F1 faces a long wait for real change

Following Liberty Media's acquisition of control of Formula 1's commercial rights and the company's subsequent renaming as Formula One Group, the championship stands on the cusp of commercial, technical and sporting change.

But so convoluted is the regulatory process that such change is unlikely to be introduced before 2018 - and even then only on low-hanging items.

Anything that requires a full vote is likely to be postponed until the following year, at the earliest.

Never was this clearer than during three media sessions held during the Australian Grand Prix weekend.

The first, chaired by the FIA's head of F1 Charlie Whiting, was called to discuss the latest rule changes plus other relevant business; the second, convened by FOG's head of communications without formal notice to the media, featured Ross Brawn and Sean Bratches, FOG's heads of racing and commercial respectively.

The third, attended by a select group of journalists, was addressed by FIA president Jean Todt. These came in addition to the traditional FIA Friday press conference called for team principals and other key personnel on a rotational basis.

Whiting's session covered, as expected, mainly immediate issues, with the only future points being the introduction of head protection (likely the halo, in 2018), an upcoming (March 31) meeting of engine suppliers - including some not currently in F1 - to initiate post-2020 power unit discussions, and confirmation of a little-known change, namely an extension of the deadline for future regulations changes from March 1 to April 30.

The engine issue is intriguing, for the FIA seems intent on retaining the architecture of the current engine formula, but updated in line with motor industry trends.

Brawn, though, commented in January: "I think one of the key things that Formula 1 has to decide is what it wants to be for the future.

"Does it want to be mainstream technical innovation aligned with road transport, or is it a sport that can afford to step outside of that, and say we want the best solution to entertain the fans, be economically viable and be interesting?"

In Melbourne he went further: "The engine is a pretty key element, and the current engine is a fantastic piece of engineering, but it's ended up very expensive, very complicated.

"We see the challenges facing some of the engine suppliers. So what sort of engine do we want for the future?

"I think when we've determined that, then we can start to build the calendar or the plan around that engine, because I think some of the thoughts we've [for which read FOG] got at this early stage fall in line with the introduction of a new engine."

See the disconnect?

Asked about FOG's intention to influence change in F1, Todt made clear that F1's governing body is the de facto regulator and legislator of F1.

"Now it's a new group arriving with a different way of leadership of organising the sport. Formula 1 is [built] around commercial rights holders [FOG], FIA as regulator and legislator - and we'll come back on that - and the teams," he explained, before describing the convoluted regulatory process imposed upon F1 by the 100-year commercial rights agreement inflicted by the previous administration.

"We all know we are governed by an agreement signed in 2001, which is called the '100 years agreement', so the role of the FIA and the leadership of the FIA, starting from the president of the FIA, myself, is to respect the 100 years agreement.

"In the 100 years agreement we have also what is called the Concorde Agreement, which is a renewable agreement, and now which is valid until the end of 2020."

Technically Todt is incorrect in referring to a current Concorde, for the teams are contracted to the FOG via bilateral agreements, and the FIA and FOG bound by what is known as the bipartite 'Concorde Implementation Agreement'. But for the purposes of this analysis let us ignore the nuances of various deals and focus on reality: F1 is bound until 2020 by various covenants that make swift, unilateral change almost impossible.

While some bemoan this structure, Brawn put it into perspective: "There is governance for good reason in Formula 1.

"However much we may feel that it should be more focused on the decisions of individuals to decide the direction of Formula 1, the danger of that is when the individual is no longer involved and you get another individual who perhaps has a different point of view.

"So you have governance procedure, and I think it's essential."

Todt expressed similar sentiments, but with reservations: "The governance of Formula 1 in a way is a big security for the teams, but it's a 12-year process, it shouldn't be that heavy to change something.

"I can understand that for some long-term projects you need to have time to plan ahead, but for some very easy moves it's a very heavy process, and something like that should change."

Regarding the engine pricing, Todt has a different perspective to Brawn: "The price for the team for the engine now is quite high, but the budget for the teams is from €150million to €500m a year, and the teams who have pay for engines, they pay below €20m.

"[That means] it's 12% of a €150m budget, and on a €400m budget it's 5%. It's still too expensive.

"Reasonably it should be €12-€15m, a good price for engines for private teams and we are going in this direction, because every year until the end of the validity of these regulations, which means until the end of 2020, [there] will be a reduction in the cost of supply of the engine."

Asked when FOG foresaw regulatory change, Brawn gave a measured response.

"I think the reality is that quick changes on the technical or sporting side are really against the view we're preaching, which is to think about things carefully, and let's have a proper, measured structural response," he said.

"If there is a serious issue - I don't know what it might be - of course we will want to get involved.

"We all know Formula 1 turns up issues. It's its very nature. But today I couldn't say to you that we need to change A, B and C to immediately improve the racing for tomorrow."

The question, though, is: who should drive these changes - the FIA, FOG, the teams, or the championship collectively? Asked this question during Friday's FIA team principals conference, Red Bull's Christian Horner felt the onus lay with FOG.

"I think the [rights-holder]; it's their business at the end of the day," he said. "They have to decide what they want [F1] to be and, if the route is fan-attraction and creating a really exciting product, and at the end of the day they want to create great content on TV, then it's vital they come up with an outline of what their vision of Formula 1 is.

"Then, obviously, the FIA has a regulatory position and the teams need to be involved in that process. We have a process that that can be achieved in if two of the three parties agree."

So, that's three perspectives on the same issue in as many days, covering the FIA, FOG and teams.

The interesting aspect is, of course, that Brawn was very much Todt's chief technical lieutenant during the former's reign as Ferrari sporting boss. It was an era in which the Todt/Michael Schumacher/Brawn/Rory Byrne axis scaled new performance and reliability heights, with the Scuderia in the process scoring a total of 11 world titles in six years: five drivers' and six constructors'.

Intriguingly, though, Todt on Sunday suggested that F1 was almost too perfect on the reliability front.

"Clearly after testing in Barcelona, the first big impression was the reliability of the car. I repeat, for me, the cars are too reliable. Last year, Nico Rosberg had not one reliability issue. The only time he retired was the crash between both cars [at Barcelona].

"It was an amazing mess about [Lewis Hamilton's] broken engine. So, [from] 42 starts, two cars were lost in a race incident and only one reliability issue. For me it's too much. I'm sure it cost too much money.

"Can you imagine all the work you need to do in the workshop to achieve this kind of reliability?

"I feel it is too expensive, too complicated, in a way too reliable. I am shocked when I see the first day of testing in Barcelona. I remember in my time when we were able to do five laps it was, 'Fantastic, we did five laps!' [In Barcelona] I saw cars were doing 70 or 80 laps..."

Mercedes would clearly not agree with Todt that F1 is now "in a way too reliable", so imagine regulation changes framed to make the cars more fragile. All this points to some tense discussions going forward, whether regarding F1's immediate future, or in the medium and longer terms.

Asked how the FIA would react were FOG, or the teams, to attempt to overstep what the governing body considers its rightful role, one formally acknowledged by the EU Commission as part of the 100-year agreement approval process, Todt's response to the thorny question was utterly, and predictably, presidential.

"We are in a honeymoon situation at the moment," he said before referring to a dinner convened by CAMS (the Australian motorsport authority) and attended by FOG's trilogy of chairman/CEO Chase Carey, Brawn and Bratches plus various FIA and local dignitaries.

"We spoke about how we can work better because it's a combined effort. We want each grand prix organisation to be a success, and it was very constructive," he added.

"I already had meetings with the new owners in Geneva and Paris to discuss how we can make things better.

"Honestly, it would be inappropriate to create a kind of 'one wants to take something over from the other one'.

"We are ready and willing to work to make Formula 1 as good as possible."

However, the steel in his voice made absolutely clear that the FIA is F1's regulator, and that the FIA would not trade its position - certainly not for as long as he remains president.

On that note he conceded to considering standing again when his second four-year term ends in October, but said he would be making a final decision closer to the time.

On Sunday there was no doubting that F1's future hinges as much on the outcome of that election as it does on FOG's plans to reshape the series.