2009-03-20 17:36:04 -

PARIS (AP) - Stick-in-the-muds are working themselves into a needless lather over Formula One's new reforms _ proof, if nothing else, that even in the fast lane, tradition can still be a drag.
Because the bottom line is this: the rule-changes and cost-cutting plans announced for F1 this week could make the racing more spectacular and, if properly managed, help the ludicrously expensive sport navigate the chicanes of economic crisis.
The main news is that this season's champion will be the driver with the most Grand Prix wins _ which, for a sport all about reaching the checkered flag first, has a clean logic to it.
Only if drivers finish level on wins will the previous points system _ 10 for a win, 8 for second place, etc. _ be deployed to separate them at season's end. Ultimately, for the title, drivers will need to be both consistently competitive and victorious throughout the 17-race championship that launches with the Australian GP next weekend. Merely accumulating podium finishes won't do.
The reform tweaks F1's balance between risk and reward. The hope is that drivers will take bigger chances to get all-important wins, translating into more audacious overtaking maneuvers and racing strategies. More thrills, spills _ who can fault that
Too often, fans have been tortured by the sorry sight of multimillion dollar cars parading around circuits with the dull regularity of London buses, nursed home to settle for the second-best of points, not forced all-out for the win. It can make one rue wasted hours in front of the TV.
Admittedly, the 2008 championship was a nail-biter, decided on the last corner of the last lap of the last Grand Prix. In tough economic times, F1 needs such excitement more than ever to keep eyes glued to screens.
Take, as an example, the Monaco GP, the sixth race of 2009. Described as the jewel of F1, the racing there can be tedious because the twisting and narrow street circuit offers so few places to overtake. But with winning now more of a necessity, fans could, in theory at least, be treated to the spectacle of drivers muscling past each other at corners such as the Mirabeau right-hander, where passing is tough but not impossible.
Fernando Alonso proved that by overtaking Mark Webber there last year. Surprisingly, given his talents, the Spaniard is now among those criticizing the changes.
But his argument that «these decisions only confuse fans even more» doesn't make sense. The principle of winner-take-all isn't rocket science. And F1 fans expect innovation, which is woven into the sport's DNA. Surely, if they are capable of grasping such technical complexities as why slick tires offer better grip than grooved ones, they can get that the guy who came first most is the champion
One fear is that a driver could secure the title by winning the first nine races and then rest on his laurels, draining the suspense from the season's second half. Dominance to that degree would have been a suspense-killer under the points system, too, as those who yawned at Michael Schumacher's supremacy will tell you. Now retired, Schumacher has joined the critics, saying «I cannot see how it makes sense to eventually have a world champion who has less points than the driver coming in second.
Fine, but he'll have more wins and if he achieves that with derring-do, the grounds for complaint will erode as fast as it took Ferrari to change Schumacher's tires.
A bigger test of fans' capacity for change are revolutionary cost-cutting plans that motorsport's governing body, the FIA, sprang on F1 at the same time as it ditched points.

Those rules, planned for 2010, present teams with a devilish choice: a) spend freely but face engineering limits that slow their cars or b) work to a strict and much reduced budget but with fewer speed constraints.
Tricky.
If the FIA gets the balance right and ensures that cost-capped cars can give their wealthier peers a run for their money, then it's possible that teams will opt to work under the budget limits. That could help them survive the credit crunch and thus steer the sport through the crisis. The cheaper option could even entice new teams to F1, boosting the spectacle by adding cars to the grid.
The cap will likely produce layoffs, as teams slash human costs to pour limited funds into racing technology.
Given the absurd amounts that have been spent in F1, there was always a risk that the medicine would be bitter when the economic bubble finally burst.
John Leicester is an international sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jleicester@ap.org