F1's dissenters prepare for battle

Ostensibly called by FIA president Jean Todt to discuss regulatory cost control, the meeting scheduled for May 1 at Formula One Management's Biggin Hill headquarters will severely test the executive powers of Formula 1's Strategy Group, and, by extension, the body's future.

Formed as part of the sport's post-2012 governance procedure, the Group consists of the FIA (six votes), FOM (ditto) and four so-called 'Championship Constructors Bonus' teams - Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes - plus Williams (through heritage) and Lotus, as reward for it being highest-placed non-CCB team in 2012-'13.

As an aside, one wonders which team will be awarded the sixth seat come 2015 should the black/gold operation continue its current downward spiral. As things presently stand, the sixth seat at the table is not allocated permanently, and on present form Force India should receive the call in 2015. However, given the team's relentless campaign against what deputy team principal Robert Fernley calls "disenfranchisement" - see below - the call may not materialise.

That presupposes the Strategy Group will survive in its present form given that four 'disenfranchised' teams, namely Caterham, Force India, Marussia and Sauber addressed a strongly worded letter to Todt after he told AUTOSPORT that previously agreed plans for cost capping had been abandoned following an abrupt Strategy Group U-turn.

"Most of the teams were in favour of the cost cap, but I understand all the teams that are part of the Strategy Group are against it now," he said. "Clearly, if the commercial rights holder and six teams, which means 12 of 18 are against [on a simple majority basis], I cannot impose it. It's mathematics. So in this case, no more cost cap."

In compensation the Group proposed a raft of "cost saving" measures - on the face of them mostly tailored to suit their own ends, and by their nature unlikely to save the immediate £30m per annum a cost cap would impose.

Lotus currently has a Strategy Group spot, but it earned it on results © LAT

For example, for 2015 the Group has proposed a ban on tyre warmers, along with simplified fuel systems and brake ducts, changes to front wings to reduce manufacturing/development costs, aligning engine/gearbox use, bans on interconnected front/rear suspensions and increased curfews. Mostly great ideas - but certainly not in the $50m savings bracket. Indeed, no reason exists why they could not be introduced in addition to cost capping.

In their letter the quartet - saliently Red Bull sister team Toro Rosso abstained, thus it sits in neither faction - questioned the legality of the Strategy Group under EU monopolies/abuse laws, with the letter referencing fair play and ethics as prescribed by the International Olympic Committee, to which the FIA recently subscribed.

On the face of it the CCB teams (and FOM, whose CEO Bernie Ecclestone currently has weightier issues on his mind as he fights serious bribery charges in a Munich court) appear unmoved, with Red Bull's Christian Horner arguing that all teams accepted the revised governance process as part of their individual commercial negotiations with Ecclestone in early 2012 to cater for the 2013-20 period.

The intention was for these agreements to be enshrined in a full Concorde Agreement - the tripartite covenant that governs F1's sporting, commercial and administrative issues - acceptable to all player groups. To date no Agreement has been signed, although the FIA and FOM agreed an outline framework known as the Concorde Implementation Agreement (CIA).

However, some Strategy Group members and non-SG team principals are adamant the Strategy Group was not clearly defined in the commercial agreements - one team boss stated the only reference was "a vague clause outlining a group to formulate future strategy, not one with sweeping powers to overturn what was agreed".

Todt's response - a copy of which was seen by this writer - seemingly substantiates this, the Frenchman writing that the Strategy Group was provided for in the CIA, which was agreed between the governing body and FOM in July 2013 and subsequently ratified by the FIA World Motorsport Council.

By implication the teams have not (yet) agreed to the CIA, and thus, by extension, not formally approved a Concorde Agreement or indeed the Strategy Group. Given that the 2010-12 Concorde makes provision for its Schedule 9 (governance procedure) to be carried over where no formal replacement exists, a case could be made that the Strategy Group has (as yet) no executive powers or authority.

Where the present system differs from what went immediately before is that previously sporting/technical regulation amendments were respectively formulated by the Sporting and Technical Working Groups, on which each team enjoyed equal input. Once approved by the SWG/TWG the amendments were escalated to the Formula 1 Commission, which passed accepted motions to the WMSC for final approval.

What the big teams see as useful cost cuts may not help their smaller rivals © XPB

Under the SWG/TWG process men with a lifetime of experience "at the coal face" framed regulations - and, crucially, rejected the unworkable. However, on invitation they now provide non-executive input to the Strategy Group, which is without exception made up of senior managers with little (or no) direct knowledge of F1's nuts and bolts. Hence double points; hence proposals to ban tyre warmers in 2015 despite their own staff (and Pirelli) warning against the move.

In his letter Todt states the non-SG teams do have input into the process via the Formula 1 Commission, on which sit all teams, FIA, FOM, circuit owners, sponsors and technical partners. The counter argument is that the Commission does not frame regulations, but merely passes items agreed at SG level to the WMSC for ratification, and therefore the four (of 25 seats) effectively hold no sway.

The last thing the FIA and the sport's commercial owners CVC Capital Partners, who acquired the majority rights as part of a contentious process being dissected in Munich, need is an EU investigation (or IOC intervention), but so desperate are some of the disenfranchised outfits to save their teams from collapse they could well turn to Brussels - before or after.

Force India's outstanding run of results has been used as example that independents can compete with the Big Four, but this overlooks that the team has been gradually ramping up its effort over a five-year period at great expense to its shareholders - who have yet to see a tangible return on investment. By contrast, the likes of Red Bull and Ferrari measure their F1 ROI in unit sales, be they cans or cars.

Equally, Ferrari was recently forwarded by Mercedes motorsport director Toto Wolff as example why cost caps could not be applied: "Ferrari are a good example as they have everything - the road car business and F1 - in one entity, and it's difficult for them to have everything screened."

This begs the question: should far-reaching rules be framed to suit a specific team? In a global sport?

All four dissenting teams are owned by independents, passionate individuals who invested hard-earned cash in teams to go racing, not as marketing platforms for energy drinks or swanky cars - and have gradually learned that they have almost nothing left to lose, which is when mankind is at its most dangerous. "Scorched" and "earth" spring to mind...

Indeed, rumours are rife that one of the four is down to its last £5m (10 per cent of the most parsimonious budget) with no relief in sight, and fears abound that even Thursday's meeting, regardless of outcome, could be too late.