Key F1 decisions made behind closed doors

While the eyes of Formula 1 fans across the world were on the final four-day test in Bahrain, a number of discussions were held in Paris and South East London. These will undoubtedly impact on F1's short-, medium- and long-term futures.

Taken in isolation, none has the power to radically rock the sport; collectively, though, they have the potential to profoundly affect not only the upcoming season, but also the sport's future well-being.

However, in true F1 fashion, the various proceedings also included cloak-and-dagger elements. Thus, as always caution is due before conclusions are drawn.

In formulating the 2014 technical regulations, the FIA decreed that engine suppliers lodge "frozen" reference power units and supporting documents by no later than Friday, February 28.

Given Renault's well-documented issues, much speculation abounded that the French company would canvas for a two-month extension, so serious are the problems that have afflicted its four teams.

Indeed, one of the interesting aspects of Renault's situation is that the problems appear to have the teams in performance sequence, with Red Bull Racing being affected the most, followed by Lotus, Toro Rosso and and Caterham. Asked to explain this phenomenon, Renault's somewhat perplexed Remy Taffin could only answer: "that's a good question" before musing that performance potential was perhaps the key.

Renault denied having asked for a deadline extension © XPB

However, in Bahrain (malicious?) insiders suggested Renault-Nissan Alliance Chairman Carlos Ghosn had personally called FIA President Jean Todt to request an extension. This was denied vehemently by both parties. Strangely, though, Friday's meeting of F1's Strategy Group allegedly vetoed an alleged extension that had allegedly never been requested - indicating that there are three sides to this story.

The same meeting - held at Formula One Management's Biggin Hill operational base - saw minor tweaks to 2014's sporting regulations passed, including an additional set of 'option' tyres for Q3 runners to eliminate the eyesore of stationary top-10 cars during the closing stages of Saturday qualifying for strategic reasons.

However, given 2014's unknown formbook, plus the fact that in 2013 those runners who had saved up an additional set of tyres certainly spiced up Sunday afternoon's proceedings, one wonders whether F1 has hit upon a non-issue. After all, remove all strategic variables, and the fastest car, starting from pole position, is bound to take the chequer...

Either way, said decision needed to be approved via fax vote (on March 5) by the Formula 1 Commission with a 70 per cent majority before ratification by the FIA's World Motor Sport Council by the same mechanism. That said, most decision-makers seem in favour; thus it is virtually a done deal.

However, where the Group - comprising six teams, namely Red Bull Racing, Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Lotus, plus Todt and FOM CEO Bernie Ecclestone - approved the proposal, it vetoed Ecclestone's proposal of extending the controversial concept of awarding double points for the season finale to encompass the final trio of races. Small mercies.

Also allegedly vetoed was the question of awarding points for qualifying: AUTOSPORT understands a reducing scale was discussed, one awarding up to eight points for pole position (equal to a sixth-place finish).

Of greater concern, though, were peripheral discussions suggesting that qualifying points be awarded to selected rounds (the final six races being mentioned, clearly to 'spice' dull championships), so obviously all the rants over double points fell on deaf ears.

It is now too late to adopt the proposal for qualifying points, but, should it be adopted for 2015, the overall feeling in Bahrain among those team principals and technical partners canvassed for comment was that it should, in the words of a level-headed team boss, be adopted "on an all-or-nothing-basis", i.e. all events or none at all.

Indeed, most went further, suggesting that gimmicks such as double points at selected rounds have no place in what is, after all, a serious world championship contested across the globe by the world's best drivers representing teams owned or partnered by blue-chip brands.

"Why not half points for China, then?" another asked, before admitting he knew the answer to his rhetorical question, namely that points scored are now a neat little earner for the FIA, and that half points for any particular race would reduce the governing body's take from licence fees.

Double points were discussed in the meetings © XPB

The foregoing makes abundantly clear that commercial rights holder FOM is prepared to resort to any means to prolong championship battles - TV ratings are, after all, F1's lifeblood - in tandem with the governing body, which benefits through 'taxing' teams and drivers by imposing levies on points scored.

Each double-points race is worth around £100,000 to the FIA, and thus points for qualifying could add up to £25,000 to its coffers. Multiply by the 20 rounds (or 25 as projected by Ecclestone) and it is a tidy annual sum.

However, back to more practical discussions: Also on the agenda were cost-cutting initiatives, including standardisation of non-performance components such as steering racks/fuel systems, with proposals to regulate 'corners' - weight of suspension assemblies including brakes - to eliminate use of exotic materials, too, being on the table.

But, the sport seems to be looking after pennies rather than pounds, with little concrete progress being made on cost control. Discussions in Biggin Hill centred on £225m annual budget caps, or double that spent by the greater majority. In order to reduce costs to the projected £125m/annum, F1's Big Six would need to cut manning levels by 50 per cent.

Ferrari recently reported a headcount of 700 - reducing by 350 heads is an extremely tall order even without the devastating human factor - and Red Bull racing would need to lose close to that figure. Add in 250 at McLaren, Mercedes and Williams respectively and 150-odd at Lotus, and a total of 1500 highly qualified, dedicated folk face the sack through no fault of their own.

Oh that commercial rights holder CVC Capital reduces its takings from the sport by a similar percentage in sympathy, but, of course, the financial bigwigs who 'own' the sport will continue picking away at every bit of flesh on the F1 bone. Now that Ron Dennis has retaken the helm of McLaren, such discussions are bound to get a lot more complicated.

As if these far-reaching discussions were not sufficient enough for the week, the Formula One Teams' Association announced it was to disband after an existence of six tumultuous years marked, initially, by running battles with the FIA and FOM - the 2009 breakaway series threat being but one example.

However, once peace had been semi-brokered in 2010, FOTA busied itself with Fan Forums, tyre and other contracts, testing/shutdown agreements and administration of F1's contentious Resource-Restriction Agreement. However, these proved of insufficient interest to its seven member teams, and thus the vote to shut up shop.

That it was an effective foil was proven by successes in negotiating the 2010-2 Concorde Agreement, which formally provided for a doubling in revenues for teams, simultaneously endowing them with crucial input into F1's governance.

However, after Red Bull Racing and Ferrari were 'bought off' by FOM by way of advantageous commercial terms through to 2020, FOTA was doomed. The exit of chairman Martin Whitmarsh from McLaren Racing - thus leaving FOTA without competent leadership - was the final blow.

FOTA has announced it is no more © LAT

If some decisions were taken, others were not, notably a verdict on applications for F1's vacant grid slot(s). Thus Gene Haas (USA) and Colin Kolles, representing a government-backed Romanian consortium, will need to wait for another day.

Various reasons for the delay on a verdict have been forwarded, with one media outlet (incorrectly) reporting that Ecclestone had invoked a veto (in fact the decision will rest with the FIA, and the FIA alone) while others suggest that neither Haas nor Kolles had included full bank guarantees (instead they had included letters of intent on the basis that guarantees are required only once a decision has fallen), with still others indicating that Ecclestone had requested a delay rather than vetoed the decision.

Why would he do that? Well, there could be 20 million reasons, for one of the concessions FOTA teams pushed long and hard for during their commercial negotiations was the retention of F1's so-called Column 3 payments, namely US$10m annually per team not in the top 10, with a maximum of three teams being provided for.

This provision has been included in the 2010-12 Concorde Agreement, and been carried forward as a pre-requisite for the teams agreeing to a new deal to be enshrined in a Concorde to run through to 2020. Currently Caterham qualifies for the pay-out, previously it had been Marussia (and HRT until the deserved demise of Spanish budget operation).

Should two additional teams join the fray, then the commercial rights holder will be in for US$20m (£15m) annually, which adds to around £75m through to the end of the current commercial agreement in 2020. Once again an example of financial considerations overriding the sporting good.

Thus this issue could have parked Ecclestone's comments to Wall Street Journal that the Concorde Agreement is outdated and past its shelf life. Strange to think that just eight months ago in Hungary, immediately after agreeing terms with Todt for a Concorde deal to run to 2020, Ecclestone was bullish, having previously blown hot and cold, depending upon his negotiating position.

"There have obviously been lots of things we've had to sort out. It's a longer-term thing, and this forms most of the Concorde Agreement for the teams as well, so we can get the whole lot put to bed now," he said last July during the Hungarian Grand Prix after counter-signing a heads-of-agreement document.

"We're with the FIA, and that's it," he added in Budapest. "It's for seven years, and what it does is give a little more input from the teams which we've been fighting for concerning regulations, so they can't complain."

After all the week's developments Ecclestone's on-off comments are, frankly, rather boring...