First of all, Ayrton Senna is still dead and it is still a great loss. However, ruining the sport because of the loss of one who loved and gladly assumed the risks associated with the greatest sport in the world, the FIA is worried about "bad press". Hell, there are a lot of great Formula One drivers that died in the pursuit of the thrill Formula One offers.

Cutting to the chase, the only people that have any business, making the "rules" are the drivers and the constructors. I am sick and tired of those FIA bastards who can't make the rules for those that can. Villeneuve is right. The FIA is wrong. I will pay damn near anything to see the fastest, most sophisticated, race cars driven by the best in the world. If Formula One is to be turned into NASCAR then I'm done.

Lenny Peters
Fps@powernet.net

Lenny,

Ironically, Gerhard Berger said in a short interview with ESPN during the Canadian Grand Prix coverage that he was actually serious about trying NASCAR since it is a great formula for testing drivers. He stated F1 is all about technology, and more and more, less about racing and race drivers.

Interesting.

ATLAS F1

I was at the Montreal Grand Prix last weekend. From where I was sitting, and at the speed the cars were coming, it was almost impossible to determine who was the driver in the car... except for one car in which I could clearly recognize a blue helmet with vertical white stripes.

My best wishes go out to Olivier and I hope he gets the hardware he deserves next year.

Jean-Pierre Varin
varin@odyssee.net

Last Sunday's accident involving Olivier Pannis brought a different perspective upon myself.

We always hear people saying that CART and IRL are much more "friendlier" leagues than Formula One, that the environment on the American series is clear from the competition of egos that is seen in Formula One.

Well, just after the Panis accident, we observed a big concern on the part of all drivers, Schumacher first, regarding the situation with Olivier. We clearly saw on television that the drivers refused to restart the race and there was no joy on the podium.

I still remember last year, when Jeff Krosnoff died, the big celebration that Adrian Fernandez did for his first win. He did not seem upset about what happened with Jeff. This year, Christian Fittipaldi had a worst accident than Panis and all the drivers restarted the race after a short while.

It is quite common to see, on the ovals, the injured drivers (30 in 7 IRL races) being transported to an ambulance while the others wait under yellow flags and restart the race once the track is clean.

So, where is this compassion we hear about in American racing? I believe that CART and IRL have better promotion from their public relations regarding commitments to safety and compassion towards their respective drivers. We, who are in touch with F1, know that there is a lot of misunderstanding and wrong ideas about the series. It is time to work towards changing this situation.

Marko Petek
petek@datacontrol.com.br

Dear Atlas,

One of the most interesting aspects of the Canadian GP, for me, was the performance of Heinz-Harald Frentzen.

During every session, it appeared from my view in the stands that Frentzen was just along for a leisurely drive, expecting the Williams to win races for him based on it's own sheer speed and design. Everyone else was coming into hairpin on the absolute edge. Cars sparking, brakes locking, tires twitching and Frentzen looked like he was going to sleep -- yet his tires were blistered.

During the race, he cooked his tires in the first handful of laps and got passed by Ralf Schumacher in a famous tire-cooking Jordan. He had to pit quite early and when he came back out, it took him a zillion laps to get by Rubens Barrichello in a Stewart that made grinding, gnarly sounds every time he went through the hairpin.

Once Blister Boy was able to climb back up through the backfield, via most cars making their pit stops, he found himself behind his former Sauber teammate who kicked his ass in the Sauber and looked to do it in the Williams were it not for a faulty speed limiter button.

Heinz-Harald Frentzen is living proof, much to the chagrin of Hill and Villeneuve detractors, that not just anyone can do well in a Williams.

Chaim Fagan
bfmaat@cdc.net

Dear Atlas,

Which adjective would your readers vote as the most descriptive for ITV's coverage of F1 so far.

1. Amateurish
2. Crash
3. Embarrassing
4. Awful
5. Peurile

Bring back Eurosport.

Denis O'Neill
don@gcal.ac.uk

Dear Atlas & fellow F1 fans,

I really enjoy the Readers' Comments forum but I'm disturbed by the lack of discussion about what I feel is an obvious facet of the debate over next year's proposed rule changes.

Why are all the changes directed towards the chassis constructors? I'm sure we all enjoy the close racing we've seen this season and I believe we all agree that the lower tier teams will be playing catch-up (again) once the new rules are put into effect. Oh Boy, two more years of vicious disparity with only two or three teams at the front. Whoopee.

I would like to see more discussion about possible changes to the circuts themselves, and constuction of new circuts as well. Asia is chomping at the bit to host the F1 tour, and many of the European courses are getting a bit dated -- save the minor changes made in the name of "safety".

As the technology of F1 chassis construction evolves, how can we expect anything less than increased speed and overall performance? Why not insist that the courses adapt to the performance of the cars for a change? A massive investment for sure, but if done over an extended period and tied to the eventual floating of FIA shares, I don't see why it wouldn't succeed. Additionally, it would probably enhance the prestige that F1 now enjoys!

Randall Guyton
rguyton@ccmail.com

Dear Atlas,

Paul Rushworth makes some very astute points in his article "The New Breed". In particular, his observation that there are now only 22 cars competing, whereas in the past there used to be 30 plus. The banning of drivers aids (such as active suspension, etc.) was supposed to prevent the costs of running a Formula 1 team from spiralling out of control -- yet this does not appear to have happened. The Benetton team is reported to be up for sale because of the cost of competing. Surely, if Max Mosley is so adamant about changing the rules next year as well as making the sport safer, he should consider ways of making it cheaper too. Likewise, depsite banning turbos and having stability in terms of the rules governing engines, the costs of purchasing a competitive engine still seems to be ridiclously high and beyond the budget of the smaller teams such as Minardi and Tyrrell. More ways of encouraging more engine manufacturers (such as Alfa Romeo, BMW etc) need to be sought in the hope that increased competition will drive down the price.

Gary Paul Slegg
G.P.Slegg@bham.ac.uk

Dear Atlas,

I was interested to read the excellent article by Matthew Reading regarding the 1998 regulations. Most of the current commentary goes astray on this issue over when these rules were agreed on by the car designers (and by inference by the team heads) and Max Mosley last year. There must have been a reason for the team owners to go down the route with these regulations. Goodyear have also been against the new rules as well, although Bridgestone are probably happy with 1998 rules because it reduces any technical superiority Goodyear might have with both manufacturers, starting 1988 technically even.

It is clear that the team designers must have been aware of the likely changes in performance of the new regulations and must also have been well aware of argument regarding tyre grip (mechanical) and aerodynamics induced grip. Why did they go for this very odd compromise which actually seems to be the worst of both worlds? In other words, it looks like the dirty air will remain behind the cars and overtaking will still be next to impossible, but the cars will be slower and less visibly exciting for spectators (although for TV addicts it probably won't be appreciable).

The answer to this odd situation is surely obvious: if you remove the wings, you remove a good 50% of the space available for advertising. Hence, reducing the income for the teams. How do you tell a company like Rothmans (or who ever), with whom you are just beginning a new three year agreement, that the space they thought they had bought is no longer available? I can imagine a number of discussions between Bernie, Max, Ron and Frank (no, never met them) in which this ludicrous compromise was hammered out. The big teams really do not care and the small teams have always had to follow.

Where does it leave the spectator? Well we'll get used to the new cars soon enough and the old ones will become fat, old looking things. Speeds on the straights will go up into orbit. The same teams and drivers will be at the front (with the exception of Williams who will miss Newey terribly) and there will be another round of rule changes in two or three years time when the cars get close to the velocities normally only seen by NASA. Plus ca change....

Regards,

Francis Rottenburg
Francis.Rottenburg@scotent.co.uk

It was reported in Montreal papers last weekend that representatives from Prime Minister Chretien's office met with the event's promoter Normand Legault and Bernie Ecclestone last Friday. They were given assurances that steps would be taken so the cars can still carry cigarette names in the future, thus making the GP of Canada continue for the next several years.

Not that I'm looking for any excuses about Jacques' going out of last Sunday's race, but some TV and radio commentators here in Canada say that, if you look at the image on his inboard camera as he looses control, it appears that the right front wheel is out of alignment with the left wheel. They sugest that the steering rod might have collapsed or something of that kind.

I looked at the replay myself in very slow motion and i could not come to a conclusion. Why don't you guys have a look at it. Tell me what you think.

Robert Guertin
guertir@francomedia.qc.ca

As a long reader of your F1 news and even longer time F1 fan (back to the days of Lauda, Petersen, Hunt, etc. -- not bad for a thirty year old), I see an alarming trend in safety in F1, specifically tire barriers. It looks to me (untrained eye, except for for 7 years in naval Aviation, which saw a number of accident investigations) that the current tire barrier configurations lead to worse accidents. The cases I see are, first, the Panis wreck. The nose of the car contacted and dug into the tire barrier on the side of the straight probably contributing to the severe nose damage -- almost tearing it from the car. Also, in Ralf Schumacher's accident, the car came to a very quick stop when it contacted the immovable end of a barrier. In both cases I see that the barrier probably should not have been there.

True, Panis had just exited the chicane but I feel the angle to the wall was slight enough that he would have slid against it as the car slowed, not incurring such a violent stop. Ralf's accident illustrates the point were he was sliding on the right wall between a right hand and left hand turn; there shouldn't have been a barrier there (what angle was a car suppose to hit it from?). I think we have seen this same problem in CART where a car 's nose digs into the barrier thus stooping the car more abruptly than it should have been. CART (I believe) tried the covering the barriers and binding them securely, but this still resulted in cars getting under the belt (and severely damaging the barrier -- not good for a possible second driver who crashes at that spot).

Off my soap box, the real question for the minds on your end is, can we provide any viable feedback to F1 (that someone may read) or is this a story worth someone pursuing? Maybe not, but it would be great to improve safety without affecting the cars, wouldn't it?

Bottom-line, I personally see CART courses/personnel better and more professionally prepared for high-end racing than F1. The CART medical/crash facilities seen a good deal better than F1's in my opinion. What do you think?

Geoff Stahl
geoff@tridsys.com

In the Spanish issue of Atlas F1, Gary Biggs comments on removing wings from F1 cars altogether, a suggestion which is typically met with laughter, but which seems far more sensible than all the changes slated for 1998.

The effects of removing wings are twofold. Firstly, cornering speeds are lowered, increasing safety and also making outbreaking maneouvers 'easier'. Secondly, with far less aerodynamic disruption to a following car, racing will be much closer, again creating more overtaking opportunities.

It staggers me that the FIA fiddle with grooved tyres and narrower cars when simply banning wings would improve both safety and competition. Naturally, we could expect to see teams being very creative in finding other ways to produce downforce, but technical innovation is one of the things which makes F1 the pinnacle of motor racing.

Dave Gymer
gizmo@gdcarc.co.uk

I was under the impression that as part of their contract to show F1, ITV had agreed to show all qualifying and race sessions live. It appears that they are not going to show the qualifying for Canada live but instead will show it several hours delayed to allow their Saturday evening schedule to be undisturbed.

Either I was mistaken or else they have broken their contract. Which of these is the case?

Richard Avery
RAvery@Hallam.TheGAP.com

Dear Atlas,

I just want to remind some of your readers that it is the government of CANADA that haved just vote for the Tobaco Law that will kill our Grand Prix in Montréal. These readers should rather write to P.M. Jean Chrétien if they want to encourage Jacques Villeneuve for some other years here in Montréal.

Guy Martel
gmartel@videotron.ca

I've been watching the current round of comments against Damon Hill; how he isn't a great driver, this, that, and some other thing.

While I am a huge Schumi fan and I believe that he is the best driver in the world, I've been rethinking my position on Hill. I still don't think he's a great driver (by great I mean Senna, Schumi, Prost, etc), but I can't help but feel his departure has had a bigger impact on the Williams Team than good old Frank wants to let on.

By this I mean that this season we have seen numerous mechanical failures with the impervious Williams-Renault. When was the last time anyone has seen a Williams-Renault drop out of a race because of engine failure, brake problems, tyre problems, etc? How come Frentzen is having such a difficult time? How come Jacques has four DNFs?

I realize that Williams had some major behind the scenes personnel changes but I can't help but think it has a lot to do with Damon's departure. F1 drivers play a BIG part in how their cars are set up and maintained. Look at Schumi, prior to his arrival Ferrari had adequate pit stops, car setups, etc. Even though the current Ferrari is still using last years technology Schumi has turned Ferrari around. Their pit stops are close to, if not the best in the field and reliability has increased dramatically; all because of a driver. Don't believe me? Remember Benetton? What are they doing now without Schumi?

Erich Markert
erich@orator.usma.edu