What can F1 do to keep grid numbers up?

As Formula 1 decamped ahead of its blue-riband event on the streets of Monaco, it faced four choices in order to maintain the integrity of grids at 20 (or more) entries.

True, 2015's line-up numbers that level, to be bolstered next year by the arrival of Haas F1, but such are the woes created by F1's inequitable payouts and sundry commercial issues that the futures of F1's various independent operations cannot be guaranteed.

The quartet of options:

- Carry on as is, hoping for the best

- Introduce third cars, initially via three Constructors' Championship Bonus teams (Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren) whose covenants stipulate such clauses should grid levels fall below 16 cars on a regular basis

- Amend the listed parts* (see bottom) schedule to enable teams to share/source major items, or purchase complete cars from front-running operations - increasingly referred to as "franchise cars" to differentiate them from generic customer cars (see below)

Ecclestone has his own views on how smaller teams should enter F1 © LAT

- Amend regulations to permit "one-make" chassis produced by a single contractor, powered by spec engines (V8s?) and KERS systems - a sort of 'GP1', long punted by commercial rights holder Formula One Management, which blames everything from hi-tech hybrid engines through "lousy fans" and "boring drivers" to "unrecognisable team bosses" for dwindling fan interest.

Indeed, during a Strategy Group summit held before Monaco all parties - FIA, FOM and six privileged teams - agreed to "refine [proposals] in the next few weeks, in consultation with other teams".

Their joint statement committed them "to work together with an intention to firm up these proposals and submit them to the approval of the F1 Commission and FIA World Motor Sport Council as soon as possible".

One of the proposals tabled was the return of refuelling, which, according to sources present, was tabled by CVC boss Donald Mackenzie in concert with FIAT/Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne, and given that neither is a regular presence at grands prix - being absent from Monaco, for example - one wonders whether they are fit to frame F1's future.

Not surprisingly the majors - led, one hears, by McLaren and Ferrari - were adamant that redistribution of revenues should not be contemplated, pushing instead for third cars and/or franchise-type operations. These would be tidy revenue-spinners for both and enable the McLaren-Honda alliance to supply a second team without it being a performance threat to Woking.

Clearly aware of the damaging connotation of "customer cars" in a technology-driven championship, the Strategy Group has sought to differentiate between cars supplied by one team to another by referring to them as "franchise cars", while retaining the customer term to describe "GP1" type products, which would be to a common design/specification.

However, such semantics won't fool employees at teams that would be forced into closing their manufacturing operation simply to appease the ambitions of those teams already bloated by premium payouts that bear little or no resemblance to current performances; by teams that were granted guaranteed Strategy Group seats despite last winning constructors' championships a decade ago.

Many argue that customer cars run counter to F1's DNA - whatever that may be - yet Force India deputy team principal Bob Fernley, whose team stands to suffer more than most should there be a shift away from independent chassis manufacturers, begs to differ.

Are 'stock' chassis painted in F1 colours the right option for the future? © LAT

"I don't want to get into the fact that customer cars are not part of the DNA of Formula 1 - they are," he told this writer in Monaco, citing numerous examples of historic customer car usage. However, he believes there are many negatives attached to proprietary chassis, regardless of how the regulations may be structured.

"You have to have reasoned argument to decide whether or not [customer cars] should [be a part of F1], and that will come out in the presentations," he added. "My feeling is that there are too many negatives to customer cars, and that those need to be overcome before it can be considered."

That said, is it not beyond comprehension that, say, McLaren - currently ninth in the championship with four points - could ultimately impose its products on Sauber, fifth in the classification on 21 points, by dint of privileges granted back in 2012 under conditions that bear no resemblance to the current climate? After all, who would wish to be a customer of McLaren (or Red Bull) this year, or Ferrari in 2014?

So far, though, so good (if you're a CCB team), except no sooner had the Strategy Group's jointly signed - by J Todt (FIA) and B Ecclestone (FOM) - release hit the press than last-named unilaterally revealed plans for customer cars, telling AUTOSPORT he would act as middle-man in a scenario which could see "two chassis, complete, [supplied] by the first of January [each season] for 15million dollars".

Admittedly they were plans only, but so much about waiting for Strategy Group decisions, and F1 Commission and WMSC procedures; so much for F1's last "customer" team (Toro Rosso) spending upwards of $80m per year.

Tellingly, this "other" Red Bull-owned squad, long thought to be a prime candidate for a franchise operation, came out strongly against the concept during an exclusive interview in Monaco.

No sooner had the independents expressed major concerns about plans that would effectively force them to shut their engineering and manufacturing shops - which would not only inflict irreparable damage on F1 as a brand, but result in potential losses of upwards of 1000 highly qualified heads - than the next grenade exploded: the FIA launched a selection process for a new team from 2016/17.

Suddenly, a fifth option...

The governing body is perfectly entitled to solicit expressions of interest from budding team owners. Indeed, its primary sporting responsibility is to ensure that F1 thrives regardless of commercial shenanigans and grant licenses to compliant teams to fill however many empty grid slots as may exist in what is, after all, its own championship.

However, the governing body's action, and timing, perfectly portrays the politics at play at F1's heart.

On the one hand, 40 per cent of the grid of this multi-billion dollar sport faces severe liquidity issues, yet its commercial rights holder believes the only solution is its brokerage of "GP1" cars that fly in the face of current convention, and would reduce motorsport's premier formula to little more than one-make racing. On the other hand, F1's rightful owner wishes to grow the grid via the granting of an additional entrant's license.

To place the ravaging effects of F1's commercial ownership in perspective, consider the recent travails of FIFA, whose finances have over the past week been under a spotlight shone mainly by the United States Justice Department.

Perhaps F1 needs to pay more attention to how football spends its money © XPB

FIFA's football World Cup, staged every four years and thus accounted for quadrennially, recorded roughly the same turnover during its 2010-14 period through to Brazil's event as did F1 ($5.6bn) over the same block, with both netting bottom line "profits" of around $1.3bn over the period, or average $425m per annum.

Much as it pains to credit Sepp Blatter's administration, kudos must be given where due. FIFA distributed its net earnings to federations across the globe, whereas Delta Topco, FOM's holding company, disbursed profits either in interest on loans against future earnings or as dividends - primarily to its two largest shareholders, CVC Capital Partners and Blackstone, last-named the world's largest investment fund.

Yes, FIFA is currently rocked by scandals, but it still allocated 90 per cent to development. This begs the question: when last did Delta Topco's primary shareholders commit a brass bean to motorsport development?

True, the FIA did a fine job with its Motorsport Safety Development Fund, primarily underwritten by McLaren's spy scandal fine from 2007, and its replacement Motorsport Development Fund - funded mainly by the FIA's income from agreements with FOM, but these amounts are a mere pittance in comparison with FOM's overall revenues, and should not be confused with FIFA's development initiatives.

For the avoidance of doubt, FIFA has retained world football's commercial rights, and thus benefits directly from income. The FIA does not benefit directly from F1's income, having previously hived off the rights.

However, back to Monaco and the Strategy Group: one team executive, who did not wish to be identified but whose entity is represented on the Strategy Group, is of the opinion that the current regulatory structure is flawed simply as Todt and Ecclestone will never see eye-to-eye on matters.

FIA and FOM each hold six votes (of 18) on the Strategy Group, with the three CCBs (Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren) two concession teams (Williams, Mercedes) and a floater (currently Force India) each holding single votes. Issues passed by the group are then escalated to the Commission/WMSC.

However, the governing body and commercial rights holder have opposite objectives, reasoned our source, with the relationship between them best compared to that of landlord/tenant, with the former placing preservation of property at the forefront of all agreements, and the latter wishing simply to reside as comfortably as possible, as cheaply as possible.

Nobody wants an empty Formula 1 grid © LAT

Does the tenant buy the best lawnmower, he asked rhetorically, or repaint the walls with materials offering 10-year guarantees?

"Particularly not if the tenant is 84 years old, or knows he will move shortly", he smiled in response to his own question - clear reference to FOM's current management and renewed rumours that CVC is in negotiations to divest its F1 interests, having taken out an estimated $2bn over ten years.

Thus, never the twain shall meet unless the two protagonists become close friends, much as Ecclestone and Mosley then were, our man continued - and hence, during the first 10 years of the commercial rights deal, there were few (public) disagreements about F1's future direction.

"Left to their own devices with equal votes, the current duo would not achieve a single change regardless of how badly the sport is battered," the executive said, concluding that the impasse between FIA and FOM could only be broken by six teams, all of whom have vested interests and vote accordingly - resulting in utter confusion at Strategy Group level, even before motions are escalated.

He has a point. Would Ferrari, for example, go with third or franchise cars? Absolutely. Mercedes? In June last year no, but this year yes. Williams? Well, depends. Force India? Not a chance.

There, in a nutshell, lie the roots of F1's ills: until it solves its governance problems by forcing its major players to work together in the best interests of Formula 1 and teams, sponsors and fans - and not place the interests of shareholders first - it is bound to continue on a slippery slope.

* Listed Parts

Monocoque

Survival cell as defined in Article 1.14 of the F1 Technical Regulations

Front impact structures used to meet the requirements of Articles 16.2 and 16.3 of the F1 Technical Regulations

Roll over structures - roll structures as regulated by Article 15.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations

Bodywork as defined in Article 1.4 of the F1Technical Regulations and regulated by Article 3 of the F1 Technical Regulations with the exception of airboxes, engine exhausts and prescribed bodywork geometries

Wings

Floor

Diffuser