch interlock), and you’d have an engine that was just as powerful (if not as efficient) as today’s V6, but cost half as much. Or less. It would also sound 10 times better.

        1. grat, your figures for the cost of an engine supply in the Indycar series are out of date – fees were capped at $750,000 in 2016, but as of 2017 that cap has now been raised to $1 million a year.

          The engines are cheap in Indycar only because the governing body has forced the manufacturers to sell them substantially below cost. Honda and Chevrolet are not disguising the fact that they are subsidising the engines, and the Indycar series as a whole – it might make the series artificially cheap, but it has also ensured that no new entrants want to join as manufacturers don’t want to subsidise the series and independent engine manufacturers would be bankrupted (as soon as Lotus dropped their support for their Indycar engine, Judd left because they would be financially ruined otherwise).

          1. And Honda/Chevrolet have never been happy with the cap because they make a significant loss on every unit they sell….. Hence why the rate of engine development has been a lot slower than was hoped at the start of the current regulations.

            There currently 650-700bhp depending on boost level, However when this formula was conceived it was hoped/expected they would be closer to (If not above) 800bhp by now with more than 2-3 manufacturer’s. The goal with this set of regulations was always to get back to CART levels of performance, To be getting closer to/beating circuit lap records/speeds to help bring in an additional level of interest/excitement to bring back old fans as well as encourage new fans to check it out….. Yet they haven’t been able to do that because of the various cap’s & subsidies that have stifled the development race.

        2. People moan about DRS creating fake overtakes, but, that’s nothing in comparison to refuelling.. Refuellling does nothing for F1 except take action away from the circuit.

          I’m hoping that it is decided to do away with the pathetic degrading tyre, in order to bring about proper racing action. The last 3 seasons have been the worst racing in the 30+ years I have been watching.

    11. Briggs & Stratton already make the “cheap engine” that you seek.

      1. LOL! Comment of the month!

    12. Having worked in engineering for 30yrs, first in technical positions then management I’ve seen projects go wrong. It’s always the same. The person [crucially] with the power makes a decision based on gut feeling, ego and politics. Despite anything those with detail knowledge may have said or probably didn’t so as not to offend that ego. Following an analytical process and numbers before making decisions is the best chance you have for a successful project.
      Ross Brawn is the man for the job. I hope he has the energy to see it through

      Look at MotoGP 5yrs ago there were only 16 bikes on the grid and they were in trouble. They came up with a 5yr plan, stuck to it and are now going through a golden period. Teams are bidding for spots on the grid which is limited to 24 and public interest is increasing. My only fear for MotoGP is that a Bernie Ecclestone will be lured

    13. It all sounds very promissing. I hope Brawn will bring F1 back to it’s roots, fortress Europa. The fact that we do not have a German GP and the British GP is on thin ice, it is just ridiculous. Since 1994 we had 12 German world champions, 5 British, 3 Finnish, 2 Spanish and 1 Canadian. The fact that we might only have a Spanish and a Canadian GP in 2018 shows the problem F1 has.

      I’m not saying the whole calendar is bad, but GP’s as Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, China, India, Russia, South-Korea and above all, Azerbaijan, have driven the sport away from the actual fans in exchange for lot’s of moneys. F1 has become something for the elite, that really needs to be fixed. No, I shall not quote Trump nor Bane, but you get it.

    14. So what exactly is Ross’s role here? Is an advisor or Liberty Media intermediary to the FIA? Will there be a meeting between Ross and Jean Todt at some point? The FIA(and the Strategy Group) makes the rules over Formula-1. And what happens to the Strategy Group in this post Bernie world?

      1. I would expect many meetings between the FIA and Brawn. Truth is, most of the FIA rules in the past few years have come from Bernie, or Charlie Whiting, with discussions with the strategy group.

        I suspect the FIA would be happy to let someone else come up with a long-term technical strategy for F1, and let the FIA focus on sporting regulations– especially those regarding safety.

      2. I think the idea is that Ross looks at what would be good for the sport (working together with the teams and maybe promotors) and make a plan, which he consults with the FIA before it gets put into (FIA) sporting rules to have a new framework.

        My guess would be that Liberty will axe the Strategy group, either very soon, or only after 2020 based on how fast they can get it through with the argument of the EU investigation going round and keeping in line with a timetable Brawn defines.
        It is quite possible that there has been contact between the FIA, Liberty/FOM and the EU commision on that subject and that the premises to getting the nod from authorities was that they would implement changes to give a better seperation of competition and rule making again (and less skewed funding model)

    15. I think that’s a pretty good choice of photo, @keithcollantine. With the word ‘welcome’ behind the great man’s head!
      Brawn was always pretty good at spotting the loophole in the regulations and exploiting them to the maximum. So hopefully the regulations he drafts over the next few years will be completely equitable and water tight. I’m glad he’s back.

    16. So has the rule making procedure changed? At the moment it is still Bernie’s instrument of manipulation, the F1SG. What was agreed between the FIA and Liberty? Will the FIA return to being the rule making body? Even start governing again?
      Shall we be in a position to know, when it is now Liberty who decide who gets a press pass? This was changed with no announcement in last years regs. Article 14:
      “14) PASSES
      14.1 No pass may be issued or used other than with the agreement of the FIA. A pass may be used
      only by the person and for the purpose for which it was issued”
      was disappeared from the regs without a death gurgle. But to me it is highly significant.
      .

    17. With respect, this reads as high aspirations driven by a popular ideal, but without any real substance of how its going to be achieved. Much like any new appointment to a position of strong influence.

      I’ll believe it when I see it Ross, lets see you break the monopoly of power in F1 that favours the big teams and big money. It would improve the sport, but easier said than done. Much easier.

    18. Brawn’s already talking about getting rid of DRS, that would be worth the price of entry alone.

    19. BTW he’s apparently eager to ban DRS & will discuss with the teams a pathway to ditching DRS for 2019.

    20. That’s a very fitting photo with the ‘welcome’ in the background.

    21. Yes yes yes this is Music to my ears mr Brawn, F1 has a Bright future it seems.
      a full grid of 26 cars again, 13 competitive and financially stable teams, at least.
      now that would be something. like Haas said F1 needs to be more unpredictable.
      if we could get the v8/v10 back, fix the asphalt runoff zones, give the cars enough fuel
      and give 4-1 bonus Points for the top 3 or 4 in qualifying to make saturdays even more significant.
      F1 success is guaranteed.
      vibjorn, norway

    22. He talks about wishing it to be viable for independent engine makers like Cosworth. That’s all very well, but Mercedes initially bought out Ilmor and slapped their badge on the engine. This was celebrated and thought to be healthy at the time.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.