Why F1's future is far from secure

Does Formula 1 currently find itself in what psychiatrists refer to as a 'twilight state?'

You know the one; that strange sense of disordered consciousness during which actions are performed almost mechanically while paying little heed to the longer-term effects of decisions, and - worse still - without conscious volition? One of the symptoms of said condition is hallucinations, to which patients react with irrational behavioural traits.

While it may be stretching the bounds of medical science to suggest that one of the world's most popular sporting genres - with a passionate global following measured in hundreds of millions - is somehow 'unhinged', evidence points to F1 floating in a state of denial about its future.

F1's never looked better on-track, but off it, there is discord © sutton-images.com

At no time has this been clearer than during the past fortnight.

The wrangle over the 2013 rules is just one pointer. Remember that the mooted 2013 chassis regulations as they currently stand, are incompatible with the 2013 engine formula as it currently stands, and that the technical parameters for 2014 and onwards have still to be defined. Remember also that the situation surrounding the soon-to-expire Concorde Agreement provides perfect proof of F1's inability (or lack of desire) to face its future.

The technical rules issue also highlights how inadequate the 'Concorde' is in part - due to its hurried gestation - for the technical regulation approval process was eventually reverse-engineered to make it 'fit' the terms of Schedule 9 of the agreement.

Equally, the Formula One Commission calls for motions to be carried by a 75 per cent majority while not specifying whether the total number of votes should be 27 (with 13 teams as had been the intention when the agreement was signed, plus all other members), or 26 (12 teams, as is currently the case). According to sources there is an even more glaring inadequacy in the agreement, but more of that later.

Add in an increasingly shaky Formula One Team's Association, confusion over the sport's crucial Resource Restriction Agreement and (peversely) expansion plans that not only mean the teams next year face seven races in 10 weeks on four continents, plus a second race in the USA in 2013 (the last attempt ended in ignominy; while the first since has yet to come to fruition) and an event in Russia the year after. Coupled with that, the 2012 calendar is still far from firmed up, with one high-level source intimating such sweeping changes that Dr Sigbert Ganser, who characterised the syndrome in the 19th century, could surely have a field day.

Plus, Mexico increasingly looks like it will get a race, while would-be promoters are pushing for an event in Argentina. Thus, where two years ago F1 had a single race in western time zones, the same period into the future will feature four, with a fifth or even sixth a possibility. So, where once F1's future was Asia, the name of the game now seems to be 'Go West, old chap' - talk about twilight states...

Oliver Weingarten is FOTA's general secretary © LAT

Now consider: The current Concorde Agreement, which previously took four years to not agree before being forced through in two months as an alternative to a threatened breakaway series, expires on December 31, 2012, with sources indicating no tangible progress has been made on negotiating a successor to the tripartite covenant that binds teams, the controlling body and the commercial rights holder, and outlines their mutual obligations towards F1.

A year ago team sources suggested that negotiations, or at least the setting of base conditions, would commence last December, yet more than 10 months on little progress has been made other than the teams agreeing - if that's possible - to hang in there for an offer from the CRH, namely Bernie Ecclestone, who has gone on record as saying that no extension to the Concorde Agreement is necessary.

So, 12 teams competing in a multi-billion dollar sport (each running multi-million dollar businesses, directly employing a total of over 5000 staff with multiples of that in feeder industries being dependent upon F1 for their livelihoods) are waiting for a financial offer that is unlikely to materialise, yet is vital to their future. An insider told this column in Korea: "I fear the offer will never come. If Bernie had any intention of making an offer he would have done so months ago to enable the sport to settle down and get on with racing."

In the meantime the ultimate owner of F1, namely the FIA, which leased out only the commercial rights, has been silent on the matter. Its last comment on the issue was made by president Jean Todt last April, when he told reporters that he intended to negotiate a better financial deal for the federation when the current agreement expires. Any wonder that the body that leased said rights stated that no extension to the agreement is necessary?

So, of the three parties, one has described the Concorde Agreement as "unnecessary" while another has not said a public word about it for six months. How then do the teams feel about it?

Cue FOTA chairman Martin Whitmarsh: "Formula 1 needs the stability of a long-term contract - call it 'Concorde', call it what you like - and an understanding between governing body, commercial rights holder and the competitors. I think if the teams remain together as we are and work together, then I'm sure we can get to something that is in the best interests of the sport, its fans and the teams.

FOTA chairman Whitmarsh has his own views on things 2011 © sutton-images.com

"I think," McLaren's team principal told this column exclusively last month, "we've got to look at a different, improved model of partnership in Formula 1, longer-term, less combative, frankly less public negotiation and just private, quietly. We want to come out and just say 'right, we have documents here where it's clearly understood the roles, and it's fair and equitable for all of the parties in Formula 1."

All this was due to be discussed during a FOTA meeting on Sunday morning at the Korean Grand Prix, with the alliance's newly-appointed secretary general (Oliver Weingarten) due to update the meeting on progress made. The agenda had five main points, namely: Indian tax situation (at that stage unresolved); Pirelli (Q3 running and young driver test); PR co-operation with circuits; Concorde progress; 2012 calendar matters (Bahrain, plus the back end of the proposed schedule); and the RRA.

However, since the Japanese weekend the RRA - or, rather, those teams allegedly not obeying its terms and conditions - had become a hot potato such that the preceding items were dropped down the list, and, of course, the two-hour meeting ran its course with little else being discussed - with further discussion postponed to the season finale at Abu Dhabi. Not India, but Abu Dhabi - so reluctant are the teams to confront this issue head-on. It's worth noting though, that the reason given was that the teams would be consumed by other issues during the inaugural Indian weekend. Which, no doubt, they will, but when 2013 regulations were a hot topic there was will to find a way for emergency meetings and conference calls.

The previous week the RRA issue was certainly important enough for Ferrari to seek clarification of the RRA, and its execution. "I think that it is a subject that is quite sensitive," the Scuderia's team principal Stefano Domenicali told AUTOSPORT. "It is a subject where we need to make a final clarification because, at the end of the day, the RRA was very important to keep the level of expenditure as low as possible.

"This is a matter based on a lot of trust between teams and we need to get out from these doubts. We will have a meeting, I think, in Korea where we need to close this point because it is really a very crucial factor within all the teams that have to work together," the Italian continued. Yet, when the agenda was complied the item was numbered last.

Canning the RRA puts the F1 futures of the three 'new' teams at risk © LAT

When the following Friday this column asked Whitmarsh, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn and Virgin's John Booth to comment on the topic during the FIA press conference, their answers suggested there was a major problem with the RRA.

Indeed there is - with the matter having the potential to not only split FOTA, but to totally fragment the sport, for the RRA, which controls manpower and engineering/sporting expenditure via a complex matrix system devised mainly by McLaren but with input from various teams, was introduced as a means of attracting newcomers to the sport without subscribing to Max Mosley's two-tier budget cap concept. Take away the RRA and you effectively kill off the likes of Virgin and HRT, plus, probably, Team Lotus/Caterham and one or two others.

The problem with the RRA is that it is embedded in the Concorde Agreement, and is, by common agreement, a pre-condition of entry in the FIA Formula 1 World Championship. However, where both agreements fall flat is that the RRA is self-regulating without the Concorde Agreement providing it with any meaningful penalties. Relatively paltry fines and 'naming and shaming' are the only sanctions that can be applied; hence wealthier teams could be tempted to throw the document to the wind in a quest to win titles. After all, what is an additional £30million or so against an overall budget 10 times that?

Additionally, while signing the RRA is a condition of entry, the Concorde Agreement does not require that non-complying teams withdraw from the championship. By that evening Ferrari was warning that the future of FOTA, originally founded by Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo, was under threat.

"So what we have discussed is to go to Abu Dhabi to make sure that a solution, a final solution, has to be taken. On top of that, what we said is really if this [mistrust] will come out of FOTA activity then what is FOTA all about? We know the reason why FOTA started, and now we need to understand if FOTA is still needed. What are the objectives of the future of FOTA, if there is a future for FOTA?" questioned Domenicali.

"We need to do that in a very constructive way, a very open way. That is the discussion that I believe in the next weeks is important to take over. On the RRA with Abu Dhabi; either there is a solution or we will see," he concluded.

Horner has questioned FOTA's future © LAT

Horner, too, questioned the future of FOTA that weekend, telling Reuters immediately after the meeting, "I think FOTA has reached the crossroads where it needs to deal with some of the key issues moving forward or we'll stop. It's as simple as that."

"The principal issues are obviously the Concorde Agreement, the direction that goes in, and fundamentally the RRA. If we can't find an agreement within FOTA on that, then what is the purpose of FOTA?"

By contrast McLaren seems committed to FOTA, Whitmarsh telling this column: "We are committed, whatever happens, even if I stand down as chairman [of FOTA], McLaren will retain its commitment. It's achieved many things; a number of teams wouldn't be here without it, but, you know, it's not perfect. I'd like us to do more; we need to continue do more."

So three of the sport's major teams are pulling in different directions, with allegations of sharp financial practice increasing with every passing race weekend. In the background the governing body and commercial rights holder hardly see eye-to-eye, while the most crucial documents in the sport's history are treated cavalierly as the various factions jostle for position. Horner called it 'a crossroads.' Doctors term the condition 'twilight'.