What's behind Ecclestone's comments?

When Formula One Management CEO Bernie Ecclestone makes two TV appearances on national broadcasters as disparate as RT in Russia and ZDF in Germany within a week, there simply has to be a ploy.

When he faces the German cameras with former FIA president Max Mosley - his mate of 40 years' standing, and whose administration sold him the sport's 113-year rights for a pittance - deliberate strategy clearly overtakes tactic.

This is a man who, after all, never does things willy-nilly, and has avoided the limelight more than most men of his standing, even while standing accused of £30m bribery charges. Thus it was fascinating to compare the broadcasts, particularly as this column exclusively interviewed Ecclestone in Russia, shortly after he made his RT appearance, and ahead of the German interview.

The rationale behind inviting German moderator Volker Grube of ZDF into his London offices - location betrayed by a life-size brass bust of the moppy-haired Ecclestone, for surely no German broadcaster would have one in the corner - is all the more intriguing. Germany was the country, remember, that tried him in the aforementioned charges, resolved by a £75m settlement.

Possibly the choice of a German broadcaster was designed to hit Mercedes. Its team currently dominates political and sporting proceedings to such a degree that FOM's majority owner CVC Capital Partners will shell out an unbudgeted £50m in bonuses after Mercedes AMG F1 Team completes back-to-back championships in 2014/15.

Ecclestone's German TV appearance comes during an era of Mercedes domination © LAT

During the Russian interview, conducted by Sophie Shevardnadze (granddaughter of the former Russian Foreign Minister and Georgia President Eduard Shevardnadze), Ecclestone made a variety of political statements that deserve no comment here, save to say that his criticism of the United States of America as "a big island" and "a bit isolated" was hardly well received in Austin, Texas, F1's next stop.

One also wonders what Stephen Ross, owner of the Miami Dolphins and various other sports properties, made of Ecclestone's comments, as he investigates the purchase of a controlling interest of Formula 1's commercial rights. Quite possibly, if/when they meet again, the Detroit-born New Yorker will point out that the F1 tsar, too, harks from an island, in his case a comparatively tiny landmass...

Whatever, what was intriguing was that in both interviews Ecclestone spoke of tearing up F1's rulebook.

"I think a lot of that technical regulations are too stringent, and it's really been like an old house and people keep adding bits and pieces to it, and really, nobody knows why we've added them," he said in the Russian broadcast.

When Shevardnadze suggested to Ecclestone that F1 is "more about the show than sports", before asking whether "Formula 1 in general, is it all about the appearance?", it seemed Ecclestone was wrong-footed, telling her, "I think, it has become more about the sport..."

SS: You think it's more about the sport?

"...than show, yes," he replied. "I think we are in showbusiness. The minute we stop entertaining, we're in trouble. So people like racing... I think, what our biggest problem is that you and I know pretty well who's going to be the world champion this year.

This was a common sight in the 2000s, but crowds and TV numbers were strong © LAT

"It can't be right. People come to watch racing, to watch anything, and they don't want to know the result before it starts. That's the rulebook that I want to tear up."

This predictability was a common theme on ZDF but Ecclestone seemed to have conveniently forgotten that F1's golden age was the mid-2000s. An era dominated by Ferrari, Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello to a degree hardly seen before or since, particularly as tacit team orders reigned. Yet, grandstands were full to capacity, and TV ratings shot through the roof.

Turning to the rulebook, he told the Russian service: "I'm as guilty as anybody else; so, I think maybe we ought to tear it [up] and have another book. We've become much too clinical with too many rules and regulations, and I think, the drivers, when they go out to start the race, they should be on their own. They shouldn't have help from the pits, but advice on things."

With ZDF he also used his "old house" analogy, this time referring to it as "Victorian", but intriguingly, suggested that the sport "get some competent people to rewrite the rules".

In framing the rules, the FIA has access to the best consultants and engineers the sport knows, but the issue is that the basic framework comes from teams themselves.

Thus Ecclestone knows as well as anyone in the paddock that a rewrite is well-nigh impossible due to the majorities and very processes - the controversial Strategy Group feeding a restructured F1 Commission - he created. With a slight trace of irony he stated that, "I sit on the Strategy Group, and would like to know what [the 2017 rules] are going to be."

However, to suggest that "we ought to" tear up the book simply slides the blame in the wrong direction...

Ecclestone appeared alongside former FIA president Mosley on German TV © XPB

Mosley raised a smile when he spoke of F1's various revenue streams, sponsorship revenue and so-called FOM money. He added that premium payments to teams were wrong, but it was during his reign (in the late nineties, in fact), that Ferrari first received long-standing team bonuses.

Thereafter Ecclestone agreed that the current revenue split was wrong, yet could not be amended. He should know: he made the offers to the teams in March 2012. Thus, again, the majority of fingers point inwards.

Of course, Ecclestone was in his element when discussing his hobby-horse, F1's hybrid engines. Admitting that if he had used the word "shitty" to describe them, then it was "true [they were]", before adding, "it's Max's fault that we have these engines..."

Ecclestone then went on to bang on about and their lack of noise, stating that the Russians had again spoken up about that very topic. While Mosley - behind the hybrid concept - pointed out that TV viewers hardly tell the difference between old V8s and new engines, Grube did not pick up that both Russian GPs held to date featured "silent" engines.

Mosley suggested that the engines had been introduced to provide an element of road relevance, saying the idea was to have an engine where the research was road relevant, not racing relevant, "by getting the maximum amount of power on the minimum amount of fuel".

All good. Except that Mosley later spoke out against two-pedal driving, suggesting F1 drivers should change gears - which they do, albeit via steering wheel-mounted paddles - and operate clutch pedals - which they don't - yet this overlooks that road cars are increasingly moving towards robotised, dual-clutch transmissions in the interests of economy. Surely what is good for engine is good for gearbox and steering wheel, too?

When addressing the "engineers' championship" Ecclestone believes F1 has now become, he seems to have conveniently forgotten that it was his Brabham team that introduced the BT46 "Fancar", "invented" rising hydraulic suspension in 1982, was among the first to use a windtunnel, albeit one crudely crafted out of a truck rear body. And that in 1983, the first drivers' champion using a turbocharged engine was run by Brabham.

F1's hybrid engines were criticised once more © LAT

A particularly lamentable moment occurred when the duo discussed the rule-making process, and Mosley recalled the drama surrounding a 2002 ban on qualifying cars. Ecclestone added, "Ken Tyrrell said 'a lot of people are going to get killed because the cars won't be prepared properly'". Cue a Mosley snigger: "Kill the drivers... and you'll only get half the cars finish the races."

Possibly the dear departed team owner did at some stage say those words - who really knows given that he passed away in 2001 - but an indisputable fact is that the ex-Surrey lumber merchant sold his eponymous team to Craig Pollock and British American Tobacco in 1998, and played no role in F1's rule-making process thereafter. Indeed, Tyrrell became BAR, which became Honda which begat Brawn, then Mercedes.

Ecclestone's recall of history had a lighter, if still slightly sombre, note, too, when Shevardnadze asked "[Who] would you say is the best pilot of all time?"

He responded: "I had a guy, he was a partner of mine in business, called Jochen Rindt. He's Austrian, he won the world championship - but he was dead when he won the championship [posthumously]. We were very close friends, and he was a very talented driver.

SS: What made him so special that you think he's the best pilot ever? The fact that he was your close friend?

"He delivered what he had to. That makes champions, you know. In anything, in tennis, or whatever; the champions, when they had to deliver, they delivered."

However, while discussing current technology and driver aids, Ecclestone volunteered: "This is the reason, when people say to me 'Who's the best driver?' the name I come up with, and most people don't agree with me, I say Alain Prost. Because Prost had to look after his brakes, gearbox, everything. He did a good job, so he finished the most races."

Ecclestone told Russian TV that Rindt was the best driver of all time © LAT

Two different 'best drivers' within a week...

In closing, Gruber touched on the issue of F1's finances, the possible sale of CVC's 35.5 per cent share of FOM and ticket prices. On the first issue, Ecclestone explained that a redistribution of the structure (unsaid that he had offered it to beneficiary teams) would only be possible if all parties agreed, suggesting to Gruber that he would not be best pleased if he was told his revenues would be cut.

Then, though, came Ecclestone's reference to a possible EU Commission investigation into the sport's finances and governance, with a glint in his eyes suggesting that he could welcome such intervention.

Asked about ticket prices, he blamed their exorbitant levels on the teams by stating they demanded 65 per cent of income, which forced circuit owners to hike prices to cover hosting fees. Again, this tells half the story, for FOM retains 35 per cent AFTER operational costs. If, like other sport promoters, FOM cut its take, ticket prices could immediately drop - but CVC would squeal.

Mosley picked up on the question by suggesting a reduction of costs for top teams - the essence of his ill-fated budget cap concept - by suggesting that ticket prices would be reduced accordingly. Fans wish...

As for the possible sale of F1's commercial rights - or, correctly, a century's worth of lease on the sport - Ecclestone suggested that CVC needed to cash out in line with its fund holder covenants, and that the potential new owners (whoever they may be) had, "asked me if I will stay on as CEO, but who knows, they may not want me..."

There were, he said, "three types of people who wanted to buy", and that is was simply "a matter of getting together and sorting all the details."

Finally, as with RT, Ecclestone told ZDF "we mustn't forget we're in the entertainment business - so we should be asking the public 'What do you not like about Formula 1 today?' and 'What did you like about Formula 1 before?'

"We have to have a complete rethink."

Surveys have already been conducted this year, click here for the result of Autosport's recent fan survey.

The burning question, though, is: To whom was Ecclestone playing to in either interview? Prospective buyers? Fans? The Russians or Germans? Mercedes? The EU Commission?

No wonder he is known as Mr E, for a mystery he remains.