Will F1's budget engine even happen?

Last Sunday's United States Grand Prix will go down in history as the race that delivered Lewis Hamilton's third world title (and the only consecutive crown for a British driver to date) after a thrilling event made that way (predominantly) by the vagaries of Hurricane Patricia.

The weekend disruption caused by the cyclonic weather pattern camouflaged, though, a host of backstage developments, all of which have the potential to alter the face of F1 - some not even obviously so - assuming they come to fruition. However, as will become clear, not all was instantly comprehendible, certain nuances playing out all weekend, at times in the strangest of ways.

With the race following on - as per last year - from the Russian round, there were always going to be quasi-tensions, particularly after F1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone made some rather cutting comments about the USA and its citizens on Russian television. Would he make the trip, many wondered. If so, how would the now 85-year-old (he celebrates on Wednesday) be received in the Land of the Free?

He did make the trans-Atlantic journey, but the weather ensured that he stayed mostly invisible, as, too, did his boss Donald Mackenzie, co-founder/-chairman of CVC Capital Partners, which is desperately attempting to offload its 35.5 per cent (but controlling) share of F1's commercial rights to an American-Qatari consortium headed by Stephen Ross's RES Ventures.

Ross was not in Austin, but the word is that his troops were, and they are unlikely to have been impressed with what they heard and saw.

After all, who would have enjoyed the chaotic arrangements under which fans were banned during Saturday's only live session, or the sight of empty stands on Sunday? True, the weather was largely to blame, but weathermen do not take operational decisions and moneymen look at results not cause.

F1 not being able to race in Austin would have been a disaster for CVC's Mackenzie © LAT

CVC will, of course, deny any desperation. But the word is that fund holders wish to reinvest their capital in other ventures; after a period even the most stellar returns, investments lose their sparkle, as annualisation of returns over an extended period take its toll.

Various controversies surrounding F1 - primarily the EU Commission complaint filed by two teams, dwindling attendances and TV ratings, team liquidity issues and the Red Bull teams' (plural) lack of competitive engines - have created uncertainty. And financiers detest uncertainty. Indeed, the word in Austin was that the consortium is getting cold feet...

It also seemed unfathomable that Ferrari - whose recent listing on New York's Stock Exchange unlocked £3billion for product development for owner Gruppo Fiat's bread-and-butter brands (Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler) - should use its controversial regulatory veto within weeks of Sauber and Force India lodging their EU complaint over various issues, including F1's lopsided governance process.

The prospect of such opposition was whispered during the weekend whenever discussion turned to a proposal to introduce cut-price engines for independent teams - see comments made by Ecclestone to this column in Russia - and it was the FIA itself that announced the alleged use of the Scuderia's veto. Asked directly by this writer how Ferrari felt about the concept, Ferrari F1 boss Maurizio Arivabene neatly side-stepped the issue:

"I will not comment on a matter that has not gone to the Strategy Group," he said on Sunday night, possibly hopeful it won't be put to the vote, for the Italian knows full well the six-each votes held by the FIA and Formula One Management would swing the result against the collective six-strong team block.

Led by Arrivabene and Wolff, Ferrari and Mercedes have become political allies © XPB

The strange thing is that there really may be nothing to veto or vote for/against, for the media release issued by the governing body on the day after the race was vague in the extreme, with open questions abounding. Consider this single paragraph:

"Therefore the FIA will initiate a consultation with all stakeholders regarding the possible introduction of a client engine, which will be available as of 2017. Following this consultation a call for tenders for this client engine, the cost of which would be much lower than the current power unit, could be undertaken." (Emphasis added).

Sound like the tender is about to go out anytime soon? Even if the process is initiated, there are no guarantees that tenders will be submitted, nor that prospective tenderers (if any) will be in a position to comply with all logistics, commercial and technical clauses - particularly within a timeframe of less than 15 months before the engines would first run in anger.

"The bid spec will need to include number of cylinders, intake system, weight, sporting regulations to accommodate this project, horsepower/torque, hybrid power system type, and most significantly, lease/purchase cost, including track support, ie likely profitability," a source with insight into the matter told this column.

"Creating that is not going to be the work of a moment, and who are the 'stakeholders' it will be discussed with? The very [Strategy Group members] who will have to compete against it...

"There is no assurance of field size in 2017, let alone how many teams among that number would constitute a market for a new (unproven) engine. It's easily possible that, were an engine created, there would be no customers, or as happened the last time Cosworth took the bait, not enough to justify the development and manufacturing costs, if not initially, then going forward."

The response to former BAR boss Pollock's PURE concept was lukewarm © XPB

Then consider that the engine giant that is Honda required more than two years to build a mediocre power unit - albeit a considerably more complex design than is envisaged - and clearly a non-manufacturer operation such as Cosworth or Ilmor will have its work cut out.

The irony is that a technically solid 'client' project existed two years ago, but Craig Pollock's PURE operation did not receive the top-level support it merited. F1 surely is paying the price for that bout of myopia.

The word is that a 2.2-litre V6 with rudimentary KERS - to provide a 'green' element - has been suggested, with logic dictating that said unit would be based on the current IndyCar regulations, up-specced where necessary. That would certainly compress the timeframe, but would it fool fans?

What is being chivvied up by the powers-that-be - FOM, with the FIA in close attendance - is a reaction to a failing governance process that has enabled the major teams to dictate terms, and a single team to block whatever alternate solutions are suggested. And, for the root cause look no further than the bilateral agreements framed up under CVC's watch over FOM...

Why is an alternate engine even necessary? Simply put, Mercedes and Ferrari on one hand and Renault/Honda on the other are holding F1 to ransom, much as the manufacturer teams did during the noughties, when they blocked virtually every initiative, then abruptly departed the sport when it no longer fulfilled their concept of cost-effectiveness.

Back then Ferrari was an F1 mainstay, but times have changed and today the Scuderia is more aligned with Mercedes when it comes to Strategy Group decisions, with both operations protecting their customer engine income (which amounts to around £30million in the case of the former, and £55million for Mercedes), while the other two have stated policies of not supplying customer teams. Any wonder F1 is in an engine pickle?

Smiles have been rare at the Mateschitz-owned Red Bull and Toro Rosso lately © LAT

When Red Bullers and Renault fell out and the Austrian-owned teams were left without competitive engines a total withdrawal from F1 loomed, Ecclestone had an urgent need to cobble together a contingency plan. Ecclestone told the media circle last weekend that Red Bull's situation had been compromised by a handshake deal with Mercedes that had been reneged on.

"In defence of Red Bull, or Christian [Horner] in particular the reason they cancelled their agreement with Renault is so they could do the deal they thought they had done with Mercedes," said Ecclestone, with Mercedes non-executive chairman Niki Lauda, who joined the media discussion midway, seemingly substantiating the negotiations.

"I went to see [Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz] in the early stages because I know him very well," Lauda disclosed. "I said, 'Can you freeze your negative thinking about Mercedes, and start normally, otherwise it will never work.' He looked at me for quite a while, because for whatever reason he doesn't like Mercedes, and he said, 'All right, I can do that'."

Here, though, it gets confusing. In Japan one month ago - in reply to questions from this column - Lauda was adamant there had been zero contact with 'Mr Red Bull'.

"We don't have to go around and beg people to use the engine, it is the other way around. But we were never approached, so therefore we never thought about it," said Lauda. "If I am not approached, what should I do? Throw the engine at [Mateschitz] and give it as a gift?"

Against that background, imagine just how convoluted the future of the planned 'client' engine will be...