Both sides of F1's customer-car divide

Scuderia Toro Rosso team principal Franz Tost has certainly been around: Formula Ford/F3 racer in his youth; instructor/team manager at the Walter Lechner driving school/GT team; mainstay of Weber Management when the company oversaw the careers of both Schumacher brothers, engine operations manager for BMW when it entered F1 in 2000, and, since 2006, boss of Red Bull's nursery team.

So, when the softly spoken 59-year-old sport science and business management graduate - born in Trins within six miles of Italy's Brenner border crossing, and thus closer to Monza than to his home circuit Red Bull Ring - expresses his thoughts, they are certainly worth taking onboard.

We meet on the Monaco Grand Prix Sunday, on the terrace of Red Bull's "party barge" as it bobs about in the principality's harbour, having on Thursday evening swapped cursory thoughts about the Strategy Group - a key topic during that day's FIA press conference.

When it becomes clear that Tost has strong thoughts on the future direction of Formula 1, we agree to formalise the matter.

From the outset, he pulls no punches after it is put to him that, but for Renault's well-publicised niggles, STR could well lie sixth in the constructors championship, and therefore be in line for the 'floating' seat on the 2016 Strategy Group. How would he contribute, were STR to achieve its pre-season target of fifth overall?

Tost's varied CV gives him a unique perspective in the paddock © XPB

"This is what I said before, and this is what I say when we have meetings: 'It's not necessary who is the fifth or sixth team, because he will be out-voted by the others in any event. The top teams do not want to change anything, they can do what they want because they out-vote us'," he says.

"Look: there are four teams with a lot of money, then the other two teams, they are out-voted. There are no changes."

Given that one of the four is big sister Red Bull Racing, these are strong words that are underscored in his next sentence: "For me it doesn't make sense, the Strategy Group..."

The logic is simple. Tost believes that framing of regulations is best left to F1's governing body (the FIA) and commercial rights holder (FOM): "In this case, Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone, who should sit together and say 'This is the regulation, either you accept it or you [don't enter]', because if teams are involved, they will never come up with a solution."

It is put to him that, historically, the process was less fraught due to the long-standing relationship between former FIA president Max Mosley and Ecclestone, whereas an element of "edge" clearly exists between current president Todt and F1's CEO, but Tost is adamant:

Through Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone, the FIA and FOM must shape F1, Tost says © LAT

"It must be the FIA and FOM, because they are governing our sport. As I said before, the teams never agree to anything, because they don't want to lose their advantage."

Would he, then, like to see the Strategy Group disbanded?

"I don't care about the Strategy Group," Tost says. "There must be a group that discusses some things, that comes together.

"Whether this Strategy Group continues or not, they have to come up with decisions, whatever any group discusses.

"Up to now there are no decisions. There are endless meetings; that's it. As I said before, [we need] to come down with costs. We spend too much money. It's not worth [it] to spend so much."

Toro Rosso has proved it can run in the top five on a budget of less than Ferrari receives in FOM revenues alone - F1's inequitable structure was published here recently - so what does Tost see as the budget limit, and what should it include?

"Budgets should be 150 [million US dollars] maybe. [That] is I think a lot of money, and is a budget where you can do a proper job, but it should not be more for a team like ours, including engine.

Tost adds that headcounts levels should run to 400 in total, split between "300 people for chassis, and maximum 100 for engine."

Are aero developments really necessary at every grand prix? © LAT

If Tost had his way he would "reduce windtunnel running time, reduce CFD usage, reduce the people in all these different departments, reduce upgrades - it's not necessary to bring to every race a new upgrade.

"Maybe once a year one front wing, one rear wing, maybe something on bodywork; that's it. It should not be allowed that development work can be done race-by-race."

STR grew out of the team that was Minardi, having been acquired at the end of 2005 by the energy drinks giant as second-tier operation to RBR, with a view to operating the Italian operation as an RBR customer team. The means was Red Bull Technology, a subsidiary established for that purpose when the FIA planned to move in that direction.

However, the major teams ensured that F1's listed parts clause was retained, requiring teams to own the intellectual property to their monocoques and other major components.

STR was forced to ramp up its manufacturing operation. Tost, having been on both sides of the divide, is qualified to judge on F1's plans to introduce customer cars as means to solve its various crises.

"As you know, Toro Rosso has got experience of customer cars, it was 2006 to 2009 when we used customer cars. [That] was the best, most efficient way Toro Rosso did so far in Formula 1, because we got the cars, or the drawings and parts from Red Bull Technology, with an engine arrangement with Ferrari.

Toro Rosso won as, essentially, a customer with Sebastian Vettel at Monza in 2008 © LAT

"We never had the same car, but a quite similar car and we won [Monza in 2008, with Sebastian Vettel]. And we were quite good in the constructors' championship (sixth), but our opponents worked against it and said, 'This is not the DNA of Formula 1, we must change it.'

"They changed the regulations with listed parts and so on. I said, 'This could be the future of Formula 1, to have six strong manufacturer teams and six customer teams.' They said, 'No, no, this is not the way to go.'

"Now we have once more the discussions, but Toro Rosso now has the infrastructure and everything, [so] I don't think this is something interesting for us."

However, lest the impression be conveyed that Tost is against customer cars on account of the estimated £40m investment the team was forced into by substantially ramping up its Faenza facilities - STR is now able to produce approximately 80 per cent of its base car in-house - he provides some numbers before admitting that the final call does not rest with him alone.

"I have heard figures that you can do Formula 1 for 20 or 30 million euros - that's absolute nonsense, because the top teams and those who want to sell cars are working to very high technical and financial levels. Nevertheless, it's a decision for Red Bull [boss Dietrich Mateschitz]. But teams should not think that customer cars are [very] cheap.

"A car from such a top team costs twice the money as a car costs for a midfield team maybe producing it themselves. Therefore I just want to tell the dreamers that Formula 1 is not cheap, also not with a customer team."

Replacing Daniil Kvyat and Jean-Eric Vergne, STR's latest rookies Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz Jr have drawn praise © XPB

That much is clear from discussions on STR's spend during those customer car seasons. Its 2008 season - during which it won a race and placed sixth in the championship - is estimated to have cost the team around £75m, around half of which was provided by Red Bull; last year the team spent £90m to score a season-best of sixth place, and seventh in the overall classification.

Adjust both budgets for economics and (vastly inflated) engine costs and there is little in it, which is why Tost is bemused by discussions that customer cars could well prove to be F1's saviour. As he sees it - here he enjoys majority support, whether amongst fans, sponsors or peers - the major issue is F1's revenue structure, which in turn impacts on Formula 1 as a Sunday afternoon spectacle.

"The economic situation is that a couple of teams get a lot of money from the commercial rights holder, from sponsors and so on, and we all know that the costs in Formula 1 are far too high," he says. "We do not need to spend three or four hundred million.

"We do not need 800 people for the chassis and 400 people for the engine, just for two cars racing each other at two o'clock on 20 Sundays. I think this is absolutely not necessary for making a good show, because we should remember that Formula 1 is entertainment, and what people want to see is a minimum [of] five to six cars together who can fight for a win.

"They want to see fights, and currently Formula 1 cannot offer this in a way [that] people want to see it Sunday in the afternoon."

Mercedes' dominance has played a role in fuelling talk about Formula 1's future © XPB

According to Tost, the issue is further compounded by one team (Mercedes) being "far ahead of everybody and having a peak technical advantage. They did a fantastic job, and the other teams haven't done so far a good job to catch up."

However, here he blames - among other issues - the engine token process. As a former engine operations manager, he maintains he spoke out against at the time of framing the engine regulations.

"[The regulations] make it difficult for other engine manufacturers to catch up because of the token story, which first of all in my opinion is absolutely not acceptable. I remember when they made this regulation, I was in the meeting and I said, 'If one manufacturer is in front, how can the others catch up?'

"The answer was 'We have to save money', but in Formula 1 you never save money. The main things is [historically] there was always a team that was in front, but not in this way as currently it is with Mercedes. That makes Formula 1 uninteresting, because people don't [watch] anymore."

He also questions some finer points, should customer cars be introduced: "How much money do you get from the commercial rights holder? Because it cannot be that customer teams get the same money as constructors. This cannot be. Then it depends how much the revenues are. I have no idea about this..."

Equally, he feels there would be massive confusion with the awarding of championship points under a two-tier system. After all, how could customer teams score equal points towards the constructors' classification?

"This never has been discussed and there's nothing in a written form. At the end it cannot be that a customer team gets the same points as a constructor team," he argues.

Toro Rosso's fight against its midfield rivals hasn't been helped by Renault's plight © LAT

In conclusion, Tost, who has never been afraid to voice opinions, believes customer cars will result in Formula 1's eventual destruction.

"This customer car topic or franchise system that is being discussed, I'm not convinced this will sort out any problems, because can you imagine if Mercedes says, 'customer cars at this stage'?

"Then we would have four Mercedes cars far in front. There are different and selfish interests from all the teams, especially the top teams. What do they want? They want even more money, they want third cars, they want to be rid of all the other teams.

"They just want to make maybe a five-team show, with three or four cars or whatever and to get more money. With this, Formula 1 is destroyed, 100 per cent, with this idea, because people are not interested in seeing only five teams. They want to see other teams, they want to see them fighting against each other.

"It would be the same if football had only five teams: Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United, Chelsea and Bayern Munich. People lose interest if they are playing every weekend [only] against each other.

"People are interested to see other teams like Force India, like Sauber, like Toro Rosso and so on. That's what Formula 1 is all about. What if one of these top teams breaks away? Do they then bring six cars or whatever from each team?

"No, we need to find regulations that bring down costs and equalise the performance of different teams, that they are all on a similar level. This is possible."