Why McLaren ditching Honda isn't as easy as it seems

FIA media conferences are sacrosanct affairs: seldom is the attendance list altered, and then only for bona fide issues or reasons of a force majeure nature. So when the governing body at Friday noon amended the line-up for part one of that afternoon's Formula 1 'team boss' conference - a misnomer given that technical and sporting staff attend, as do engine and tyre supplier delegates - in Austria, a frisson of excitement ran through the media centre.

Out went Ferrari's Maurizio Arrivabene - he who shuns the media totally unless forced into FIA conferences - and Pirelli's Mario Isola; in came Honda's Yusuke Hasegawa and McLaren's Eric Boullier, joining Mercedes motorsport director Toto Wolff on stage.

The word in the paddock was that FIA president Jean Todt had "ordered" the revision, and so F1's conspiracy theorists went into full overdrive mode: McLaren and Honda were divorcing after three years of matrimonial hell, they said, and former McLaren engine partner Mercedes would announce it was prepared to step into the breach by supplying the engines originally earmarked for the now-defunct Manor team.

Rumours of a split in a partnership that had evoked memories of that hegemonic Senna-Prost era yet visited only abject misery on both parties had been regurgitated ad nauseam since Melbourne, where it was first aired. That any notion of a split had consistently been denied (publicly at least) by both parties mattered little to conspirators: Todt had demanded the line-up revision, so a decree absolute was imminent.

The media conference was certainly the best-attended Friday edition of the season to date - and arguably for many a year - and, as expected, the first question after moderator Tom Clarkson had done his stuff was: "Could you [Honda] please just tell me about your long-term plans, and show the extent to which you are committed to Formula 1?"

The salient portion of the answer: "[Our struggles] won't be a reason to pull out, so Honda is committing to stick to this activity very much."

Next: "Eric, I read a comment you supposedly made in Baku that it would maybe an alternative for McLaren just to temporarily switch to another engine manufacturer while Honda sorts it out. Do you think it's a realistic alternative? Hasegawa-san would Honda be open to a solution like that, and Toto would Mercedes be open to solution like that?" A trial divorce while parties skirt about with other partners.

Boullier was first out of the blocks: "I think we have a common answer - no," he said before stating categorically that his Baku comment had been taken out of context.

Hasegawa: "Of course it is not our option, so we don't want to do that."

Their responses let Wolff off the hook: "If it's not their option, it's not my option either."

None the wiser, then, a few questions later, one directed at Hasegawa: "Maybe [McLaren] are thinking about changing the power unit supplier. Are you prepared for that?"

Hasegawa: "Of course we are not prepared for that and we want to keep this collaboration and at this moment there is no other story. Of course this is their option, but we are not considering that option. That is my answer. You should ask Eric about that."

No comment from Boullier on that score. The line of questioning ceased as journalists pursued issues such as pay TV and Ferrari's reported split with its head of engine Lorenzo Sassi - despite Arrivabene not being present.

Post-conference the mood in the media centre was one of bewilderment. Just why had Todt insisted - all but confirmed by those in the know that this had been the case - that Hasegawa and Boullier replace Arrivabene and Isola?

Then the penny dropped: was Todt, a seasoned motorsport politician after 15 years as head of Ferrari's F1 effort before seeking global motoring's top job, seeking public confirmation that McLaren and Honda were not divorcing? If so, he was seemingly successful.

Next question: just why would Todt seek such confirmation?

The answer lies in the vagaries of F1's current sporting regulations, more specifically those clauses that reference supply of power units, as F1 engines are now officially known given the complexity of their mechanical and electrical componentry.

Simply put, a McLaren-Honda divorce could leave the FIA facing an unpleasant dilemma. In order to ensure a fair and equitable power unit supply after Red Bull Racing faced the real danger of being left without engines in the wake of its squabbles with Renault - when, ironically, team principal Christian Horner's desire to procure Honda power was blocked by then-McLaren boss Ron Dennis - the FIA framed stringent supply regulations.

In terms of appendix 9 (which, in typical FIA fashion, in turn references appendix 4 and then has a further sub-appendix) of the 2018 sporting regulations the situation is as follows:

No power unit may be used in a given championship season unless the power unit manufacturer supplying such power unit accepts and adheres to the following conditions:

Each of the power unit manufacturers of a homologated power unit must:
i) provide the FIA, before 15 May (or such other date as agreed in writing between all the power unit manufacturers and the FIA) of the season preceding that in which such power units are to be supplied, with the list of teams (clearly identifying the appointed "works/factory" team, if any) to which a supply agreement has been concluded for the given championship season

ii) if called upon to do so by the FIA before 1 June (or such other date as agreed in writing between all the power unit manufacturers and the FIA) of the season preceding that in which such power units were to be supplied supply at least a number of teams (T) equal to the following equation (simplified for clarity):

T = A/B-C, where:

A = Total number of teams (including "works/factory" teams) having a supply agreement concluded for the given championship season, including with a new power unit manufacturer (if applicable).
B = Total number of manufacturers of homologated power units for the given Championship season.
C = Total number of new power unit manufacturers for the given championship season, in this case zero.
T = Number of teams to be supplied, provided if the result contains a fraction then it counts as a full team.

Clearly the answer (for 2018, at least) is an average of 2.5 teams per power unit manufacturer, so three. True, the term "maximum" is not stipulated, a maximum of three can safely be assumed in this instance, for clause 8.3 of the sporting regulations states inter alia:

A major car manufacturer may not directly or indirectly supply engines for more than three teams of two cars each without the consent of the FIA. For the purposes of this article 8.3, a major car manufacturer is a company whose shares are quoted on a recognised stock exchange or the subsidiary of such a company [for instance, Mercedes and its High Performance Powertrains F1 engines subsidiary].

McLaren sympathisers suggest that this clause could be interpreted as "not supply more than three customer teams", but, either way, HPP and Mercedes AMG F1 Team are separate legal entities - albeit operating under the umbrella of a common parent - with the latter paying the former for engines: making it a customer.

There is no doubt, then, that Mercedes currently supplies three teams of two cars each - in-house, Force India and Williams - and, according to sources, is contractually obliged to do so in the case of the last two through to the end of 2020. Clearly, then, any agreement by Mercedes to supply power units to McLaren in 2018 would be in breach of at least one regulatory clause, arguably two.

True, had Manor survived, the picture would have been somewhat different as the FIA's World Motorsport Council granted dispensation in order to bolster grid numbers (and in sympathy for the battling team). Those circumstances do not, though, apply to McLaren in any shape or form.

After all, why should they? Not without reason is F1 dubbed the 'Piranha Club' - a phrase ironically coined by Dennis himself back in 1991. Team performance hinges upon an ability to take the right decisions at the right time, be that with drivers, engines, tyres or whatever, then make the best of a given package.

History is littered with teams that collapsed after taking wrong turns, and in this case McLaren is arguably guilty of poor judgement given Honda's spotted history. After Williams fell out with Honda in 1987 the championship-winning team endured a season with Judd units, Toleman sold up after a string of disastrous political and partnership issues - the list goes on.

Now consider the consequences of possible concessions granted by the FIA to assist McLaren: given the team's much vaunted "strength in [engineering] depth", it is arguable that a McLaren-Mercedes combination would finish fourth or higher in the championship, displacing such as Force India and Williams (long-standing Mercedes customers at that), plus Toro Rosso, Haas, Renault, and, possibly, Red Bull Racing.

Indeed, in March, even before the season started, Boullier told reporters, "We'd be winning again [were McLaren to procure Mercedes power]", with driver Fernando Alonso more than once suggesting the team's handicap lay in time lost "on the straights".

Here consider McLaren's facilities, its almost bottom-less pit of cash - being funded by a Gulf country (Bahrain) - and a possible extension of Alonso's contract off the back of a Mercedes engine deal. Add in McLaren's Strategy Group status and CCB bonuses, and there is little pit lane sympathy for the team.

Would those teams currently running ahead of McLaren willingly sacrifice championship positions and potential race wins in order to assist a rival whose woes are ultimately self-inflicted? Recall the arrogance that accompanied the McLaren-Honda partnership announcement? True, Dennis may have fallen on his sword and cashed out, but in F1 memories linger, particularly when fuelled by the ring of cash registers.

While no team boss has stated on the record that the FIA would be petitioned to not break its own regulations were it to consider granting McLaren any dispensations, one did say "While we don't have all the details, we would certainly see what we could do were such a situation to arise", while Force India's Bob Fernley was outspoken during the FIA's Barcelona Friday media conference when the topic was broached.

"As a team that's not only paid for its [Mercedes] engines, but contributed to the development of them, I would certainly be very negative towards sharing that technology with another team that it a competitor of ours," he said, and that was even before serious suggestions that such a deal could come to pass were even aired.

Todt is aware that it could get extremely messy during what is an FIA presidential election year, with court cases being just one possibility. In 2008 Williams threatened to drag the governing body to court over 'customer car' regulations; a similar scenario could not be excluded as affected teams protect their championship positions, and by extension, their revenue streams - potentially $5million per year per team.

Either McLaren or Honda (or both by mutual agreement) could, of course, agree to terminate their contract at any stage for whatever reason(s) - then face whatever consequences may apply - theoretically leaving the team without an engine.

Indeed, such a scenario would be a precursor to any alternate engine supply deal, for the supplier would stand accused of inducement were it to agree a supply deal with McLaren prior to the Honda contract being terminated.

Given the clauses above there are, though, no guarantees the FIA will grant dispensation for Mercedes to supply a fourth team, leaving McLaren without engines - saliently after the regulatory June 1 deadline. In that case McLaren would be forced to request that the governing body invoke the formula above.

Appendix 9 stipulates that "In doing so, the FIA will first allocate the power unit supply between the power unit manufacturers that are supplying the fewest number of teams," namely Honda - which now has no customers for 2018 with the Sauber deal collapsing - taking McLaren back to base zero.

What then? The team faces two two options: reconcile with Honda, or consider Renault or Ferrari. Renault is in the same boat as Mercedes - supplying three teams, including its own operation, plus being a listed major motor manufacturer - leaving the Maranello option as the only other alternative to Honda power. According to Italian sources, such overtures were made at the Red Bull Ring.

Having potentially lost Sauber, Ferrari is servicing the Scuderia plus Haas - so a supply to McLaren would not be in breach of clause 8.3 if Sauber goes elsewhere for its Honda fallback. Whether, though, Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne is prepared to supply a major road car competitor with F1 power units is another question. Equally, what message does a McLaren powered by Ferrari engines end to prospective customers of McLaren road cars?

McLaren-Ferrari simply does not, though, have the right ring to it - even if it combines the oldest two names on the F1 grid, and such a tie-up would double Ferrari's political power at the stroke of a pen. So when all is said and done, sticking with Honda is McLaren's option in the short to medium term - which is precisely the message that Boullier and Hasegawasan conveyed last Friday in Austria.