A month after proposing low-tech rules for 2008, Mosley said he now wanted to allow cutting-edge technology from that year.

His views are said to have been altered by a survey of F1 fans carried out by the FIA, the sport’s governing body. In the survey, 80 per cent agreed that advanced technology set F1 apart from other motor sports, and 64 per cent said they looked forward to technological innovations each season.

In a letter sent to the F1 teams and made public on Wednesday, Mosley asked the teams to consider the "technology/cost issue" and what should be permitted in future.

Mosley said that the FIA's preliminary view was that "technology which helps the driver to control the car... has no place in F1, which should remain a supreme test of drivers skill.

F1 is almost unique among sports in the degree to which it has to balance technology enhancements and the integrity of the sport. The auto manufacturers like to use F1 as a lab to try out the latest-greatest stuff, on the chance that some of it will be adapted for commercial use. But the sport has accelerated into a technology war, which means more money = more performance, and this has raised concerns about fairness and competitiveness and thus the overall fan experience.

One problem Mosely may find is what economists call revealed preference. While fans 'say' they want more technology in certain areas, they alweays want exciting, competitive racing. So what they say and how they actually feel may be two different things.

FIA president Max Mosley has long argued against the use of technology that costs millions to develop without any obvious benefit.

"It may fascinate the relevant engineers that by spending millions of Euros they can build a new gearbox with ratios that are 0.25 mm thinner but no-one else knows or cares," the FIA said when putting forward proposed rule changes for 2008.

"There is no additional value for the watching public who, ultimately, pay for the whole thing.

"If we eliminate pointless (but very expensive) engineering exercises, there will still remain huge areas of technical interest, some of which can be directly relevant to automobile engineering."

If the survey results are any indication, F1 cars may soon get downgraded to lower tech levels. Traction control and antilock brakes are already banned; sequential gearboxes and hand clutches may be next. There was no talk about telemetry or data acquisition, but I wouldn't be surprised to see those limited as well.

I think there will always be a tension in sports between the players/managers on one hand, and the fans/spectators on the other as to the appropriate amount of technology in a game. Fans almost always want less, and the players themselves want more. There are a number of practical and psychological reasons for this I plan to explore in the future.

The truth seems to matter to Danica Patrick, who refuses to play these typical women's sports victim games. When a Newsweek interviewer recently asked her "Are you the Gloria Steinem of racing?' Patrick replied, "The what? I don't even know who that is. Is that bad?'

Next year officials could place limits on the types of gears teams can use in an attempt to limit engine revolutions per minute. This would prevent larger teams from spending money to develop higher-revving engines that produce more horsepower. It's more important to have competitive racing than faster racing.

Perhaps the most controversial idea NASCAR is considering: forcing teams to buy the center section of their chassis — the car's basic underbody frame — from an outside firm at a fixed price. Teams would build their own engines, suspension systems and body panels.

This is a problem for all motorsports. F1 has embraced technology fights, only to come to regret them and try to stuff the technological genie back in the bottle. NASCAR proceeds cautiously -- they are supposed to be "stock" cars, after all -- but faces some of the same problems of haves and have nots.

Schumacher is nothing like Jackie Stewart, Mario Andretti, and the other motorsport legends he's now surpassed. Schumacher may be a remarkable driver, but, more important, he's a venture capitalist in a flame-retardant red jumpsuit.

Let me know your thoughts.

As an aside, let me say that Montreal is a terrific town. They need to tear down all the crappy late 60s early 70s office towers that block Old Montreal's terrific architecture. But if you're into Jewish steakhouses, interpretive dance and flower shows, Montreal is the town for you. The whole weekend was quite the spectacle. One of my buddies, Lou, said his favorite band The Merkins was playing while we were up there but we didn't get to see them. He was bummed out, but we had fun nonetheless. We did not, thankfully, have so good a time that anyone ended up in The People's Court. All that said, if Ree-chard (you know who you are) knows where my buddy Rob's cell phone is, please send me an email.

Anyway, we did get to see a ton of amazing racing, including a spectacular run by, who else, Michael Schumacher. I'll be writing more on this later, but Schumacher dusted his brother Ralf in spectacular fashion to take the checkered flag.

F1 is easily the loudest sporting event in Christendom. It's also easily the highest tech. But F1 could do a few things to make the fan experience more hi-tech. I'll have thoughts on this later, too.