You say you want a revolution? Well, not in Formula One. While the F1 commission's meeting last Monday resulted in various changes to the sport that seemingly offer more excitement, the main attraction next year will be to see if they change anything at all. Atlas F1's David Cameron reviews the decisions of the F1 commission and analyses their possible impact on the sport

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The heads of Formula One convened on Monday at a conference room in the London Heathrow Hilton hotel to find solutions to what has been described as a sharp decline in interest worldwide in the sport. Team owner Frank Williams went so far as to describe this meeting as the most important in Formula One history. In hindsight, that may have oversold the matter: despite seemingly radical changes accepted at that conference room in Heathrow, Formula One remains essentially as we know it.

Over the history of Formula One there have always been periods where one team has dominated the sport, and for the last couple of years it's been Ferrari. Not surprisingly, from the middle of the 2002 season until the start of this week most F1 fans thought that something needed to be done to bring back interest in the sport. "It's getting processional, getting boring" was the rallying cry of fans across the globe. Their complaints have not gone unnoticed.

The problem for those running the show is that once the World Championship is decided (the Drivers' Championship, that is. Although the teams put a lot, if not more, stock in the Constructors' Championship, few fans care about anything other than the drivers) the interest for the non-hardcore fan dwindles to almost nothing. This is understandable - why watch a competition wind down after it's been won? In Davis Cup tennis the competition is to win in a best of five games arrangement - any games after one country has won three are called 'dead rubbers', and in Formula One we've had far too many of them this year.

Of course, we've been spoilt over the last few years - four of the last seven Championships have come down to the last race, and this breeds a certain expectation in the fans for more of the same. And without competition, the fans were staying away in droves - the publicity office at the United States GP went as far as to openly suggest that, in the absence of any competition to point to, fans should come and watch Michael Schumacher and 'experience history watching a master at the top of his game'. It didn't work, and ticket sales were markedly down.

More to the point, the television viewing figures for Formula One have dropped off substantially this year. And, although commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone counters that "there's been a decline in the television audience for sport in general - we've held up much better than lots of other sports" - it's clear that something needed to be done, and quickly.

FIA president Max Mosley and Ecclestone summoned the F1 commission to that fateful meeting in London on Monday to discuss potential changes to the sport, and in the spirit of the saying 'desperate times lead to desperate measures', radical proposals were put before the teams, ranging from the sensible to the truly bizarre.

The most extreme suggestions were to 'punish' the Championship leaders with one kilo of ballast per Championship point (which presumably would have lead to Schumacher Senior towing a wagon behind his Ferrari when they ran out of space on the car), and for all of the drivers to be contracted to the FOA/FIA and loaned out to the teams on a random basis (which would have guaranteed Alex Yoong and Jos Verstappen's continuing F1 careers, although perhaps there was a bright side too).

Personally I suspect that some of the more outrageous proposals were made public as a bargaining ploy by Mosley - by getting the teams shocked at these seemingly draconian suggestions they would be more likely to agree to more changes than they otherwise might have.

Ultimately, the changes accepted were nowhere near as radical as those proposed. The most noticeable change - and the one that will possibly make the most difference to the Championship - is the amended scoring system, whereby points will be awarded to the top eight finishers of the race, with now only two points separating first and second place.

This change will no doubt make the smaller teams happier, as they will have more chance of scoring points (and consequently attracting increased sponsorship). At the sharp end, however, it will change competition in a few ways - and not necessarily for the better.

In 1990, Ayrton Senna approached the then head of FISA Jean Marie Balestre and suggested that the 9 points for a win did not adequately reward the winner of a race, as it was too close to the 6 points of second place. Balestre agreed and modified the points system to the current 10 points for a win. This was a good decision, as motor racing is fundamentally about winning, and the winner should reap the rewards of his abilities.

This had a flow-through effect on the Championship, and since that year every Championship has been won by the driver with the most wins over the season - something most fans will agree is the way Championships should be won. With increased points for the second through eighth positions, however, this may no longer be the case, as a slower but reliable driver could actually gain more points than a faster driver in a more fragile car. Expect this points system to remain in place until the first driver wins the Championship with few or no race victories over the season, at which time the points awarded for first place will likely increase to 12.

Another inadvertent problem with the new point system is that it may lead to less, rather than more, overtaking and racing. With a smaller difference between points, some drivers (and fundamentally many teams) will err on the side of conservatism and not risk losing the points they've acquired during the race with a potentially wayward overtaking maneuver.

Although it's understandable that the teams might want to do this (next year's remuneration is directly linked to the points accumulated over the year, so there is a big financial pressure being brought to bear), most fans want to see racing and overtaking, and this will potentially alienate viewers. Furthermore, drivers have always modified their driving with one eye on the championship table, and next year will be no different - if there is only 1 or 2 points extra on offer for overtaking, a number of drivers will consider the risk not worthwhile.

Another notable change will occur in qualifying, where the current system of 12 laps run randomly over an hour will be modified significantly. The new system calls for the drivers to run on Friday, in Championship standings order from the leader down and alone on the track, one hot lap each to ascertain an order to repeat this process, from slowest to quickest, on Saturday for qualifying. Track owners will be happy to have a form of qualifying back on the program on a Friday for the first time in years, and Bernie seems to have found a way to get F1 on television on another day, with some networks tentatively agreeing to show Friday's session in some form.

Moreover, this arrangement will make for some very exciting viewing, as fans watch to see who will be willing to throw everything down to be as fast as possible versus those who will drive within themselves to guarantee a 'reasonable' grid position. The only thing certain with this new scheme is uncertainty, as there will be a number of races where the more favoured drivers make a small (or large) error and find themselves well down the grid come race day, which will certainly spice up the race.

The only problem with the new qualifying format is the random event - the 'what if?' factor in the event of a sudden storm half way through qualifying, or an engine exploding and laying down oil on the track, or something else of this ilk. Of course, weather has always been an issue for qualifying and has lead to some topsy turvy grids in the past, which has generally made for an interesting race the next day. Accordingly, the downside of this new scheme is pretty minimal, whereas the potential for an interesting grid is increased, which can only create more interesting races.

A qualified success, then - the only potential cloud is the application of the 107% rule. Minardi boss Paul Stoddart has suggested that the 107% rule is dead, although the FIA have disputed this position. Certainly Stoddart has a point when he suggests that the slowest cars, running when the track is greenest, against the fastest cars running with rubber on the track will give them a natural disadvantage. Presumably the track stewards will be advised to look favourably on the application of any driver outside of 107% of the pole sitter, particularly given that there will certainly be a number of drivers who do not finish their hot lap due to mechanical breakdown or driver error.

Something that will directly influence qualifying will be the new schedule for testing. The teams have been offered an extra 2 hours testing, with 3 cars each, on the circuit on the Friday before the race if they sign up to an agreement (to test outside of the circuits for no more than 10 days) before December 15th. There is little downside to this, particularly for the smaller teams - testing costs a lot of money for some fairly small gains, gains which would be more than made up for with actual track time on the weekend against time on other circuits in different conditions.

The teams all have 7 point rigs now, along with very advanced wind tunnel and engine stressing technology, and they are certainly able to reasonably simulate the track back at base. Accordingly there is little to be lost by agreeing to the new deal, and certainly more track time than any team that doesn't sign up would be an advantage. Stoddart has already flagged this deal as a potential revenue raiser for Minardi, whereby he could allow a local driver to run the spare car for publicity (and provide some additional funds for Minardi, of course). This can also be used as an accurate gauge for appraising young driver's ability for the following year.

Something else that bears considering is that Mosley has flagged the restriction of ten days only between March 1st and November 1st, so presumably the teams will be free to test to their hearts' content outside these dates. This idea should be a good way for the smaller teams to save some funds - money that could then be redirected to better effect.

This ties in nicely with the new ruling on tyres, which will allow the manufacturers to make in effect bespoke tyres for each team. Presently the tyre manufacturers are building tyres for the top teams (Bridgestone for Ferrari; Michelin for McLaren and Williams), which means that the lesser teams can struggle if their cars are not optimized for the same tyres as the big teams.

There has been no protest from Bridgestone or Michelin about this ruling, and it seems that they are able to create a vast array of tyres at each race for a relatively small increased cost. Accordingly, this can only have the effect of bringing the pack closer together, as every team will be able to optimize tyre performance on their cars. The teams who are testing at the circuit will have 2 hours extra to gauge performance, which will certainly help for qualifying and the race. A simple idea to increase competition, and a good one.

The Belgian Grand Prix has been removed from next year's calendar, after consultation with the teams, owing to the local government's decision to ban all tobacco sponsorship in the region. This is a contentious issue, and one that the FIA addressed previously by stating that all tobacco sponsorship will be banned in 2006 when the EU ban will come into effect across Europe. While the Belgians have every right to change their mind on this issue, the Formula One teams who are currently running with tobacco sponsorship have contracts to run with their liveries intact for a certain number of races per year.

This issue has been raised a number of times, and there was no real option for the teams to back down on this - had they done so, any of the countries where F1 has been given leave to run their sponsorship intact could rescind the deal, leaving these teams without substantial sponsorship (read, revenue). Accordingly (and appallingly, given that Spa is a firm fan favourite) Belgium will be without a Grand Prix failing some last minute deal from the local lawmakers. We can only hope that a deal is done to bring the circus back to the Ardennes.

The one remaining change for the new year is the ban on team orders that "interfere with the race result." The FIA has a tendency, when creating a new rule, to be fairly open in their wording of it, which gives them greater scope in the event that they have to make a ruling on a team in breach of the rule, and this is another example of that.

Many feel that this rule will be nothing more than window dressing to avoid a repeat of the Austrian race this year, which left a sour taste in the mouths of most who watched it. Certainly it will be very difficult to guarantee that no team is running team orders, as it will be incredibly hard to tell if a pitstop was deliberately long or merely the result of a mistake.

When asked about the issue, Ecclestone replied: "if it's possible for you to see that somebody's just done that (issue a team order) then it's possible for the stewards." In reality, this is as much as can be hoped for, as the team order issue was raised because of the manner Ferrari carried them out, rather than the fact that they were at all used.

For his part, Mosley promised that there will be FIA personnel on the ground to monitor the teams - via radio broadcasts and by being in the pits - and should anything be suspected, the matter will be brought before the stewards for their ruling, in the same manner that race disputes are currently handled.

The only potential problem with this ruling would be in the case of a team telling one driver to pull over for his substantially faster teammate, but hopefully common sense would prevail in this situation and it would not be seen as a team order.

Be that as it may, this ruling was agreed by the teams, and they are therefore aware that team orders will now be frowned upon, and they will be increasingly aware of their responsibilities on the matter. Can all team orders be quashed? It seems unlikely, but a lot of contentious decisions on the part of the teams should be banished by this ruling, which can only be a good thing.

Something needed to be done to avoid a season as boring as 2002 from happening again, but the teams had to keep in mind the history of the sport we (and they) love. Could they have come up with a better solution? Perhaps, but it could have been a lot worse, too - wholesale changes would have done more harm than good. The old adage of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind, but over the history of Grand Prix racing there have been many changes to the rules, and the sport has continued to thrive. This will be the case with the new rulings.

No one yet knows what effect the new rules will have on the Championship next year, but I'll be watching to see. I suspect you will, too.