Time for an F1 decision-maker to step up

If we were to believe everything we've heard in recent months about the state of Formula 1, the so-called pinnacle of motorsport is in big trouble.

The likes of ex-Red Bull driver Mark Webber say F1 is not in great shape, Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen wants the championship to be more exciting while Red Bull chief Christian Horner says it is clear the cars are too easy to drive.

And Red Bull's billionaire owner Dietrich Mateschitz, whose team is enduring a woeful season with an underpowered and unreliable Renault engine making things worse, is threatening to leave unless things change.

"People will always complain about something," McLaren's Jenson Button told AUTOSPORT. "The key is to try and stay on top of things so that you can limit the criticism."

Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.

F1 has tried letting teams have their say by creating the Strategy Group in which six squads (currently Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Force India) discuss ways to make the sport better and put forward their proposals - but it bizarrely prevents some teams, the smaller outfits, from having any input.

And around 18 months and countless meetings since the group was created, what is there to show for it? Not a lot.

Admittedly, the FIA put out a statement listing the suggested changes put forward for 2017 by the group, which included such things as cars that go five to six seconds quicker and refuelling.

Kimi Raikkonen set the fastest Canadian GP lap in both 2005 and '15. The former was 2.6 seconds faster than this year's © LAT

But Williams driver Felipe Massa made a good point when he said while faster cars will be more fun for the drivers, those watching on TV probably won't notice the difference.

He added: "It's interesting to make the cars quicker but I think if you just put the car five seconds quicker and you see even less overtaking than there is now, people will complain anyway."

The Brazilian also said that change is all well and good if it is well thought out - but that is the problem. It isn't. Most of these ideas are too reactive. Take refuelling for example. No sooner had we heard it was a possibility that Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said it will only return if it is affordable.

Considering that was one of the key reasons for getting rid of it in the first place, it's hardly surprising that a return would mean costs rising - which is not ideal in an age when F1 is trying to reduce spending.

And that raises the question, should the teams have a say at all? In what other sport does that happen? In football, FIFA governs and those who compete have to abide by its rules. It's the same in tennis. Governing bodies the ATP and WTA decide the format, which varies depending on the status of the tournament, and then the players turn up and play.

As a result, there is less in-fighting and negative press because a singular entity is making the decision.

Some races, such as the 2015 Australian GP, are best forgotten, but that can also be said of sports such as football matches © XPB

Similarly, Formula 1 is criticised for not producing exciting races weekend after weekend, but you can go through the Wimbledon tennis fortnight and pick out only a handful of really exciting matches. And your typical Premier League weekend will likely only feature one exciting match that will warrant being first on Match of the Day while the majority will fight over which was the least dull.

Yes, the Mercedes dominance is far from ideal but let's not forget that people wanted an open competition rather than an A1GP or GP2-style standardised series. And the very nature of open competition can mean that someone will be dominant while someone will tank and the rest will battle it out among themselves in the middle.

Formula 1 is much closer now than in days gone by. No longer do you see drivers taking pole by more than a second, nor see the race leader lap everyone up to third or fourth place. The race these days isn't just about those at the front either, with exciting battles all the way through the field.

It's the responsibility of Mercedes' rivals to build a car and operate a team well enough to challenge the pacesetters. And is it such a bad thing that Red Bull and McLaren are facing a fight to be competitive?

Red Bull and McLaren's struggles have formed key parts of the 2015 narrative © XPB

Both of these teams have enjoyed success in the past and now it's interesting to see how they respond to their current predicament. What will Red Bull threaten to do next? And can McLaren-Honda finally get on top of its seemingly never-ending problems?

Mercedes is dominating and those who don't like it moan. They complain about drivers doing too much lifting and coasting to save fuel, but at the same time hail the recent Le Mans 24 Hours race as a real spectacle.

But, firstly, as Mercedes driver Nico Rosberg points out, lifting and coasting has been around Formula 1 for decades. It's nothing new. Secondly, drivers in Le Mans have a fuel usage per lap limit during qualifying, so they are lifting and coasting, too. Yet no one complained about that.

There is too much moaning and no clear plan for the future. Instead, it feels like Formula 1 is trapped in an echo chamber with no sign of escape.

Force India deputy team principal Bob Fernley told AUTOSPORT that someone needs to take control of the situation.

"In terms of making progress on the future of F1, I haven't got a clue where we are," he said. "I don't think there's any direction whatsoever at the moment, so that's the problem.

"I would like to see the FIA and the commercial rights holder take control and say what they want, this is where we're going. Put the rules in place and we'll follow them."

Separate to the Strategy Group, McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull chiefs met in a very public manner in Montreal © LAT

Meanwhile, Mercedes' reigning world champion Lewis Hamilton said: "I think the problem is everyone has an opinion about Formula 1.

"Only some people's opinions actually get actioned. Whether they're the right ones or not, who's to know? But you have to really put your trust and faith that they're going to make the right decision to change it."

If it needs to change, which I'm not sure it does, and you want a democratic process then abolish the Strategy Group. Then privately ask the drivers what they think, as they are the ones behind the wheel. Ask the teams, too, if you want.

FIA president Jean Todt should then gather the material, take the time to consider it properly - and only then make a decision on the regulations.

There should be a commitment to stick to those rules for at least a 10-year period. That consistency will not only allow the competition to tighten all the time - because a rule change only widens the gap between the frontrunners and those behind - but also encourage new teams to enter because they know what they are signing up to for the foreseeable future.

The endless talking must stop. Someone has got to make a call one way or the other and then we can get on with it. I believe that decision lies with FIA. So... over to you Jean.