The real battle behind F1's test venue row

Last week's letter to Chase Carey, chairman of the Liberty Media offshoot that plans to acquire majority control in a two-stage buy-in of Formula 1's commercial rights, alluded briefly to the developing skirmish over the choice of 2017's pre-season test venue(s).

While relatively insignificant in the greater scheme, an in-depth analysis of this multi-faceted situation and the manner in which the various protagonists have locked into battles illustrates precisely why F1 hangs in limbo. And with, seemingly, no escape - even after current covenants expire at the end of 2020.

The current brouhaha started at the Italian Grand Prix in early September, and seems set to continue until at least the Mexican GP, i.e. during the first week of November. That makes it six race weekends on the hop consumed by arguments over whether F1 should spend eight days testing at either Barcelona or in Bahrain, at both venues simultaneously, or whether the eight days should be split equally between the two circuits.

About the only option not seriously considered by the factions was whether both places should be chucked out with the bathwater, although Abu Dhabi and Malaysia were mentioned in passing...

In typical F1 fashion the actual dispute is not, though, over the delta between average daytime temperatures at Catalunya or Sakhir on any given day in early March as the various factions suggest. Nor over the "safety of the show" - as Mercedes technical director Paddy Lowe suggested during the Suzuka FIA press conference - nor even the safety of Pirelli's tyres.

These are, frankly, simply side issues that serve to obfuscate different agendas.

Although the dispute centres on Barcelona versus Bahrain, at the heart of the skirmish lies the difference in engineering philosophies between F1's top two teams, namely the dominant Mercedes operation, and its long-time predecessor at the top of the tree, Red Bull Racing. Aggravating the situation is that RBR is clearly edging back towards the front...

Headed by exceptionally shrewd operators in the form of Christians Wolff and Horner respectively, each team is determined to gain the upper hand from the 2017 regulations by whatever means.

Toto Wolff's team is said to be concerned about its car's cooling systems. There were suggestions, albeit denied, that Lewis Hamilton's catastrophic big-end bearing failure was caused by overheating triggered by following Jenson Button's blue-flagged car too closely in Sepang's 40C heat. Therefore Mercedes is pushing for Bahrain. Too much cooling results in aerodynamic inefficiency; too little, well...

Mercedes enjoys the solid support of a Pirelli management constantly pushing for tests in warm climes. Indeed, the fracas was sparked by discussions between Mercedes non-executive chairman Niki Lauda and Pirelli's Marco Tronchetti Provera at Monza, when the latter allegedly lamented a lack of "warm" testing ahead of the 2017 season, which features the introduction of substantially wider rubber and allied challenges.

During a closed meeting between the two teams, Pirelli and the FIA on Saturday at Suzuka, the tyre company allegedly played the safety card. This infuriated team bosses, for during a summit in Milan in March - called to discuss Pirelli's test demands ahead of signing a new contract - it was specifically agreed that safety would be the responsibility of the supplier, not teams.

At the time, Pirelli also stated it had the facilities and know-how to develop tyres through simulations, but that test 'mules' producing representative 2017 levels of downforce were required for compound testing. Converted cars and experienced drivers have and will continue to be provided by Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. As this is written, Lewis Hamilton is thrashing around Barcelona in a silver Maultier.

Although there are suggestions the mules don't do the trick, that is a separate issue. The rationale behind pre-season testing is to permit teams to shakedown and test their new cars, not provide reams of data to a tyre supplier that tendered for a prestigious contract under very specific conditions. It is this crucial point that has got overlooked in the heat of battle...

Finally, Pirelli requested (and was granted) 10 dry and wet tests spread over 24 days, including a hot weather test in Abu Dhabi after the 2016 finale and one wet test day to be held not less than 20 days before the season opener. At the time the company was confident all parameters were met. And if this is now not the case, should the teams really be forced to shoulder the extra financial burden?

It is this point that the Horner camp has focused on, arguing that a host of independents are unwilling/unable to shell out the estimated £300-500,000 on-costs of unbudgeted trips to the desert. While RBR is far from cash-strapped, his cost arguments resonate with those who do not benefit from F1's revenue structure.

Could this, though, be the very same Christian Horner who once refused to sign off on cost caps, but is now concerned about the plight of independents? Any wonder one paddock sage questioned whether Horner had taken to devouring Karl Marx literature on his recent long-haul flights to Asia...

In view of this sardonic interpretation of Horner's motives, what are they if not (purely) financially motivated? Red Bull's modus operandi over the past few years has been to freeze car design as late as humanly possible in order to optimise the process, then build the car to deadline - usually the night before testing commences - and throw development parts at it as testing progresses.

The philosophy has served the company exceedingly well, so much so that in recent years the car unveiled on day one of testing is a totally different animal to that shipped to Australia - despite just eight track days separating the two events. Testing in Spain permits the team to regularly fly (or drive) bits down overnight. Consider the logistics of such a programme for Bahrain tests, then tot up the costs...

That, in a nutshell is the dispute, and hence the polemics. The overall situation is not aided by conflicting 2017 sporting regulations that allow each faction to claim regulatory victory over the other. Clause 10.6 states no testing of current cars may take place (non relevant clauses deleted):

d) On any track located outside Europe without the agreement of the majority of teams and the FIA.

g) Between 1 February and the start of a 10 day period which precedes the start of the first event of the championship of the same year with the exception of two team tests of no more than four consecutive days duration, carried out on sites within Europe and approved by the FIA for Formula 1 cars.

Note the ambiguity? Of course, sooner (hopefully) or later the FIA will need to clarify the respective wordings and intents of the two clauses, but in the interim F1 is stuck with them. Hence the raging war.

However, regardless of how the clauses are interpreted (or whoever wins the war), one thing is crystal clear: The purpose of pre-season testing needs to be clearly defined, and only then can F1 act decisively. If the tests are convened to enable teams to shakedown/test new cars - previously this been the (tacit) understanding - then they should surely be allowed to get on with it with the minimum of disruption from the tyre supplier.

In which case it is also only correct that the teams collectively foot the entire bill for pre-season testing and all allied costs such as medical cover - as they already do - in which case the old adage of "He who pays the piper calls the tune" applies, including the questions of where (and when) said piper plays his hot air.

If, though, the agreed rationale behind eight days of pre-season testing is to enable Pirelli to amass whatever data it requires, then said company should nominate whatever circuits it considers most suitable - within prevailing regulations, of course - with all costs incurred met by Milan.

Why should teams - particularly independents - cover the costs of tests convened to help a multi-national, listed company competing in F1 for prestige and brand-building purposes?

However, Pirelli argues it already makes a sizeable contributions to F1 - no argument here, with independent estimates of its annual F1 spend panning out at around £70million, split approximately 50/50 between technical/supply and marketing - but this is a commercial decision. If F1 does not enhance the brand, Pirelli should have hot-footed out of F1 after its first three-year deal, not renewed again and again.

As it is, Pirelli's marketing effort is focussed on Formula One Management's 'bridge and board' packages, not team sponsorship. While it may argue the collective team share of its £35m spend is 65% (£22.75m), so skewed (screwed?) are F1's revenue structures that the big four teams, who could in any event cover the costs of Bahrain testing out of petty cash, bag 60% of the pot, leaving seven teams to split the rest.

For the record, said disenfranchised teams benefit by an average of 6% of the pot. Their aggregate share of Pirelli's FOM's spend amounts to £1.375m each, which, give or take a hundred thousand quid depending upon exchange rate volatility, is their annual tyre bill. Therefore if they agreed to Bahrain testing, the independents would be shelling out to provide Pirelli with tyre data, while the big four cream it...

Although the revenue distribution structure is ultimately down to FOM, not Pirelli, this is the reality of the matter. Perhaps Karl Marx should pay this most capitalist of sports a fleeting visit...

Lowe's argument about "the safety of the show" was made primarily in reference to the first race held under 2017's regulations, Melbourne's opener next March. While he is totally correct that it is incumbent upon F1 to stage a world-class show - at all times, and not only after rule changes - the fact is the quality of the offering is the responsibility of FOM. And, if there are concerns, FOM should cover testing bills.

Consider the worst case scenario. A delta between Barcelona and Bahrain of £500k multiplied by 11 teams equals £5.5m, or slightly more than 1% of FOM's annual bottom line. When this was put to the protagonists they shrugged their shoulders, saying "You know Bernie [Ecclestone, CEO of FOM]..."

So in typical F1 fashion, independents are squeezed to fund the whims of the wealthy...

All of which leads to the obvious question: who is in favour of Bahrain and who wishes to stick to the originally agreed venue?

In the former camp are said to be Mercedes and Ferrari, with some of their engine customers publicly being in favour, but having reservations behind the scenes. For example, Manor is said to have agreed to Bahrain subject to Barcelona remaining an option, with all teams contributing to the costs of testing in Spain regardless of their eventual destination.

Haas is believed to have backed Bahrain, yet in last Friday's FIA press conference chief race engineer Ayao Komatsu punted for Europe, while McLaren is said to be totally neutral provided testing is not split. That said, the team's major shareholder, the Bahraini sovereign wealth fund Mumtalakat, owns the Sakhir circuit...

Red Bull and sister Toro Rosso clearly favour Barcelona, as does Williams - technical director Pat Symonds and Lowe clashed vehemently during the press conference - while Renault has far bigger concerns at this point, so would likely side with engine customer Red Bull. All in, it is too close call if clause 10.6 d) gets the nod.

Finally, would testing in Bahrain two or three weeks before the opener provide any tangible benefits in any event? For starters, Pirelli would be unable to produce new tyres and ship them to Melbourne. At best, it could move compound nominations left or right on its sheet depending upon testing results, with any revised tyres being available by Russia at the earliest.

In response to last week's column, Pirelli produced a table showing the delta between maximum, minimum and average early March temperatures in Barcelona/Bahrain going back a decade. While the average delta is 10C, F1 does not, of course, test at night - so effects of colder evenings should be discarded. For info, the delta in daytime temperatures over 12 years is also 10C, going back three years it is: 7C, 6C and 1C...

As a final point, Melbourne is likely to be cool(ish), plus runs into sunset; Shanghai is usually cold if not wet; Sakhir is a night race; and Sochi at the end of April is also cool. Thereafter F1 goes to Barcelona, with its known baselines...

Arguably the best suggestion was to go to Barcelona for the first test, then proceed to Bahrain, from where cars and kit head for Australia. "That way we shakedown our cars against known data, then do hot weather stuff in Bahrain," one technical director suggested.

But as it was from an independent team, the advice is unlikely to be heard, let alone heeded...