The human cost of F1's 2021 vision

The now-famous Bahrain Grand Prix presentation, held a little under three years before the first race of 2021, marked the start of Formula 1's latest rebirth - its first under Liberty. In that Sakhir meeting the teams learned about key aspects of Liberty's plans, the financial side in particular. It was clear the rich would be getting poorer, and vice versa, leaving those walking out of the gathering with distinctly mixed feelings.

Discussions continued on an individual basis, with Liberty visiting factories and popping in and out of motorhomes. The general idea was to canvass unvarnished opinion on a one-to-one basis, without the posturing and parrying that inevitably goes on in group meetings.

After six weeks of such interaction, the second presentation to a gathering of team bosses took place in Monaco. A few more dots were joined, and feedback from the individual discussions was filtered into the process. On the face it, it seems to be working smoothly.

"It's a positive progression," Force India's Bob Fernley tells Autosport. "I don't think any one meeting is a success in its own right, it's a series of meetings where you're identifying some issues, they're going away, talking to the teams, then bringing those points back onto the agenda. The decision-making is evolving all the time, and we're eliminating the variables.

"It's a much more constructive process. You could still say what you wanted with Bernie [Ecclestone], but you'd have your pass turned off!

"Before, you had everybody fighting for their own corner, and voting in a way that suited an individual team. And we're not an exception to that either, so we're not trying to be innocent in the process. But it doesn't build a programme for the future of the sport. I think the idea behind this is it is building a future for the sport."

The two teams with the most to lose, and which are least happy with the direction taken on engines in particular, are Ferrari and Mercedes. So far they have largely kept their powder dry in public, and there have been no outbursts from Sergio Marchionne, but they are still quietly pushing for what they want.

"Things are not going according to our requirements at the moment," Toto Wolff admits. "But it's a good process. We had a presentation in Bahrain that was to the point, we understood what Liberty's strategy was in relation to the most important topics, and we've had an update [in Monaco] on technical regulations, on their vision around the engine, on cost cap.

"It was a further step ahead. It was a summary of the various standpoints, the common denominator of where Liberty sees they are, and the teams' opinions. And the next step is going to be to try to merge the thoughts to something that could look like a proposal towards the teams. They would like that to happen in the next two months.

"I see some common sense on the table. It was a productive discussion. There are still areas where we are very far away, but it is moving forward in a constructive, structured process."

But will Liberty stick to that two-month schedule, and is it fast enough? Others are impatient for more detail.

"It's generally going in the right direction," says Renault's Cyril Abiteboul. "We need to see more pace, more momentum, we need to see that this is actually happening. The vision is good in general - it's the implementation, and we would like to see that coming, and some confirmation.

"I will not go into the specifics, but there remain some details to be sorted out. And we know that the devil is in the detail. The overall picture is interesting, but we need to confirm those details."

The teams that really want to see Liberty's plans firmed up are those under the financial cosh, and who want to know where they are heading.

"We need to have more details on the proposals," says Sauber's Frederic Vasseur. "I think at one stage we need to have a clear picture of the situation. To say we want to have more exciting races, to put the driver in the middle of the game, to have a much more powerful engine - OK, everybody agrees with this.

"But then you have to build up the regulations, and we are waiting for the final version. It's not one question - the issue is that we have to put everything together at the same stage: engine regulations, governance, prize fund, technical regulations, budget cap if there is one.

"To fit everything together won't be easy. At least with the engine they have to take a decision quite soon, I understand."

"We cannot close our eyes to what's happening in the world. Hybrid systems have been on road cars and need to be in F1. But we also have to understand what the fan is interested in" Toto Wolff

Vasseur wants to see a complete package, which is understandable - it's logical to have an idea of both what your income will be and what it's going to cost to go racing. Fernley takes a more relaxed view, suggesting it will have to be signed off in easy-to-digest bites, with the power unit the obvious priority.

"I think the engine is very close to being published in terms of technical and sporting regs," adds Fernley. "Get that out of the way, keep working on other elements like chassis tech and sporting regs, and once we've got the engines I think you'll see more progression on the engine side."

The basic technical details of the 2021 engine package have not changed since a joint FIA/F1 announcement last October. What is still up for discussion are items such as restricting dyno time to cap development costs, and the number of power units allowed per year, which will definitely rise from the current level of three.

Crucially, Mercedes and Ferrari are no longer fighting the loss of the MGU-H, and are resigned to the fact that there will be some dumbing down of technology.

"We have given up on some of the standpoints," says Wolff. "We have accepted to lose the MGU-H. We think that the technology is a step backwards, but in terms of achieving a compromise for the benefit of the spectacle, the H going, the revs going up, the fuel limitations going [we can accept]. We will have a louder engine, we will not be limited by fuel.

"It's not the most sustainable message we're sending out, but we can understand from a spectacle standpoint it is something you need to consider and accept.

"We cannot close our eyes to what's happening in the world. Hybrid energy recovery systems have been on road cars, they need to happen in F1, in my opinion. But equally, we have to understand what the fan is interested in.

"It needs the technology message, it cannot go without the technology message in F1, but it needs to be at the level where we recognise that spectacle is important. Shocking your senses with an engine sound is maybe something that we can improve.

"I think on the engine regulations we're pretty close on being able to tick the box. The only major thing we need to solve is we are still spending a lot on engine development, and what we need to avoid is double spending over the next years - continuing to develop the current engine, and then also doing the new one."

That is a key point. There's a push for a freeze on development of current engines for 2019-20, so everyone can pour their resources into 2021. And the inevitable questions are at what stage do you freeze, how do you ensure that it's fair for everyone, and how much leeway is there for 'reliability' mods within the period?

Engines aside, the major point of contention is the cost cap - specifically, the impact that will have on staff levels for the big three teams, which have hitherto expanded on an annual basis. It's a complex and contentious area. The FIA engaged former McLaren boss Martin Whitmarsh in a consultancy role, specifically to study this subject, and apparently it didn't go down well when he pointed out how difficult it was going to be to implement.

"If a local car plant closes, it makes the headline news. There's a social responsibility that needs to be taken into account when talking about cost caps" Christian Horner

In the latest meeting, discussions revolved around the timing of how downsizing would work. Nobody expects teams to let hundreds of people go on December 31 2020.

"This was a very good point where Liberty recognised that a cost cap cannot be an event, but it needs to be a process," says Wolff. "It needs to go over several years, and it needs to consider the various structures that are being put in place. They are taking our feedback on board. It is clear that we will all be protecting our structures in a way, and we have expressed that."

Red Bull is more on message with a cost cap and downsizing than Mercedes or Ferrari, but the Milton Keynes team will still have some challenges to face.

"There has to be an extremely responsible approach by the governing body and the commercial rights holder," says Christian Horner. "Because certainly within the UK you are talking of potentially [cutting] thousands of jobs. If a local car plant closes shop, it makes the headline news at the moment.

"So there's a social responsibility that needs to be taken into account when talking about restrictions and caps and so on."

He acknowledges achieving that won't be easy: "It doesn't sit well when drivers can earn in some cases up to $50m a year. How many jobs is that worth? The whole thing needs to be looked at quite carefully, and I think the FIA and Liberty are aware of that. I still think that our biggest cost drivers in this business are the regulations, both sporting and technical. There's a responsibility that needs to be given serious consideration about how these changes are implemented."

The cost cap and staff level glide path will remain contentious issues for some time to come, and those teams not impacted will have to be placated. That even includes Renault, an organisation which, through fortunate timing, has been scaling up towards the future limits, and therefore won't have to cut back.

"It's obvious that Mercedes or Red Bull or Ferrari are never going to cut 50% of their costs," says Abiteboul. "And all the associated cost drivers, including workforce. I think we appreciate we have a social responsibility, including towards UK employment in the area of where the teams are.

"We need to act responsibly, we appreciate that, and we will be prepared to have a conversation on what would be the best for us, because we understand that situation."

Ross Brawn has been keen to point out that staff members dropped by the big players could find a home elsewhere as the smaller teams benefit from an improved financial situation. Red Bull and Toro Rosso's relationship makes staff movement an obvious scenario, while Ferrari has close ties with both Sauber and Haas and a transfer of relevant personnel would be logical.

A cynic might suggest that big teams will simply place people elsewhere, wearing different shirts, while still benefiting from their input. Clearly that will have to be policed.

But it's not a given that smaller teams will want to increase head counts. They may be in a better financial situation, but they have to dig themselves out of debt before they undertake any major expansion. There's another question - would you automatically sign up the first staff members let go by a big team?

"I think Ross's point is reasonable," says Fernley. "There will be some absorption, but it's the quality of people that you're absorbing that you've got to look at! It will depend what the market is at the time."

In the meantime, discussions continue. We can only hope that, in the end, we get the Formula 1 we want and that self-interest does not dominate, as it previously has.

"We're all going to have to give up something to make it work," says Fernley. "Maybe we'll have to give up the glide path - it's not as quick as we'd like it to be. The cost cap principle they'll have to give up, because it's not where they want to be. So everybody's going to have to give and take a bit to get it through."