Why teams are at loggerheads over F1's revolution

The saga of the 2021 Formula 1 technical regulations takes another turn in Paris this week when we learn whether the deadline for rubber stamping them will be postponed until October, allowing another four months to complete the process.

Until now we've been heading for a June deadline, one imposed upon F1 by an unusual set of circumstances - namely wholesale changes to the technical and sporting regulations aligning with the end of the Concorde Agreement.

With no new Concorde Agreement in place yet, there is no system of governance covering 2021, and so the timing of publishing the regulations defers to the FIA International Sporting Code.

Article 18.2.2 states: "Changes to technical regulations... will be published no later than 30 June each year and come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the year following their publication, unless the FIA considers that the changes in question are likely to have a substantial impact on the technical design of the automobile and/or the balance of performance between the automobiles, in which case they will come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the second year following their publication."

Given that the 2021 technical regs clearly have a "substantial" impact on car design the latter example applies, which means an 18-month lead time is required - one that is way longer than is usually the case with new rules, and is basically without precedent.

Consider that for the last major change, ahead of the switch to wider tyres and revised aerodynamics in 2017, the technical regulations were published at the end of February '16. That was just 10 months before the start of the calendar year in which they applied, or roughly a year ahead of the first test with the new cars.

The requirement to have the regulations signed-off early coincides with a perfect storm of circumstances.

Firstly, this is the first set of rules being put together by the FIA's head of single-seater matters, Nikolas Tombazis (pictured above), and sadly also the first in decades to be finalised without the ongoing involvement of the late Charlie Whiting.

Secondly it's the first time that the FIA has been aided in the shaping of a complete set of new rules by the F1 organisation, or more specifically by the team of experienced engineers put together by Ross Brawn and overseen by Pat Symonds.

Never before has so much research been done outside the teams themselves, even if they have been called upon to help with simulations.

"I would say this process has been quite unique compared with other rules changes. This is not a teams' rule change, the teams haven't been involved. It's a bit of a one-way street at the minute." Andy Green, Racing Point

Thirdly, with the joint focus on improving the show and reducing costs 2021 represents a massive set of changes. Not just in terms of the aero package and renewed emphasis on ground effect, but also because there are significant moves towards standard parts, with some tenders yet to be decided upon.

And finally, change always meets resistance, and every F1 team - even if paying lip service to the bigger picture - wants to protect its own interests.

The general idea is that the 2021 changes close up the field, and yet the likes of Mercedes boss Toto Wolff insist that continued rules stability would have a better outcome.

The cynical response to that is that those currently dominating don't want change precisely because it could give others a chance to catch up.

All of this has meant that getting a set of 2021 rules close to a final state under such time pressure was never going to be easy.

Just consider last year, when the agreement to introduce the overtaking changes for 2019 - involving modified front endplates, brake ducts and rear wing - was rushed through in April.

Voting on the principle was simple. The difficult bit was finalising the detail, and closing all the loopholes. That process involved regular feedback from the teams, and went on for months, almost to the very start of the 2019 season.

So just imagine how hard it is to change the complete concept of the car and get all the details pinned down.

"Think of it like the front wing [changes for 2019] and then times it by 100," says Racing Point technical director Andy Green. "That's what it is. They're in a very green state at the moment - an outline of where they think they will be approximately, but it's a big approximation.

"I would say this process has been quite unique compared with other rules changes. This is not a teams' rule change, the teams haven't been involved. It's a bit of a one-way street at the minute."

With this week's World Motor Sport Council gathering looming on Friday the teams were sent a draft copy of the technical regulations just before Montreal, along with the sporting regulations and the newly-minted financial regulations, which outline the cost cap.

The teams knew the essentials of what was coming. But having seen the details in print, there was a certain lack of enthusiasm from technical folk - with some concluding that the rules were so prescriptive that cars will look alike to an even greater degree than they do now.

In addition the move to more standard or prescribed parts has not been universally well received. In essence teams want to continue to have the freedom to develop in as many areas as they can in order to showcase their R&D skills, and find a competitive advantage.

After some discussion most of the teams agreed that a delay would indeed be sensible, although there was one main dissenter who wanted more assurances - namely Renault's Cyril Abiteboul

It was clear too that there was still much work to do on the draft regs. There was at least a starting point, and early in the Canada race weekend Tombazis hosted the first of a series of FIA technical working group meetings, which allowed the technical directors the chance to offer some feedback.

Things then took an unexpected twist when the team bosses were invited to one of Chase Carey's "coffee meetings" in the F1 hospitality building on Saturday morning.

These informal gatherings have become regular occurrences, allowing the F1 CEO and his management colleagues to catch up with their key stakeholders to discuss topics of note while everyone is in one place, without the hassle of having folk fly in for a special gathering.

This time Carey and FIA president Jean Todt had a specific item on the agenda - they asked the bosses if they would agree to postpone the rules deadline until October.

Todt acknowledged that the rules as currently drafted were not complete enough to go to the WMSC this week, and there would inevitably be a huge amount of refinement and rewriting to follow.

It was deemed that it would be much better for that work to be undertaken before anything had been formally lodged in the system, which would also allow for maximum flexibility.

Todt would never do anything without careful checking with the FIA legal department, as understandably he prefers to ensure that everything is done by the book.

The International Sporting Code's article 18.2.4 makes provision for a delay: "Shorter notice periods than those mentioned above may be applied, provided that the unanimous agreement of all competitors properly entered for the championship, cup, trophy, challenge or series concerned is obtained."

After some discussion most of the teams agreed that a delay would indeed be sensible, although there was one main dissenter who wanted more assurances - namely Renault's Cyril Abiteboul.

A letter was subsequently circulated among the teams by the FIA, and after asking for some adjustments, Toto Wolff signed it on behalf of Mercedes, as did Mattia Binotto of Ferrari.

Some others also signed, but with more than one request for changes, Renault still holding off, and the postponement unexpectedly expanding to potentially include the sporting and financial regulations as well, the process stalled. The quest to have a letter signed before the end of the Montreal weekend was effectively abandoned.

Instead the FIA invited the key players to meet in Paris on Thursday for further discussions, with the intention of getting everyone on board. If that happens then the WMSC will be told on Friday that there's unanimous agreement for a postponement until October.

A delay appears to make sense, and that's certainly the view of the two big players.

"These things which are the laws of physics, and that's not going to change whether it's now, or October. I'm not totally sure that more can be achieved by October" Cyril Abiteboul, Renault

"On the principle and objective we are all on the same page," said Binotto. "And have been there since the very first time. But the time was running out, and I think that we are late on the milestones.

"The real regulations have just been published a few days ago, really green, not mature enough to be voted, so to postpone everything was the proper and right decision."

"I think our aim," said Wolff, "and this is where we share the objective the [other] guys have, is to have the best set of regulations for 2021.

"We need to get it right, the sport needs to be based on a solid, complete set of regulations, and if it can't be done in time in mid-June, then I think we need to give each other until the end of October."

Abiteboul's reasons for not agreeing sounded a note of caution. His theory is that an extra three or four months of debating time could allow teams who are opposed to major change - those happy with the way the rules are now - to force the FIA to backtrack in some areas.

He had taken note of the fact that the keenest to agree to a delay were Mercedes and Ferrari, the teams doing the best job under the current rules, and arguably those with the least to gain from wholesale changes.

"Let's be clear, there is more work to be done," Abiteboul said shortly after the Montreal meeting. "There are clear difficulties to reach all the objectives that have been set, because some of the objectives are contradictory - a better show, and a power to weight ratio that will be worse than it is now, for example.

"These things which are the laws of physics, and that's not going to change whether it's now, or October. I'm not totally sure that more can be achieved by October.

"I completely accept that this takes time, but with the right spirit it can be done, and with the right leadership from the FIA and F1 it can be done, whether or not we push back that milestone.

"But it's also true that there are a number of teams who would prefer that these changes do not happen, so we are just giving more time to the system to find reasons for not doing the changes which we believe are required for the sport - looking at the viewership, looking at the difficulty to attract sponsors, and so on. So that's our concern."

Abiteboul also wanted to ensure that the FIA process was properly followed.

"It requires unanimity. We need to sign, but everyone needs to sign, it was very clear that there was very little being said by some teams [in the meeting], which suggests that some of the teams don't care, which to me is a bit of a concern, because we should all be caring for the process, and the milestones that are coming from the International Sporting Code, and if they're here, they must be here for a reason.

"We will be constructive if the letter is written with the assurance that we are looking for, particularly on the principle and in terms of governance - what we want the FIA and F1 to be able to do the changes that they want.

"I'm not seeking any particular rights, I'm just seeking that no one will have any capacity to block during that time."

"Listening to everybody and talking is I think the right thing to do, because the rules they've tabled right now aren't right. I think we all agree that they need to be improved upon." Lawrence Stroll, Racing Point

Andreas Seidl of McLaren, another of the teams obviously hoping that new rules will level the playing field, was more conciliatory, although he acknowledged concerns of a push back against the changes.

"We see the same risk," he said. "But on the other hand we trust the FIA and Liberty, that they know what they are doing, and know what is good for the sport in the future.

"Some principles have been agreed. We don't have final regulations, we just hope that it all stays like that, which is in our opinion the right thing.

"We have to see now what the outcome is. In the end it doesn't make a huge difference. The main thing for us is that the principles that have been set out stay in place. That's our priority, to be honest."

Racing Point owner Lawrence Stroll, who obviously has a direct interest in efforts to cut costs, discounted suggestions that big teams might have an agenda.

"I think the intentions are in the right place," Stroll noted. "The intention of delaying it to October instead of June is just to make it better. I know everything is very cloak and dagger in F1, I don't believe that there's malintent.

"Listening to everybody and talking is I think the right thing to do, because the rules they've tabled right now aren't right. I think we all agree that they need to be improved upon."

Another key issue is that the timing of the release of the rules has a huge impact in terms of how much resource teams can start diverting towards 2021.

Obviously the bigger teams can in theory spare more people and CFD resources for a long-term project while their 2019 and 2020 cars are still in the system.

The flipside to that is as they are chasing race wins and titles they cannot back off on their short term projects, while a midfield team can arguably 'do a Brawn GP' and sacrifice the short term by getting a jump on 2021.

Indeed a few weeks ago there was an extensive debate about banning any 2021 CFD and windtunnel work between the expected June announcement deadline and later this year, precisely because some feared that a determined rival could get a jump.

It may or may not be a coincidence that one team that was vigorously fighting any such ban - because it wanted the freedom to start early on 2021 - was Renault. Abiteboul made it clear that an early start relative to rivals would represent a one-off opportunity for his team to close the gap to the frontrunners.

If a delay to October is formally agreed, the issue of a ban handily takes care of itself, because it would be too risky for Renault or anyone to put any serious effort into a set of rules that has not been signed off. And that's a situation that will suit the frontrunners just fine...